MisterD

This is exactly my experience. You can see my thread for more information. I am thinking about going with a MAST pan because the tie rods are very close when turning lock to lock. I moved the engine forward about .25" to gain clearance for the trans and low mount alternator. I checked driveline angles and it looks to be okay. I will have to double check with my new angle finder to be sure. What angle should it be and where do I take the measurement? Great summary here Todd...

Toddoky

I went back through your build thread and realized I could give you a more specific assesment based on the images you posted of your set-up.

The close distance between your firewall and engine and the fact that you were able to install the low-mount F-body alternator without notching the crossmember tells me your engine is too high to ultimately end up with a 3 degree engine inclination angle without cutting into your tunnel sheet metal

In order for you to acheive an OE-like 3 degrees of engine inclination angle and not have to perform any clearancing of your tunnel sheet metal to clear your T56 (other than cutting the shifter hole), the bottom front edge of your F-body oil pan will need to be no further than 3/4" from your crossmember and you'll need a minimum of 1" space between the firewall and passenger side cylinder head and no more than 1/4" of space between the top of your T56 shifter cover plate and the tunnel sheet metal. You cannot get your engine this low using the stock frame stands and common swap plates, or the rear of your trans this high with most of the crossmembers without shimming between the trans and the mounting pad, so you'll have to get creative and make your own engine mounts and trans mount shim...for the time being anyway. This also should prevent you from having to shim your rear end, as you are mimicking the engine inclination angle originally designed into the car by GM far more closely than those out there running 5 degrees of engine inclination just so they can low-mount the alternators or a particular oil pan.

The trade-off to getting the great U-joint angles that this provides is the fact that you'll need to notch your crossmember for the alternator to clear, or relocate in to an upper-mount position with available brackets, such as the Holley piece. You'll also need to use a notched F-body oil pan or aftermarket steel pan to clear the steering center link.

A defined engine inclination angle and the properly engineered U-joint angles that result from it should dictate the positioning of your engine/transmission in my opinion, not the desire to use any one particular component in your swap...get the engine positioned correctly from a performance/handling perspective and then figure out what you need to do to get your accessories attached.

The availability of parts for this swap is far better today than it was even five years ago, so less compromises are required to perform this swap, which allows you to end up with a better engineered completed vehicle.


This information is only good when using stock height body mounts on the subframe; half-height body mounts with create the need to perform tunnel sheet metal clearance work.

Wicked69

I have read a lot of the pages but still want to verify. I am currently running the GM musclecar pan in my 69 chevelle. It fits perfect and has done well. The only issue is it hangs way too low the cross member. My car is now starting to get a pretty good size wheelie and know it is only a matter of time before I hit it. I am going to be about 900hp to the wheels and the car will wheelie pretty good. My car has no power steering or ac. Which pan will work the best with NO modifications and the oil filter NOT being relocated? I use stock frame mounts and Moroso tall engine mounts.

I was looking at the Moroso 20140, The Holly pan, and a stock F body pan.

70ssclone

just wanted to add incase it hasnt been mentioned that i bought a holley pan and its very nice but the gasket they send for the oil pickup will not fit all motors

Meangreen1

iTrader: (2)

So I have read countless threads and came to no real conclusion on what pan. With all the guys who have swapped an LS into a Chevelle/A-body, which is the best? I want advice from people who have done it and maybe wished went another route.

F-body
H3 pan
Canton pan
Holley pan (1st place in my mind right now)


Thanks for your help guys!!

sfiore

Have a L76 from a pontiac g8 , engine going in a 52 chevy fleetline.
Any issues to resolve using a f- body oil pan. Steve

67Skylark

67 A-Body (Skylark), I used the S&P modified F-body pan, was able to do drop it low enough to fit th 4l80E with only slight tapping of the trans tunnel and keep 3 degree drivel angle and the pan flush with cross member. Not sure but think S&P now cast their own pan.

Meangreen1

iTrader: (2)

I will have to look at S&P as well as Holley. Thanks

LS1Silverado98

iTrader: (8)

There was someone who posted an article on notching your own F Body ls1 pan. I've searched and searched and can't seem to find it. Can anyone help me? It had pics and everything.

crownstables

Can anyone tell me what this pan came off of ?

12577396

Thanks

GRFMotorsports

iTrader: (15)

I think its an early truck pan but a pic would help.

crownstables

Let me know if you need another angle.

Nuke Rigger

The top picture is my old LQ4 oil pan, the bottom one is a new f body pan I got from gm parts direct, couple of things going on, looks like the LQ4 pan had a check valve is this going to be an issue if I run an oil cooler with the fbody pan? Also the threaded dowels for the oil filters are different sizes what gives?? Here's the pix...

LQ4 Oil Pan

Fbody Oil Pan

GRFMotorsports

iTrader: (15)

Thats an early truck pan

NOS327

iTrader: (30)

Anyone see the revised Holley pan on display at LS Fest? Looks like nice improvements that could be construed as specifically for Chevelle swaps. They shortened the front/belly of the pan (multipurpose, get motor lower in chassis as well as more tie rod clearance). Also lengthened the sump since there was a solid 1.5-2" unused space there before, should increase oil capacity. I'm pretty psyched about it, hope to pick one up and fit it over winter during engine refresh.

I've got a couple pictures, but can't upload them to photobucket at work to share/link here. Will try to do it this evening at home.

Project GatTagO

iTrader: (7)

Yup...saw it and it looks awesome. Maybe A-body guys will finally have a pan that actually works...

Andrew

NOS327

iTrader: (30)

Revised Holley pan from LS Fest:

Toddoky

Nice work detective. The Holley pan you saw there will be an additional pan in our lineup and does not replace the existing pan, which has advantages over the new design when you can use it (mainly stroker crank capability and the ability to run a full-length windage tray). The new pan, as you suspect was designed to improve engine inclination angles and components clearances in LS swaps that have been proven to need them, i.e. 1st gen F-bodies and Chevelles. For cars like 2nd-gen Camaros, you can use either one. The oil capacity is 6.2 quarts including the filter.

NOS327

iTrader: (30)

Good info, thanks Todd. Guess I better not pedal my current pan then if I plan a stroker build, glad you mentioned that! is it "close" or simply out of the question with a 4" stroke?

Powe

Good info