LSX oil pans
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Rob
Firstly, they both hold around 6 quarts or more of oil with the filter, so there's no advantage of one over the other in that regard.
If you want to be able to run a full-length windage tray or a crank stroke greater than the common 3.62" LS stroke, then you will have to use the original 302-1 pan; the new 302-2 requires the use of a 4th-gen F-body 3/4 length tray or requires you to cut down the windage tray from any other LS engine you may have to the same length. The 302-2 pan can also not accommodate cranks beyond the common 3.62" stroke variety.
On the other hand, if you are swapping an LS into a front-steer vehicle that is space challenged up front due to inner tie rod interference issues with the oil pan (ask the A-body guys about this one) or a rear-steer vehicle that commonly has drag link interference issues with the sump of the oil pan (problem for the 1st-gen F-body guys and 3rd-gen Nova guys) then you will probably find more value in the 302-2 pan due to its much lower front profile (You can install the 302-1 into a 1st-gen as well, but you'll need to notch the subframe crossmember if you want to achieve respectable U-joint working angles). I've personally not swapped a Chevy II yet or anything with a TCI frame so the best I can provide you with is this generalized information.
My advice to you would be to poll other users with a similar set-up to see what they may recommend. You can also pour over threads from those same types of forum users and read about oil pan fitment issues they may have had and deduce from that info which would be the better pan for you.
Firstly, they both hold around 6 quarts or more of oil with the filter, so there's no advantage of one over the other in that regard.
If you want to be able to run a full-length windage tray or a crank stroke greater than the common 3.62" LS stroke, then you will have to use the original 302-1 pan; the new 302-2 requires the use of a 4th-gen F-body 3/4 length tray or requires you to cut down the windage tray from any other LS engine you may have to the same length. The 302-2 pan can also not accommodate cranks beyond the common 3.62" stroke variety.
On the other hand, if you are swapping an LS into a front-steer vehicle that is space challenged up front due to inner tie rod interference issues with the oil pan (ask the A-body guys about this one) or a rear-steer vehicle that commonly has drag link interference issues with the sump of the oil pan (problem for the 1st-gen F-body guys and 3rd-gen Nova guys) then you will probably find more value in the 302-2 pan due to its much lower front profile (You can install the 302-1 into a 1st-gen as well, but you'll need to notch the subframe crossmember if you want to achieve respectable U-joint working angles). I've personally not swapped a Chevy II yet or anything with a TCI frame so the best I can provide you with is this generalized information.
My advice to you would be to poll other users with a similar set-up to see what they may recommend. You can also pour over threads from those same types of forum users and read about oil pan fitment issues they may have had and deduce from that info which would be the better pan for you.
How much do you need to trim off the windage tray??
The Autokraft pan will not work with the BRP Hotrod setup. So far, the BRP setup has been great, but this was unexpected. The Autokraft pan hits the center drag link and would need about an additional inch of clearance. Depending on what Autokraft has to say, I might have one of their pans for sale.
As for the BRP setup with the LH8 and the 4L80E, it looks like both pans hang down about the same 3/4" past the front crossmember, since this is a stock ride height car, it's not going to be an issue, but if I do go with the ride tech, it'll also mean that I'm going with a rack and pinion, which will then allow the use of the Autokraft pan.

