Hi all, i have a question. I just bought an GM Crate LS3 and I did all my mock up using a C5 Z06 batwing oil pan.

My question is, which windage tray, dipstick, and dipstick tube should i use? Sorry I'm not as versed on LS motors as I am on Nissan stuff, and this is my first swap into my 350Z. Thanks in advance.

 

Stock windage tray should be fine (GM Part 12558189). I had to order a GM dipstick and tube new for mine, because it didn't come with one. IIRC, I got it from GM Parts Giant or Scoggins Dickey

 

So, it appears to me that the Mast pan is still the best option for 64-67 GM A-bodies. Uses stock full length windage tray and has the most front end clearance. Am I missing anything here?

 

hey guys.. newbie here. so many different options I have no idea what im looking for. Whats the correct pan for a c10 with LS3 ?

 

Almost any pan that has a rear sump, including the actual truck pans

 

I currently have a truck pan on my 1978 C20/LS1 swap, and it hangs too low. I want to lower the front more, but need to do the pan.
I have seen mention in one of the conversions, but cant find what pan doesnt hang down as low. May have been the Holley pan.
Help??? And, being in Australia, our options are limited to a point.

 

Does anyone know what the dimensions are for the LS4 Oil Pan? I've read through all 33 pages on here and done a few searches and a couple of people have asked but I've only seen people recommend using one of the other LS pans without ever giving the dimensions for the LS4 pan.

The reason I ask is they're about 1/4 of the cost of the F-Body pans and it'll be used for a 5.3 swap in to my K5 Blazer so I won't have the same low to the ground clearance issues that other's have run in to. The place that I may run in to issues with is if it'll fit above the crossmember so I'm hoping to get some dimensions to try and verify it'll work for what I'm doing.

I've seen a couple of guys doing the same swap over on coloradok5.com and the 5.3 truck oil pan sits about 1" above the front axle yoke on stock height rigs which is a way too close for my comfort level lol.

 

crazy question but the two bolt holes right above the filter. can you run a line in and one line out for oil coolers? without buying the adapter?

 

I tried searching both the forum and thread and couldn't find anything. For an LS1 Fbody, I need the bolt that fastens the dipstick tube to the cylinder head (part number or dimensions please) as well part numbers/dimensions on the dipstick and dipstick tube orings. Does anyone have this information? Thank you.

 

In case anyone else ever wants to know the dimensions on the LS4 pans:

Thanks again fieroguru

 

Does anyone know what pan to use with a late 1st gen Mustang (69-70)? I can't find much info on anyone putting an LS in one before.

 

As far as I know, 67-70 Mustangs and Cougars are all the same. I am using a GTO pan in my 67 Cougar build.

https://ls1tech.com/forums/conversio...gar-build.html

Andrew

 

After reading posts with people having success on the Holley pans, I pulled the trigger and bought one. I was expecting top notch machining and was less than impressed with what arrived. First...made in China. You have got to be kidding me, right? For the money that I shelled out on this pan, I would have expected more. Second, the machining on the oil filter area was poor. Nicks in the gasket surface and the threading on the oil filter adapter is terrible. It almost looks like someone was doing some clean up work after the machining process and the die grinder got away from him (or her). Third, the sand casting is pretty crude. I am hoping for my sake that all of the sand was knocked out of the part when they pulled it out of the casting sand. Forth, if you use this pan, you have got to inspect every inch of it for metal debris. I found several pieces of junk in the bolt holes and the oil filter cavity. The trap door baffle quality is decent. Why such a discrepancy in the different parts.

I am thankful that I got this from Summit because they really take care of their customers. One call and they are sending out a new one and issuing a call tag for the one that I have sitting here.

A note to Holley: If you want to charge top dollar for your pans, please do all of us a favor and provide something that is representative of a top dollar product. Better machining and casting is a bonus. AND, if it costs $50 more to have a $300 part made in the states, please do so. I am hoping that there

 

This is just a bit more critical of what I said a few years ago in this thread (#407 - #413). To be more blunt, back then I found the Holley pan to be a piece of crap compared to the GM pans. Sounds like Holley has not improved the pan or it rough casting at all. I agree that the casting is so rough that the pan is likely to leak.

Nothing to do with pans, but I recently installed the Holley LS bracket kit for the alternator and PS pump. While not engineering perfectly, it it an excellent casting and looks OEM. By itself it has the Corvette spacing for the accessories, but has optional spacers for F-Body or Truck spacing. This Holley swap part I can recommend, the pan not.

 

I got the replacement today and while it is better, there is a ton of room for improvement. I spent 30 minutes going into the oil passages and cleaning up the sharp edges and getting rid of general burrs, etc. At least this pan does not have a gouge on the oil filter gasket surface. I need to wash it out and get it ready to go on the motor. Besides the holley pan, the only other pan I was considering is the mast pan or the autokraft pan. The holley appears to be the best for clearance. More to follow.

 

I understand that the Holley pan is the best fit in some applications. Just a shame that the casting is so rough; if they used the same casting system/company that they use for their very nice accessory bracket, it would be nice pan.

 

Autokraft pan by far is the way to go. 400+ bux but in a G body they fit awesome with non set back plates and set back plates perfect. I heard many reviews on the holley pan which is why I went autokraft

 

I went with a Moroso Pan not on the list....
Somebody please add it to the First post

It works with an LS Motor in a Fox Body...










My K-Member is Dropped down a few inches in this picture to install the pan...


Here is with the K-member back in place



you will need to buy the Moroso Windage Tray (Moroso 22941) and Pickup (Moroso 24050) as well to use this pan.

I use a wix 51042 Oil Filter with the Pan...its a PF46 style filter

 

I jumped on one of the original Holley pans when it came out. Maybe I was too excited about gaining a huge amount of ground clearance (used to have the LH8 pan) that i didn't notice issues with build quality... as a whole, I've been very happy with it.

I'm making the move from a 364 (stock bottom end) to a 408. Anyone running the original Holley pan with a 4" stroke? If so, are you using a windage tray? If so, which one and did it require any modification?

 

Many other users have been satisfied with the quality of Holley pans as you have 68 Hybrid. As with any manufactured product, there are cases where a few oil pans get out the door with blemishes that are not caught during the inspection process. Holley stands behind their products and has had no problems exchanging the few pans out that customers have been dissatisfied with.

There have been comparisons made on this thread between the casting quality of the Holley pan and the OE pans, which is an apples to oranges comparison since the OE pans are cast using the permanent mold process and the Holley pans, like the Mast pan, are sand cast. The manufacturing and sales volume of aftermarket LS oil pans is a mere fraction of the volume of the OE pans, which makes using the permanent mold process a non-viable option. The benefit to using the sand casting process however is it allows for a higher degree of geometry flexibility, which allows for the 302-2 Holley pan to provide the same oil capacity as the OE F-body pan while having a sump length that is a few inches shorter for better chassis fitment.

Another previous poster compared the surface finish of the 302-2 pan to the Holley accessory drive brackets, which also cannot be reasonably done due to the fact that they too are made using a completely different process (die casting). Die castings are prone to porosity issues and require an extremely expensive tooling investment (more than a house in most states) that make them inappropriate for low volume production just like the permanent mold process.

I hope this information is useful to some readers trying to form a purchasing decision regarding the Holley LS oil pans based on a standpoint of quality.