LS Swap Questions

[jgrote]

Good morning! I have a couple quick questions that seem simple, but the search button wasn't helping.

1. What oil pan should I use? I ruled it down to the Hooley 302-1 or 302-2. I think the -2 is the right one, but I can't find anything definite.

2. What angle should I set the motor back at? Can I measure it at the valley pan?

I'm sure I'll run into more, but hopefully the search button will be nicer to me.

[LockDoc]

-
I moved your thread to The LSx Swaps Forum. That is where the LS swaps are discussed.

LockDoc, Moderator

[jgrote]

Originally Posted by LockDoc

-
I moved your thread to The LSx Swaps Forum. That is where the LS swaps are discussed.

LockDoc, Moderator

Thanks Leon! My oversight.

[mongocanfly]

What truck?
Typically I shoot for 3deg downward angle to the rear..valley cover should be fine..
The needs to mirror the angle of the rear diff
Heres the 2 pans compared

[MySons68C20]

Originally Posted by mongocanfly

What truck?
Typically I shoot for 3deg downward angle to the rear..valley cover should be fine..
The needs to mirror the angle of the rear diff
Heres the 2 pans compared

Great post mongo!

[hewittca]

Here's the 302-1 in my truck with the ICT Billet motor mount plates. I chose this pan because I was worried about clearance on the front edge of the sump to the crossmember. The 302-1 is 2" shorter there and I am already pretty close to the crossmember. In the front of the pan, the 302-1 does hang down an extra 1" and it gets very close to the center link, but doesn't touch. This is with the motor in the second to furthest rearward hole in the motor mount plates. I didn't want to go back to the last hole since I was already kinda close to the firewall. As for overall depth, either pan is great. Keep in mind, mine has a 1.5" pancaked crossmember and even then the pan is level with the bottom. So if you have a stock crossmember the pan will be nice and tucked up above the crossmember.

[jgrote]

Originally Posted by hewittca

Here's the 302-1 in my truck with the ICT Billet motor mount plates. I chose this pan because I was worried about clearance on the front edge of the sump to the crossmember. The 302-1 is 2" shorter there and I am already pretty close to the crossmember. In the front of the pan, the 302-1 does hang down an extra 1" and it gets very close to the center link, but doesn't touch. This is with the motor in the second to furthest rearward hole in the motor mount plates. I didn't want to go back to the last hole since I was already kinda close to the firewall. As for overall depth, either pan is great. Keep in mind, mine has a 1.5" pancaked crossmember and even then the pan is level with the bottom. So if you have a stock crossmember the pan will be nice and tucked up

This is awesome! Thank you for posting pics. So the 302-1 does clear the crossmember. That is what I needed to know. I guess I need to return my 302-2. Yay, Amazon.

[jgrote]

Originally Posted by mongocanfly

What truck?
Typically I shoot for 3deg downward angle to the rear..valley cover should be fine..
The needs to mirror the angle of the rear diff
Heres the 2 pans compared

Thank you. I've got a basically stock 72 C10 with a 350/350 combo in it right now. I was reading through old posts and someone made it sound like the 302-1 didn't clear the crossmember, so I picked up a 302-2. But I'm now second guessing myself. I also picked up some ICT mounting plates, as they seem to be the most popular. The pan they have listed on their website looks like a 302-2, but they don't use that pt#. I would like to use an actual Holley pan, but they don't seem to want to recommend one over the other. Hence here I am, asking what has worked for others. I try not to make the same mistakes others have already made. I like to come up with new and exciting ways to screw things up.

[jgrote]

And now I'm thoroughly confused. http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=842542 says I should run the 302-2.

[hewittca]

I think either one will work honestly, it's just a matter of what tradeoff you want to make. For the 302-1 like mine, you can leave the engine in a more traditional position and have better firewall clearance, but you sacrifice clearance around your steering components. From that thread you posted, sounds like the 302-1 really interferes when you have a rack. For the 302-2 you gain clearance around your steering components but you have to slide the motor back to clear the crossmember, thus creating a tight fit around the firewall. Pick your poison!

[jgrote]

Originally Posted by hewittca

I think either one will work honestly, it's just a matter of what tradeoff you want to make. For the 302-1 like mine, you can leave the engine in a more traditional position and have better firewall clearance, but you sacrifice clearance around your steering components. From that thread you posted, sounds like the 302-1 really interferes when you have a rack. For the 302-2 you gain clearance around your steering components but you have to slide the motor back to clear the crossmember, thus creating a tight fit around the firewall. Pick your poison!

Thank you for laying it out. I think I'd rather have the 302-1. I don't plan on going to R&P steering.

[Paul Y]

Another option?

I used a CTSV sump on my 66. Sits way above the crossmember, baffled and I picked a brand new one up, including pick up tube for $125.

P.

[truckdude239]

i have the stock pan in my 71 c10 with 4.8ls swap it hang a bit below the cross menber that people says it it in damager of itting a speed bump or something but so far im 10 years into the swap and never had an issues also mine is stock hieght