LS1 swap. What oil pan did you use?

[abadsvt]

I got the motor on to my frame and i noticed that i am going to have to switch oil pans. I have a corvette motor and am thinking about switching to an F-body oil pan but wasn't sure if there are different f-body oil pans? I am looking for the shallowest one. I was looking at the alluminum race ones but wasn't sure if it is worth the money. Thanks and any comments are appreciated.

Josh

[killer71]

we used a truck oil pan on my 5.3 d/t clearence issues!
I'm sure others will chime in with some info.

[71BB_LWB]

Mine is using the stock 98 Camaro pan. But I think it also maters what frame mounts you are using.

[68 short step]

Originally Posted by 71BB_LWB

Mine is using the stock 98 Camaro pan. But I think it also maters what frame mounts you are using.

can you post pics?

[71BB_LWB]

Originally Posted by 68 short step

can you post pics?

Check my Build thread, there are some pictures there.
If there are any specific pics you want I have the body off the frame for easy access.

[abadsvt]

On street and performance website i only got to page 92 before my adobe acrobat messed up. Not sure what happened but now it won't display anything. The good new is on page 92 they have a oil pan for a camaro/firebird 5-5.5 qts. Part # 12558762. They show the oil pan being on 4.75" deep. Does that sound right? All of the oil pans i look at the sump area was 5 or so inches plus there was about 1-1.5" above that. I hope i am making sence. Also is 5-5.5 qts suffecient because the corvette pan holds 6-6.5qts. Thanks

Josh

[HavinSomeFun]

Do you mean the towers?

[piecesparts]

The truck pan works, if you don't have the truck sitting on the ground. It is a lot shorter in the pan (where it drops down for the oil pump suction), BUT it is a lot deeper (about 9" drop from the block) and could be damaged by hitting things on the ground. If you use a good set of adapters, then the Camaro oil pan is the best choice for a low sitting truck. Street & Performance makes two different adapters that kick the motor back towards the firewall and thus clearing the crossmember. One set is made to set 1" further back than the other. I have both sets sitting in my garage and I am looking to see what works the best.


Go to S&Ps website and they show all of the pans in their catalog http://www.hotrodlane.cc/08%20catalo...talogMAIN.html (page 92 for the pans and page 98 for their adapters) and see what the differences in the pans are.

[Rogue Willie]

I used the 02 Camaro pan that came with my motor. I used the stock engine mount towers but moved them rearward about an inch so the pan would clear the crossmember.

[shifty]

i have an LS1 5.7L (uses car pan). i swapped to the truck pan, truck dipstick, truck dipstick tube, and truck oil pickup. perfect fit, like it was meant to be in our trucks.

[speed-racer]

I have a truck pan that I am not using.......shoot me a pm and I'll get you a price if you need one. I used a truck pan for mine and its a perfect fit. Early Classics motor mount kit works very well with it.

[shifty]

I should reiterate that I used the ECE mounts. They put the engine closer to the radiator core support, so it looks like the truck pan is meant to be. other mount kits i've seen to bolt the GenIII engines into our trucks will put the engine back anywhere from 1"-3" back towards the firewall, which might make it look like less of a "meant to be" fit. With that said. if you get one of these "other" non-ECE kits, chances are you can sneak by using an unmodified F-Body pan. Being that those "other" kits only cost $100-150 versus the $250 that ECE wants for their nice, beefy, read-to-bolt-in kits, you could probably save anywhere from $200-500 going with an "other" mount kit and the stock F-Body pan.

just some additional thoughts, after sitting on this for a couple days. Believe me ... i spent at least $1500-2000 *more* than what i needed to in order to finish my swap, and i only made back about 2/3 of that money re-selling crap i thought i needed but didn't.

[piecesparts]

Originally Posted by shifty

I should reiterate that I used the ECE mounts. They put the engine closer to the radiator core support, so it looks like the truck pan is meant to be. other mount kits i've seen to bolt the GenIII engines into our trucks will put the engine back anywhere from 1"-3" back towards the firewall, which might make it look like less of a "meant to be" fit. With that said. if you get one of these "other" non-ECE kits, chances are you can sneak by using an unmodified F-Body pan. Being that those "other" kits only cost $100-150 versus the $250 that ECE wants for their nice, beefy, read-to-bolt-in kits, you could probably save anywhere from $200-500 going with an "other" mount kit and the stock F-Body pan.

just some additional thoughts, after sitting on this for a couple days. Believe me ... i spent at least $1500-2000 *more* than what i needed to in order to finish my swap, and i only made back about 2/3 of that money re-selling crap i thought i needed but didn't.

So I take it, that you are running your LS with a 'F' body pan, ECE motor mounts and it is clearing the crossmember. I am up against a small difference in the crossmember, since my setup has a "K" member out of an 87 Chevy truck. I am still looking at the possibilities of what would work best.

[shifty]

Originally Posted by piecesparts

So I take it, that you are running your LS with a 'F' body pan, ECE motor mounts and it is clearing the crossmember. I am up against a small difference in the crossmember, since my setup has a "K" member out of an 87 Chevy truck. I am still looking at the possibilities of what would work best.

No.

I am running ECE mounts and a truck panand it clears like it was meant to be that way from the factory.

[Robert Paul Thomas]

I used the stock camaro pan, but I chamfered about an inch off and tig welded a new section in so it would clear the crossmember. It was really close to start with though. I have S&P mounts on stock perches, S&P headers. I have to agree with shiffty, I think his setup ios the way to go.
Regards Rob

[Robert Paul Thomas]

Me again, I made the mistake of buying LS mounts from CPP, they do not fit for our application, so don't buy them.
Rob

[gus]

Originally Posted by Robert Paul Thomas

Me again, I made the mistake of buying LS mounts from CPP, they do not fit for our application, so don't buy them.
Rob

Per Nick at Doug Throley Headers, the CPP tube perches and GENIII adapt. plates from CPP were used to design 324Y-C headers for our 67-72 trucks !

he recomend CPP mounts as well ECE's and others

It all depends were you mount the tube perches.

you can get same issues with any mounts !

[Wasted Income]

I used the truck pan on my 5.3 and it fit like a glove. ZERO pan clearance issues.

IMO, I'd stick with a factory pan, vs. an aftermarket pan. The oil pan is a stressed member in the LS series of engines, and the factory pan was designed as such. Not saying that an aftermarket pan is junk, but I'd trust the millions of $$$ that went into the R&D of all the components of the LSx.

[jkade]

If you are going to be low in the front I would use a f body pan, I have a truck pan on my 67 and it is way low. I have to be carfull about where I pull in to avoid it hitting anything. Just the pan new from gm is about $200 and you will need the pickup tube also, you can make the truck windage tray work with a little cutting. Look out on LS1.tech, I bought a fbody pan off there a few weeks ago with the pickup tube for $160 shipped.

[Hart_Rod]

Here's a picture of mine using a truck pan with the ECE mounts.

[68 short step]

a few more pics of a truck pan

[piecesparts]

The guys at S&P caution the use of the truck pan on a lowered truck. That oil pan is 9" deep and can be hit if the truck sits to low. Apparently they have had this experience. I want to be able to drive without fear of punching a hole in mine, so I am trying to use the 'F' body pan.

68 Short Step: Does the ECE motor mounts give you a lot of room in front of the oil pan? Did you have to use the truck pan to get clearance between it and the crossmember. Would they work with the Camaro pan?

Yours looks good, with the install, do you have any more side shots of the motor mounts?

looks as if the headers work real well. I am still considering those for my install. I have your build pics on file, so far.

Would you be open for a visit from a Kansas neighbor? I would like to see this truck.

[68 short step]

Originally Posted by piecesparts

68 Short Step: Does the ECE motor mounts give you a lot of room in front of the oil pan? Did you have to use the truck pan to get clearance between it and the crossmember. Would they work with the Camaro pan?

Yours looks good, with the install, do you have any more side shots of the motor mounts?

Would you be open for a visit from a Kansas neighbor? I would like to see this truck.

im not useing the ECE motor mount kit (shifty is tho) im useing a kit from performanceonline.com......i wouldnt say i have "alot" of room in front of the pan, but it does look like it belongs there (like shifty said), and it is enough room to be plenty comfortable with.....i dont know if a camaro pan will work with these mounts or the ECE mounts, but im gonna see if i can get a camaro pan and do some experamenting...

here are some more pics of the mounts i used from a few angles...this was when i was measureing for my headers








id be glad for you to come down and check out that truck (its board member killer71, i built it up for him)....if you can find that truck, it was stollen from his job, just 1 week after he took ownership...

[gringoloco]

The truck pan is TOO LOW. Go for the F-body(98-02) or an LS2(Vette not GTO) pan. These are both rear sump style. The 'Vette pan has the 'batwings' and the GTO pans are front sump. Here is the S&P catalog pic. You save 3.25" of much needed ground clearance by using the Camaro pan.

[jkade]

Truck pan + lowered = problems. I will have to go to a fbody pan on my 67 when I pull the motor back out down the line of things to do to it.