[Dmaxs10]

I'm starting to collect parts and was looking at oil pans. Looks like holley 302-3 is they way to go, so I looked it up and was shocked by the price. Is the 302-3 still the best way to go at that price?
Also seeing some people having issues with the holes for the turbo drains being tight to the frame. Will the ports be usable?
I do plan on using holley foward engine mounts and trans mount so it would be nice to go holley pan from thay point of veiw.

 

[rpol78]

The holley pan and mounts are the best fitting. As far as the drains are you referring to the ports on the side of the pan. I haven't mounted the 302-3 pan in yet but it seemed like the 302-2 had clearance in the area of the ports. I'll see if I can find a pic.

 

[Alwhite00]

The 302-2 does not have the drainbacks. They do have a newer one without the ports but has the stroker clearance like the 302-3

And yes, the Holley is worth the $$

 

[rpol78]

It looks like they would be accessible with the right combination of fittings. If you look at these pics the bosses would sit under the engine mounts.. If you look close you can see where the 302-2 pan starts to kick down which should give a reference where the drain back bosses are located. The 302-3 kick down is back a little further than the 302-2. This is on a '67 but I believe the cross member is similar in location and form on the all the chevelles. I'm sure someone will correct me if that's not the case.

 

[Alwhite00]

Here's the 302-2 in my 67

 

[NorCal-SS]

302-3 in a 67 with the forward Holley engine mounts. It’s a tight fit but definitely usable in this configuration. With the rear bias mounts it would be tough to access the pan plugs due to the frame crossmember being in the way (yes I mocked both sets of engine mounts) . It’s hard to tell from the pic but I can easily reach my hand on the plug. I’m not using these holes but I could see a 90 making it usable for sure. The boss for the plug holes is almost even with the front of the crossmember