[Brian Hoss]

The topic of “what pan do I buy” has come up many times. While there are plenty of options out there, few actually fit the A-body. I would like this thread to be about ACTUAL fitment and questions related to those who have spent the time to test fit. The pan is only part of the equation. To correctly identify fitment, adaptor plates, engine (motor) mounts and frame mounts must also be given.

The other side of this is doing something that you will regret later and that’s changing the driveline angles. In this case, the easy fix to get some of these pans to fit is to just raise the engine up. While that will normally correct your pan/crossmember/tie rod end clearance problem, you’re creating a huge mess for the alignment of the trans/driveshaft/differential. I would never recommend altering the engine placement as a temporary fix. I would never build a car like this and I won’t here either. All the mounts are at their factory location or where the parts place them. No spacers or other mods (frame notching) are acceptable for my build.

I’ll start. Here is what I have found for the 66-67 Chevelle/El Camino;

Here is the mounting information;
Dirty Dingo Sliders (LS adaptor plates) part # DD-SLIDER
Energy Suspension LS conversion kit 3.1148 (this was the first kit I used until I switched to the DD sliders)
Energy Suspension engine/motor mounts part number 3.1114
Factory small block Chevy frame mounts GM part number ?

I have three pans that I tried in my 67 El Camino and my 67 Chevelle. Also, for MAXIMUM clearance, the sliders are all the way back towards the firewall. This helps the sump to crossmember clearance.

Factory truck pan from 2002 Silverado 6.0L
2008-2015 Cadillac CTS-V pan GM 12065818
Canton Racing Products road race baffled pan 15-274

Here are all three pans together for a visual comparison. Picture 1 has the pans labeled so you can follow them in the following pictures. The truck pan has some significant differences in dimension as compared to the CTS-V and the Canton pan. The CTS-V and Canton pans have some similarities and some glaring differences that will become evident in the fitment pictures. (Pictures 1-6)

 

[Brian Hoss]

Re: LS A-body fitment confirmation

First is the truck pan installed. The obvious problem here is the sump hangs well below the crossmember. Oddly enough, it will fit with the mounts used and bolt up. Some serious modifications are needed to clearance the sump and bring it up to at least the line of the cross member, and the engine will have to be raised to clearance the tie rod ends. This would require the most cut and weld project of the two aluminum pans. (Picture 1)

Next is the ever popular CTS-V pan. While it certainly comes close to fitting, the issue is the transition from the front of the pan to the sump. It hits on the cross member and will not allow the engine to fully seat onto the engine mounts. Here is where some will space the engine mounts and raise the engine up to generate the needed clearance. The problems with this are listed above. Now this pan can be cut up and rewelded to get the proper fitment for the transition, however it will still require the engine be raised to clear the tie rod ends. (Pictures 2-5)

Last is the Canton pan. This pan is a home run on two fronts. One, it fits. Two, it fits with a 4.25 steel rod stroker kit. The truck and CTS-V pans can be clearanced for the added stroke, but there is some fabrication required. The Canton pan works in the three critical areas. Tie rod end clearance, pan to crossmember clearance and no alterations to the engine height. The added bonus is the clearance for a stroker. (Pictures 6 - 7)

If you have confirmed fitment or non-fitment of any other pans out there, please provide details on the pan, engine mounts and pictures.

 

[Brian Hoss]

Re: LS A-body fitment confirmation

Last Canton pan image...

 

[modchevelle]

About time someone did what you just displayed. Brian you should post this on the LS1 site. Awesome job

 

[Brian Hoss]

About time someone did what you just displayed. Brian you should post this on the LS1 site. Awesome job

Thanks! Was just a matter of getting the info together and putting it into something simple. I hope we can get confirmation on other years and pans. I'd really like to see the new Holley 302-2 pan and how folks have got along with it!

 

[Mike McMasters]

Brian,

I will be at this stage in the not too distant future, thank you for taking the time to post this. Do you have to run a remote oil filter with this pan? I have been leaning towards the Autokraft pan but I'm going to do some more research on the Canton as well now.

Mike

 

[GsxrDave]

I used the holley pan very happy the way it fits.

 

[Brian Hoss]

Brian,

I will be at this stage in the not too distant future, thank you for taking the time to post this. Do you have to run a remote oil filter with this pan? I have been leaning towards the Autokraft pan but I'm going to do some more research on the Canton as well now.

Mike

You can run a remote filter with the Canton pan if you wish, but don't have to. I'm not. 15-275 is the oil filter block. On the Autokraft pan. I've not seen any evidence that it fits the a-body. Then again, its all been hearsay and no one has offered any proof in pictures and parts used.

 

[Brian Hoss]

I used the holley pan very happy the way it fits.

What year? Which holley pan? What mounts? Pictures?

 

[65chevelle300post]

The tie rod clearance is one thing but don't forget to check the power steering to steering box clearance because that one usually requires that you move the engine back or up and that is the one people end up having problems with unless the engine is relocated.

 

[Brian Hoss]

The tie rod clearance is one thing but don't forget to check the power steering to steering box clearance because that one usually requires that you move the engine back or up and that is the one people end up having problems with unless the engine is relocated.

That's a good point. I left off other things like exhaust, headers, and front drive stuff. Typically the power steering can be corrected with a smaller pulley to clear that pesky bolt on the steering box. Plus using a button head bolt for some added clearance. Those are whole other topics, but good ones!

 

[Mikes64]

Thanks for putting this together Brian, I have no experience with any of these at this point. Have heard good reviews on the 302-2. Hope someone has some input on it. Sure taking alot of notes though.

 

[Alwhite00]

Thanks, Nice write up.

 

[Brian Hoss]

I'll add this here on the Energy Suspension LS kit. I had every intention of using it. The further I've gotten along on this build, the more I wanted to take advantage of the El Camino weight distribution. So I opted to shift the engine back and 4 corner weight it again. so don't shy away from those fixed mount kits. These pans have basically the same results.

 

[Jeff65SS]

Would love to see a MAST pan and new Holley pan run through the same comparison.... come on Brian its only a few bucks to help out your fellow chevelle friends.

Thanks for doing this, pictures are great. Do you think the slider mounts are of help especially with header fitment or not worth the money? Seems like most headers are made to fit a specific motor mount system which may or may not be good for driveline angles. I think keeping the engine low in the chassis is a good thing..... but if you can't you could use one of the CV joint driveshafts that the Driveshaft shop is now offering.

 

[65chevelle300post]

I'll add this here on the Energy Suspension LS kit. I had every intention of using it. The further I've gotten along on this build, the more I wanted to take advantage of the El Camino weight distribution. So I opted to shift the engine back and 4 corner weight it again. so don't shy away from those fixed mount kits. These pans have basically the same results.

Moving the engine back makes it harder to get to those transmission bolts but should make everything else fit better. Weight distribution is another advantage.

The guys in the Pro Touring section of the forum all ended up moving the engine back pretty far for clearance. The height of the engine was another issue they were having. You might want to check over in Pro Touring for the reasons behind this.

 

[69-CHVL]

Autokraft pan on my 69. Fit good, slight contact by the tie-rod ends. Needs to take the grease fittings out and plug them. Slight ding on the pan probably would of cleared them.







Early Holley pan, wouldn't clear the center link . Not sure about tie rods, never made it that far. Its too bad b/c the pan I thought was nicer than the sheetmetal pans as it resembled more a factory pan. I think the newer ones have better clearance.





Truck pan for those who dare



Here's a pic of a smaller PS pulley as Brian mentioned, easy peasy:

 

[Brian Hoss]

Autokraft pan on my 69. Fit good, slight contact by the tie-rod ends. Needs to take the grease fittings out and plug them. Slight ding on the pan probably would of cleared them.

That's excellent! So we'll call it fits, but with tie rod end zerk removed and a little massage to the pan? What frame, engine, adaptor mounts did you use?

I'm thinking this should all go into a spreadsheet. I'll add that today also. Good stuff. Thanks for the info 69-CHVL!

 

[Mike McMasters]

Brian,

I'll say this again. Thank you for your effort doing this. My current project is my first LS swap and I have combed through more Oil pan, mounts and header threads than I care to think about. It's overwhelming to say the least. This will be very useful to have a spreadsheet in a sticky that everyone can use. I will definitely document what I do as well as my results in the hopes it may help someone down the road.

Mike

 

[Brian Hoss]

Would love to see a MAST pan and new Holley pan run through the same comparison.... come on Brian its only a few bucks to help out your fellow chevelle friends.

Thanks for doing this, pictures are great. Do you think the slider mounts are of help especially with header fitment or not worth the money? Seems like most headers are made to fit a specific motor mount system which may or may not be good for driveline angles. I think keeping the engine low in the chassis is a good thing..... but if you can't you could use one of the CV joint driveshafts that the Driveshaft shop is now offering.

I'd love to! But LS swap pans sadly don't grow on trees. The MAST pan is an unknown for me right now. That's going to be interesting to add that one to the mix.

Headers are an anomaly for me. All my LS stuff is boosted. Turbos on my a-body stuff. I thought of adding in the header variable to this, but decided against it. That might be an excellent write up for another project. I know several folks are currently fighting this fitment.

I did consider the CV type drive shaft and its definitely intriguing. I thought it best to take that variable out also and stick with what a majority will do and what takes the unsafe factor out.