I thought I had a solution here, but just more questions. The threaded holes at the back of the pan do not line up with the bolts from the 4l60e. Driver side fits -passanger side off by an inch. What gives? Is this oil pan basically just useless for this application?
Thanks - that's what I'm coming around to as well. I'll prolly go ahead and fit it up - see how much I have to raise it to be even with the cross member. I'm guessing the pinion angle required will be too steep. My bigger concern is that you can't complete the load path between tranny and engine -only 1 bolt. Is the notched Fbody pan really the only option here? Formed sheet metal pans don't seem to have the necessary features to bolt up to the tranny either
you will have to raise it about 2"'s Alot of work really, just do a Notched F body pan . Sheet metal pans work also. Moroso has a nice one.
We have installed Moroso and the cantons and the moroso is a real nice pan .
I wouldnt worry about the other bolts.
I might have a notched F body pan for sale very soon . If interested PM me.
__________________ Current project "FUeL 69 Camaro RS
402 LS2,Harrop Hurricane Intake
HRE 843R , ANODIZED BLACK
Baer 6 Piston Front&Rear
6 SPEED, DSE 4LINK
DSE COILOVERS
Full chromoly cage
DSE mini tubs
Thanks for all the input. I went ahead and set the engine in place. With spacers, I raised the engine 1 inch. I raised the tailshaft to get a pinion angle of about 4 deg. With all that, the pan still hangs below the cross member a lot, 2+ inches. Whoever started the rumor that the LH8 plan works for a first gen Camaro is just plain wrong. You would have to put the engine on stilts to get it to work. You can look at my mockup and see for yourself. Live and learn I guess (at least I didn't pay $250 for the pan like some folks are charging). Probably will go the notched F-body pan route it looks much better than the LH8 route.
Anyone wanna sell me their LH8 pan? Dont wanna pay 250.00 for it like mentioned above when GMPP and Pace have them for less than 180.00 shipped, but they are out of stock.
Regarding the mounts I went with Energy Suspension 3-1122g - urethane.
The adapter plates are 3/8 inch steel and use small block mounts that straddle to 2 fwd bolts on the LS1 block - don't recall where I bought them - everyone seems to sell the same thing. Be aware, the EA mounts use a preload plate which has a 1/4 high bump on the back side. In my photos I have a spacer to accommodate the bump. To really use these mounts I will have to cut a relief hole in the adapter plate. Standard sbc mounts are flat on the back side so no relief required.
Be aware, the EA mounts use a preload plate which has a 1/4 high bump on the back side. In my photos I have a spacer to accommodate the bump. To really use these mounts I will have to cut a relief hole in the adapter plate. Standard sbc mounts are flat on the back side so no relief required.
I thought the same thing, but check with your plate vendor first... for ATS-style (including Autocraft) plates, the adapters are designed for use with poly mounts WITHOUT the preload plate.
For S&P mounts, the plates are apparently designed for some oddball 307 factory mounts (see 67rsss' build thread) and won't fit properly with any poly mounts.
For pans issues, there's half a dozen different aftermarket pans that all work great in 1st gen F-bodies with S&P, ATS, or Hooker style mounts. Why so many? BECAUSE THEY ARE NEEDED! The only factory GM pan that doesn't hang down too low is the LS1 F-body pan, and it won't clear the stock steering (which works better than any R&P kit for the 1st gen). If you cut the F-body pan to clear the steering, then you lose a quart of capacity and you're taking a crapshoot as to whether you'll be able to get a good weld on a used pan (success rate for welding seems pretty high nowadays tho). I've only seen one story of someone sucking their cut/welded pan dry at the dragstrip though.
Rodder - Thanks for the good information. I'm gonna have to regroup and rethink / replan oil pan and mounts. I didn't care for the loss in capacity with the notched pan. Minor set back I suppose-
We've already had a client crack an LH8 pan on a speed bump.(we didn't sell it or recommend it to them) Good bye oil and bearings! While the pan may physically fit in the frame, it does not mean it is a good candidate for a retro fit. There are companies that actually put in engineering time with their product line to make a combo that works like the factory intended. Just because the pan comes from GM does not mean it is the best choice.
GM called us to put an LSX engine into one of their 69 Camaros. They had access to the LH8 pan and didn't use it; what does THAT tell you about it in a 1st gen application?
We've already had a client crack an LH8 pan on a speed bump.(we didn't sell it or recommend it to them) Good bye oil and bearings! While the pan may physically fit in the frame, it does not mean it is a good candidate for a retro fit. There are companies that actually put in engineering time with their product line to make a combo that works like the factory intended. Just because the pan comes from GM does not mean it is the best choice.
GM called us to put an LSX engine into one of their 69 Camaros. They had access to the LH8 pan and didn't use it; what does THAT tell you about it in a 1st gen application?
I had a swap kit that was made to be used with the LH8 oil pan for my 2nd gen. My car is real low to the ground so I sold the kit. The oil pan hangs way too low... not worth the risk!
__________________ Project '73 Camaro- LS6/T56, '99 Anniversary TA interior, Air Ride Suspension, C6 Z06 Vette Brakes, Intro Pentia Wheels
I found 2 different options. If you use the cadilac cts pan which hangs about 3/4" lower than the crossmember just convert to the short steering arms. Fits great with the Hooker type mounts. I fit the f-body pan using the short steering arms, long pitman, and long idler.
The pic is taken at full lock and have about 3/4" clearance.
This pic from the BRP website shows the LH8 pan slightly below the crossmember. Do their mounts put the engine higher?
Don
The BRP example engine is sitting at least an inch higher than most LS installs. Given the LH8 pan is still an inch or more low, thats a high roll centre to get a pan that still hangs in the wind on a car that looks great a little low......
The ATS mounts are very well engineered to fit the engine in what is really an optimum location......reasonably low, or, as low as possible for an F Body pan....maybe 1/4" min clearance, and not smack up against the firewall, and with a good height for driveline alignment. They also look good!
There is no need to notch out the F body pan (which maybe sits 1/4" below the sub frame cross member) so much that a quart is lost.
In search of more tunnel clearance for 6L90E trans that went into my 68 Camaro, the engine was moved 1/2" further forward than the normal ATS position, and the F Body notch was 2" x 1 1/4" - that's around a 1/3 of a quart. Adequate clearance at each lock. In the "stock" ATS mount location, we would be talking 1/4 of a quart.
Judging by LS1Nova99's example, short steering components seem to mean no notching. I guess I must have long steering components....
We've already had a client crack an LH8 pan on a speed bump.(we didn't sell it or recommend it to them) Good bye oil and bearings! While the pan may physically fit in the frame, it does not mean it is a good candidate for a retro fit. There are companies that actually put in engineering time with their product line to make a combo that works like the factory intended. Just because the pan comes from GM does not mean it is the best choice.
GM called us to put an LSX engine into one of their 69 Camaros. They had access to the LH8 pan and didn't use it; what does THAT tell you about it in a 1st gen application?
Tyler
Heard they were doing something interesting like that. Did they say what trans they are running?
ls1 and lh8 oil pan into 69 Camaro -question 
.jpg)
