Jump to content

Oil Pan Lesson


cudax

Recommended Posts

Whoops, I learned a valuable lesson. I installed an oil pan from Jegs (first link below), only to find out that my inner tie rod grease fittings punctured both sides of the pan. After I installed the pan it looked like it fit fine but I guess I didn't swing the steering far enough to find out. Anyway, I am planning on purchasing a Miloden pan this time (second link below) and hope it works better than the Jegs one.

I take the blame because there is another BB Jegs pan that looks like it would fit since it has a front that isn't as deep to clear the tire rods (third link below).

 

Mike

 

http://www.jegs.com/i/JEGS+Performance+Products/555/50230/10002/-1

 

http://www.jegs.com/i/Milodon/697/30950/10002/-1

 

http://www.jegs.com/i/JEGS+Performance+Products/555/50231/10002/-1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing your "lesson learned", Mike. No telling how many other members that knowledge may help over time.

 

I was impressed with your willingness to take the blame in this situation - that's inspiring. Seems like being accountable is not as common as blaming others these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom one like you said may have been a better fit it does say Chevelle and "A" body. Live and learn I guess, sorry to hear you wasted the money on it though. Any chance of "Damaged in shipping?" kicking

 

Why would you even suggest that someone else should pay the price?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth be told I bought the pan when the engine was being built and I installed it while it was out of the car. Once I put the engine back in I did check fitment, a little, but was kind of excited to have the engine in so I didn't take the time to do a thorough check. Hey, I'm human and I make silly mistakes all the time. I will weld them up when I exchange the pan and maybe get a few bucks for it, if not it can always make a cool flower pot or something. I don't think I can get away with returning it as shipping damage. wink Maybe someone will read this and it will light a spark for them to double check their newly installed pan. grin

 

Sam, you have the same Miloden pan I listed above?

 

Mike

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing Mike....info like that gives others in the club a heads up. Some of us like myself are not experienced at all in the mechanics of these cars and this kind of info is very valuable. I just wish it hadn't cost you $$$. We've all been there though.

Cheers,

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I'm involved in a project on a '66 chevelle with the same issue it has a gen 6 427, can't find a pan that the steering doesn't hit, starting to wonder if the steering componets are the issue here confused

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the same thing on mine Sam. My car is in paint right now but as soon as it gets out I will get the new pan on and see where I am. Just knowing that other people here are running the same pan tells me if it doesn't fit then I have other issues.

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oil pans are good a teaching lessons- I dropped an alternator stud into the engine compartment and couldn't find it anywhere. I had another stud and put it all back together. Took it out for a ride and the lost stud managed to drop and poke a hole through the pan... Exxon Valdez (7 quarts!) in my parent's driveway. I look much harder for lost bolts now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

For all the guys stressing about aftermarket oil pans for the Monte Carlo. If you have a BB in your car the OEM GM Corvette BB pan is a bolt in. I have one under the LS6 (Gen IV) in my 1972.

 

The pan has a 5 quart capacity. This translates into a 6 quart oil system capacity assuming a 1 quart filter. I run the factory GM windage tray with GM studs to locate the tray. There is no clearance issue whatsoever, you get extra capacity, you get the windage tray and it is an OEM part which IMHO beats the aftermarket stuff hands down every time. There is ONE and ONLY 1 GM pan for Corvettes equipped with BB engines which were offered from 65 to 73 or 1974 so there should be no issue determine what is what. If it is a BBC OEM GM pan for a CORVETTE it will work.

 

Also for the SBC guys. The FI 327 Corvettes ran a special high capacity oil pan with windage tray and "trap door" baffles that fit the MC chassis also. This pan was offered up until 1965 when the FI engines "went away". Depending on who ya talk to this pan holds 5 or 6 quarts. I run one in a 66 Vette with 6 quarts in the pan plus one additional quart for filling the filter and have no issues.

 

FWIW ...neither my Monte Carlo or my Corvette have headers..IMHO they are just a big PIA but that is another story. Speaking generally about the two pans mentioned above I would suspect no header clearance issues because these pans are the same width in the sump area as a standard SBC or BBC pan.

 

It is not all good news however. Both the SBC and BBC pans I am running are discontinued by GM but you can usually find them thru the usual used parts sources. Considering all the heartburn associated with aftermarket pans these parts might be worth looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record..do you know if this Vette pan will fit a Chevelle? I have no idea why they fit the MC because I don't know what if any dimensional differences exist in the MC frame versus the Chevelle frame.

 

There seems to be no end of angst caused by aftermarket pans not fitting / clearing frames. People end up installing then disinstalling aftermarket pans all the time. Chevelles of all years and MC's it is the same story ..."It hits the frame", "it leaks", "I have oil pressure problems at high RPM"...it just goes on and on. Finding a pan that fits 66 67 Chevelles with BB engines seem to be a VERY VERY difficult job if you do not have / want a pan other than "THE" original 4 qt. factory pan.

 

I know I digress a bit here but I think this Vette pan we have is a hidden "jewel", at least for the MC, if you want trouble free installation, extra capacity and a windage tray. Along with all that you get a pan / pump / pickup and tray designed by GM as opposed to some aftermarket Speed Racer goodie designed by folks with who knows what level of skill in automotive engineering. Just MHO here but the aftermarket stuff is stuff I would not touch with a 10 foot pole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The vette pan fits because of the set back of the engine in our Monte Carlos. There are some truck pans that also fit. That being said I have never had an issue with my aftermarket pans. I like the windage system more in them than the flat chevy style and have never had any leakage issues. The trap doors also keep more oil around the pump during braking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can agree that some of the aftermarket pans are OK but I sure hear more crying about them than I hear about stock parts. I guess if one goes to the real high end pans the chances of a problem might be lower. Performance wise..perhaps some folks cross breed things to where they run into trouble, pickup from one vendor, pan from another , tray from someone else. Then throw in headers, kickouts and the results might be upredictable. I might be an "old school" point of view guy and I don't race my cars at all so perhaps the stock stuff is adequate for me. With GM parts I could order a pan, pickup, pump and tray and know the parts would play together. Also as more and more PRC junk shows up I tend to run for the safety of something that has always worked for me.

 

Engine setback...just something I have been curious about not a burning issue by any stretch. Makes sense also but I have run stock Chevelle exhaust pipes on my BBC, everything from (including) the manifold to the tailpipe tips. This seems to indicate that the engine is in the same place relative to the firewall in the MC as it is in the Chevelle. Also my car is a stick and I run all Chevelle parts after the conversion. Again this seems to indicate that the motor is in the same place as the Chevelle. Again not that I stay awake nights over this but I am thinking that the MC crossmember might be farther forward from the firewall than it is in the Chevelle? That seems to be the only way we both can be right about these pans and the partsI have used from Chevelles in my conversion? I know when I had the FI Vette pan on an SB in this car there was plenty of C-member clearance for the front of the sump.

 

BTW..love that pic of your car at the line. Nice to see these "big" cars doing things like that and performing like yours does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep the engine is farther back from the front cross member and suspension points. That is one of the things made the Montes work in NASCAR, better weight distribution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It gets a little confusing when we use terms like "engine setback" or "engine further back" when we talk about the underhood area. In reality, the body and firewall are in the same place, and the engine is in the same place. What was moved is the front axle centerline...it was moved 2 inches forward. The result is the crossmember and steering linkages and such aren't sitting directly below the engine like they do in a chevelle. To the casual observer it looks like the engine is sitting further back.

 

The good news is that moving the crossmember and "axle" forward relieves it from carrying some of the engine weight, shifts the weight rearward, and gives the car a better front/rear weight distribution. It's not significant, but it's a big deal on a NASCAR track. It sure doesn't hurt on a dragstrip either.

The Corvette has a similar placement of the front crossmember under the engine, but I suspect it was done for a better weight distribution and better handling instead of the Monte...which was probably moved forward for styling reasons. I often wonder if a corvette header might be a better fit than a chevelle header.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Again not that I stay awake nights over this but I am thinking that the MC crossmember might be farther forward from the firewall than it is in the Chevelle"

 

As mentioned earlier the engine firewall positioning must be the same. Many folks think that all the added MC length is in front of the C-member. Likely that conclusion is due to the length of the hood and the space between the engine and the radiator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...