Hooker / Holley's new 2nd gen LS set-up

Discussion in 'High Tech Retrofits' started by mikes70, Nov 20, 2013.

  1. ks71z28

    ks71z28 Veteran Member NastyZ28 Sponsor NastyZ28 Sponsor Lifetime Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,144
    Likes Received:
    40
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2004
    Location:
    chico, ca, usa
    We used the F-body pan on Mikes70's car with no issues. The motor sits further back than most mounts.

    If you guys have any questions and need a quick response, we have installed BOTH the early and late LS components and we are Hooker/Holley dealers as well

    Keith
     
  2. mrvedit

    mrvedit Veteran Member

    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes Received:
    4
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    I purchased the Holley pan two years ago and found it of inferior quality compared to GM pans and much more expensive that an F-body or CTS-V pan purchased brand new from the dealer. I documented the details on ls1tech in the zillion-long thread on oil pans. My detailed post is #407:

    http://ls1tech.com/forums/conversions-hybrids/817787-lsx-oil-pans-21.html

    I then compared the oil capacity of the Holley, CTS-V and truck pans; see posts #413 and #419.

    I currently have the Hooker swap mounts and headers installed. My CTS-V pan fits perfectly with plenty of clearance to the crossmember and steering linkage. It sits barely 1/2" below the crossmember. (It seems to be less with the Hooker mounts.) I know that some people are justifiably concerned about even that 1/2", but I feel more secure with an extra 2 quarts of oil capacity that worrying about the "perfectly placed manhole cover" cracking my pan.

    In any case the GM F-body or CTS-V pan, gasket, windage tray, dipstick tube and dipstick are available for about $250 from "cooperative" local dealers or on-line dealers. IMHO, there is no reason to even consider the Holley pan.
     
  3. 76_TypeLT

    76_TypeLT Veteran Member Lifetime Gold Member

    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    144
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Since you used the Holley pan back in 2011, is it possible they have changed/improved the design since then?
     
  4. toddoky

    toddoky Veteran Member

    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Location:
    Bowling Green, KY
    The design of the original Holley 302-1 pan has remained unchanged since that time with the exception of the optional race baffle becoming available.
    What has changed is the addition of the 302-2 pan to the Holley LS swap parts portfolio. Whereas the original pan provides stroker crank compatibility, the design of the new pan with an opposite outside-in focus to minimize its external dimensions to support LS installations into vehicles that are more fitment challenged than the 2nd-gen F-bodies are(i.e. 1st-gen F-body, 3rd-gen X-body and all A-body GM cars). There are multiple oil pans that can be used to install an LS engine in a 2nd-gen. The quality of OE pans is normally good due to the fact that vast sums of money are spent on their development and tooling cost. They are also made by casting methods that are only feasible with high quantity production, such as die casting and permanent mold casting. If you can fit an OE pan in your chassis and it meets your ground and component clearance requirements then they are a good choice. There are times however when using an OE pan is not possible (like trying to run an LS7 or LSX 454 with an F-body pan or trying to run an F-body pan in a 1st-gen Camaro on any LS engine) but maintaining the structural tie-in with the transmission bellhousing is desirable...this is where the Holley pans provide their real value as they are the only aftermarket pans to provide this that design feature.
     
  5. mrvedit

    mrvedit Veteran Member

    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes Received:
    4
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    That is a very fair and informative "rebuttal" by toddoky. My post was certainly not intended as an attack, but as an opinion based on my own testing and measuring of various common LS oil pans on my '81 Camaro.
    I obviously did not test on a Gen-1 on A-body and it certainly is informative to know that it will fit on them.

    One detail that "inflamed" my opinion (otherwise known as pi..ed me off) is that the $400 price did not include a gasket. It is not only the $25 gasket price, but the effort and resulting project delay in getting one. If not already, I hope that Hooker will consider adding the necessary gasket to the package, then making it complete.
     
  6. 76_TypeLT

    76_TypeLT Veteran Member Lifetime Gold Member

    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    144
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    I definitely did not take it as an attack or bashing. I appreciate that kind of feedback.
     
  7. toddoky

    toddoky Veteran Member

    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Location:
    Bowling Green, KY
    Your evaluation is also fair and respected and I'm sorry the value proposition of the Holley pan package contents did not work out to your liking. Determining package contents is a difficult task and not one that is taken lightly. It would be possible to add a gasket to the packaging, but that would increase the cost of the pan and make it less appealing to customers who are shopping by absolute price alone, or by those who already own a spare gasket or are wanting to reuse the stock gasket they already have (completely possible in many cases). The price of the new 302-2 pan averages $349, which is more affordable than the Mast pan (it also does not include a gasket and does not attach to the trans bellhousing like the Holley oil pans do), so by my measurements that's a good deal. For what it's worth, there are Holley dealers that put together Holley oil pan packages on their own that contain the gasket and dipstick also. If you look around, you can find the Holley pans sold a number of different ways. If you prefer the OE pans, I've have no problem with that as I see them as quality pieces also.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2014
  8. clean79

    clean79 Veteran Member

    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2001
    Location:
    Katy, TX
    This is great stuff,

    maybe if I wait long enough every nuance of an LS conversion will be worked out and simplified to the point that it will just install itself overnight one night for me.
     
  9. onelapduster

    onelapduster Veteran Member

    Messages:
    720
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    South Joursey
    All of the info is out there already.....get to work.
     
  10. mgs1971

    mgs1971 Veteran Member

    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Location:
    CLEMSON, SC.
    I stopped in at Year One to buy a T56 trans crossmember and LS1 engine mounts a couple of weeks ago but ended up leaving with nothing.

    I specifically asked about this kit and they acted like the knew nothing about it.

    Are there any new updates (good or bad).

    I am ready to buy someone's kit so that I can get engine and trans on the frame.

    Any suggestions?

    Thanks for the help.
    Mike
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.