Introducing SPF P2160

[Seymour Snerd]

FYI: I measured the Aviad wet sump on the installed FE and the lowest point is 6" below the front bottom edge of the block that puts the front of the pan 1" below the underbody (about the same drop as the lowest point on the bellhousing).

Steve -- Thinking about wet-sump pan choices I'm getting a little confused trying to correlate all the measurements.

In an older post you said "I have the same clearance Frank Catt mentioned above (80mm to the ground) at front of oil pan...FE engine sits level ... the bottom of the bellhousing is just about in line with the underbody the Avaid oil pan although flush with undercarrage in rear sits lower in front..... "

Two things: did your bellhousing move at some point since in your earlier post it was "about in line with the underbody?"... I'm thinking of that rear transmission mount that you installed later; could installing it have caused the bell housing to drop an inch or so? (seems unlikely unless you discontinued the crossmember mountings at the same time)

Also, are you sure the engine itself is level and the pan is not? I ask because on the originals (w/ T44, etc.) the front of the engine was about 1" higher than the rear (slope about 10 degrees) so there is some precedent for non-level engine.

Looking at the 155-55410 pan on the Aviaid site I can't tell if it's "parallel" or not (it's listed as 6" deep). FWIW Armando makes a similar pan (408) but his is listed as 5" at front 6" at rear. So I'm wondering if your Aviaid pan is like the Armando but sloped the other way.

OR more interestingly if your is pan is in fact "parallel" at 6", and your engine sloped, then the Armando pan would neatly increase your pan clearance by 1" and make the pan surface coplanar with the underbody.

Can you check any of this?

Thanks,

Alan.

 

[Steve C]

Alan,

Forget about pan to ground and my earlier post as relates to "same clearance as Frank Catt".

My bellhousing has not moved since I sourced and installed the Olthoff ZF to rear frame lower mount (mount just ties rear of the ZF to tube frame as insurance that any unsprung weight is supported).

I'm sure that the engine is level, the pan is not. Don't know if there is a precedent for non level engine or not but, do know I do not have any problem with the install as is.

Aviaid pan I have is lower in the front. Front is 6" below the block and with level engine puts front of pan 1" below underbody/pan. My pan has windage tray, baffells/trap doors and due to level engine and forward slope of pan there is more oil than would be at front and in pump area (a good thing).

I'm happy with the forward slope and perfer it over a flat pan. As my pics show there is a skid plate (really just to prevent anything from catching on forward edge of the pan) and even if the pan was flat this is a good thing as it keeps any road junk from getting into the front of engine.

If in fact the Armando pan is sloped as you describe and would allow a flush underbody (I still don't like it as I'd rather have forward slope and as much oil as possible around the pump as long as the engine isn't forward tilted which it is not) you will still have 1" of the bellhousing below the underbody (and that is with the Olthoff sourced small bellhousing) so what's the gain?

Steve P2125 with a level engine and forward sloping pan.

Believe me I have not had any problems with road clearance in 5,000 miles of varying road travel with my install.