My friend is building a 62 Ford Fairlane 500 post car. He is using a Mustang II aftermarket frontend. He is putting a 91 302 HO motor. He is having problems with clearance on the oil pan. It has five and three quarter depth on the front part of the pan. He's not wanting to raise the motor real high. Is there a pan more shallow than 5 3/4 in the front part? Has anyone ever encountered this problem? Any help would be great!
He needs a rear sump or 4x4 pan, some Van's use them also. There is a couple different versions of them. Not hard to find and Jeg's sells them new with pick up tube and Main bolt stud. No problem. The Wizzard
Have you looked at the Mustang "dual sump" pan. It is pretty shallow. Don't know the depth, but I replaced the van pan on my 302 and gained a little clearance. $20 at the salvage. Joe
I believe the 5 3/4" pan is the most shallow you will find for a small block Ford. This is the dual sump pan that most are talking about and because of oil pump placement is the best you can find without going to a Dry Sump.
i have to use a front sump pan in mine...its a '62 mercury but i think it'd be the same thing..im also using a 302
The controlling factor is the depth of the oil pump itself. Regardless of the pan, unless you go for an external oil pump like a dry sump, the pan will go about six inches below the rail, because the pump is that deep.
think you're mistaking the pickup tube for the actual pump. i've swapped a couple of late 5.0's over to front sump pans (requiring a new pickup, timing cover and dipstick tube and dipstick.) without interference from the pump. the long pickup from a rear sump engine is braced on the middle main bearing cap bolt which MIGHT foul the pan but can be cut off short. i don't use MII suspension in my Falcons, though, so even a normal front sump pan may not work on your Fairlane.
Still not under 5 3/4" in front and doesn't have as large of a relief in the middle to clear the crossmember I think you missed what he is looking for. He needs to use a rear sump, you are talking just the opposite - going to front sump Early Bronco pan is like the 4X4 or Van pan suggested above. no better than the 5.0 pan As stated the oil pump position is the limiting factor in oil pan depth. There is no way around it being at least 5 3/4" (I think it's actually closer to 6-6 1/2") short of going to a dry sump.
I am pretty sure summit or jeggs sells em new ... ran into the same prob a few years ago on the same kinda car . just ordered it up ... lnew about it from all the shoeboxes ive shoehorned 289-302 's onto I think they are ranger pans
Yup. That's it. I went right to a Ford dealer and ordered a Bronco pan for the 87 HO 302 in my '59 'Bird. Don't forget to add a dipstick tube! Please don't ask how I know that... Brian
Find a 62 Fairlane with a 221 in it and use that to go by. 62 was the first year for them. My neighbor had one, and I had a 64 with a 260 in mine. The engines looked the same to me at the time.
im not sure where to start but this seems as good as any a place but i plan on dropping a 302 into my 62 fairlane question is do i need to upgrade the front end or will the stock suspension suffice? any suggestions will be greatly appreciated
I have done several of these IFS conversions. If he had a 91 302 HO motor, then he should have had the correct pan with it at one time. Use any pan off a late 80's, early 90's Mustang/Lincoln 5.0. You will need the pic-up tube with it as well. The oil dip stick will now go through the block or the pan, depending on the motor. Always swap out the rear oil seal as long as you are staring at it. Make sure you use the correct weight harmonic balancer and flywheel/flex plate and try to find pulleys if you are using the vintage accessories. Have fun !
The Jalopy Journal
