New Sm Block Milodon stock height, hi capacity, street, pro touring, road race pan!!!

-
72bluNblu said:
Well so far I'm really not too thrilled with the installation of my Milodon road race pan. It's on my 340, and going in to my '74 Duster (spool mount K).

I already knew I would have to set it straight in, so I installed the engine by itself first. This took two tries, because I figured the flywheel on the engine would be ok. Wrong. Not enough room to get onto the engine mounts, so for the 4 speed guys the install has to be done without the flywheel. Not a huge deal.

I noticed it was way tight on the drivers side engine mount, but this was dependent on the angle the engine was sitting at, and I figured it would be ok once the transmission and mounts were in. Wrong again. The pan hits the lower part of the engine mount on the K frame.

I do have poly inserts that replaced the original rubber in the spool mounts. And, the mounts are for a 318, using a spacer on the driver side. I figure one of these things is the issue. The engine sits pretty straight in the bay, but even a 1/4" would be more than enough to get clearance, so I guess its down the the little stuff. I ordered an engine mount from Autozone that's allegedly for a 340 and not a 318, so we'll see. Otherwise I'll have to drop the K back out and clearance it.

This is the driver's side engine mount from the bottom...
Click to expand...

No one makes new rubber 340/360 drivers side mounts anymore. The commonly listed wrong in some parts books.

Otherwise you take a used 360 mount out of a Cordoba and buy a new motor mount insert. You bent a tang to install them, but you'll have to tack weld it on too. That's what I did in 1997.
 
autoxcuda said:
No one makes new rubber 340/360 drivers side mounts anymore. The commonly listed wrong in some parts books.

Otherwise you take a used 360 mount out of a Cordoba and buy a new motor mount insert. You bent a tang to install them, but you'll have to tack weld it on too. That's what I did in 1997.
Click to expand...

I took a better look at how the engine sits in the car, its really not "off" at all. I can see if it was crooked, but it really isn't. Plus the spacer on the 318 mount really shouldn't move the engine forward any. I suppose the poly mounts might be biased forward a bit, but everything lines up at the transmission mount.

Unfortunately what I think I'm going to do is drop the K frame again and just notch the mount. Easy enough to make the changes to the mount, but I don't have enough room to do it in the car. I really don't feel like pulling the transmission since I just finished installing it. My plan is to support the engine with a hoist and drop the K frame, make the notch and box it, and then reinstall the k frame.

I love the construction of the pan, but I think Milodon should have built in some more clearance on that engine mount. Or at least mentioned that it could be a problem, notching the mount would have been a piece of cake when I had it sitting on my bench when I did all the seam welding, reinforcing, and boxing of the steering box mount. Now it means I have to drop the K AGAIN, and reinstall everything again. PITA. Considering that this is a K frame that's in spec, a frame that's in spec and never been in any accidents, with zero rust, etc, and that the engine mounts actually are original to the K frame, it'd be nice if it actually fit with the pan. The only thing that could effect the pan are the poly mounts and 340 with a 318 mount, but that's not an uncommon scenario given that the 340 mounts aren't reproduced. If that's all it takes, I won't be the only one with this problem.
 
72bluNblu said:
I took a better look at how the engine sits in the car, its really not "off" at all. I can see if it was crooked, but it really isn't. Plus the spacer on the 318 mount really shouldn't move the engine forward any. I suppose the poly mounts might be biased forward a bit, but everything lines up at the transmission mount.

Unfortunately what I think I'm going to do is drop the K frame again and just notch the mount. Easy enough to make the changes to the mount, but I don't have enough room to do it in the car. I really don't feel like pulling the transmission since I just finished installing it. My plan is to support the engine with a hoist and drop the K frame, make the notch and box it, and then reinstall the k frame.

I love the construction of the pan, but I think Milodon should have built in some more clearance on that engine mount. Or at least mentioned that it could be a problem, notching the mount would have been a piece of cake when I had it sitting on my bench when I did all the seam welding, reinforcing, and boxing of the steering box mount. Now it means I have to drop the K AGAIN, and reinstall everything again. PITA. Considering that this is a K frame that's in spec, a frame that's in spec and never been in any accidents, with zero rust, etc, and that the engine mounts actually are original to the K frame, it'd be nice if it actually fit with the pan. The only thing that could effect the pan are the poly mounts and 340 with a 318 mount, but that's not an uncommon scenario given that the 340 mounts aren't reproduced. If that's all it takes, I won't be the only one with this problem.
Click to expand...

Years ago, I reinforced my K-member with a plate that wrapped around that same mount. So it's very close to rubbing on my car. But thats with that plate.

I though that was very close for that 73-76 K-member. It's a tight fit.

I'll try to measure the difference between a NOS 318 left mount and an original 340 68-72 biscuit style mount over the weekend. Maybe adding a 1/4" spacers on that side?? But I can understand if you don't want to do that.

I'll pass this info on to Milodon.
 
autoxcuda said:
Years ago, I reinforced my K-member with a plate that wrapped around that same mount. So it's very close to rubbing on my car. But thats with that plate.

I though that was very close for that 73-76 K-member. It's a tight fit.

I'll try to measure the difference between a NOS 318 left mount and an original 340 68-72 biscuit style mount over the weekend. Maybe adding a 1/4" spacers on that side?? But I can understand if you don't want to do that.

I'll pass this info on to Milodon.
Click to expand...

I wish I could add spacers. Unfortunately, the only place I could put a spacer would move the engine forward, not back. If I could reduce the spacer at the back that I used to make up for the 318 mount on the 340 that would be great, but that would require the mount to move into the flange on the block (arrows)

IMG_1273_zps8036be18.jpg


Here's another view of the contact from the top. It's almost nothing, there's no pressure on the pan, it just touches...

IMG_1272_zps2ddf1878.jpg


And here's a shot to help reference where the engine sits in the car...

IMG_1275_zps8b74f6bf.jpg


I'm in the process of dropping the K now, so I can get the mount notched to clear the pan. I'll post up some more pictures of the notch and clearance when I'm done, so maybe Milodon can make a note or something for folks planning on using the pan with a 73-76 A body spool mount K and poly mounts or whatever. It won't be a hard fix, just would have been easier before I installed the engine...
 
In the picture above, are those the Poly mounts?

Did you try the stock 318 rubber mount with the spacers in the rear?

I run the stock mounts with clear silicone filled in the voids.
 
Yup, those are the poly mounts.

I never tried the stock rubber mounts because the rubber was pretty much shot, and these are the only set of spool mounts I have. I did order a drivers side spool mount, but at this point I think I'm just going to notch the K and get on with it. I will compare the two once I get the new mount to see if that's where the issue is for future reference though.
 
Ok, problem solved. I dropped the K frame, notched the engine mount, and welded in a reinforcement just in case. The "fix" only took about 45 minutes once the K frame was on the ground, would have been faster but because of the hoist for the engine and jackstands for the car I couldn't roll the K out from under the car.#-o

So, first the notch. 1" x 1" x 2.5", I'm only doing this once. :mrgreen:

IMG_1277_zps2f707a4f.jpg


The engine mount would probably be just fine without it, but I cut a chunk of angle and fired up the MIG.

IMG_1279_zpsdd27b8e4.jpg


Cleaned it up a bit and I put the K back in and the engine back in the mounts. Plenty of clearance now...

IMG_1287_zpsf93963b8.jpg


IMG_1289_zpsbac69d29.jpg


IMG_1291_zpsd8296c3a.jpg


You can see from the first picture directly underneath that it really was just contact between the bottom of the mount and the pan, not even interference. But even contact without any pressure won't work, so hence the fix. It's hard to tell from the pictures, but there's pretty much an inch of clearance all the way around.
 
after reading this post and spending time researching oil pans this is the one for me.
Just placed my order with Jegs

1 697-31595

Milodon 31595 - Milodon Road Race Oil Pans

Road Race Oil Pan •Chrysler 360
•A/B/E Body Cars
•6-Quart Capacity Plus Filter
•7'' Sump Depth

$357.30
Subtotal:$357.30
FREE Handling:$0.00
FREE Shipping:$0.00
Total:$357.30
 
demon428 said:
after reading this post and spending time researching oil pans this is the one for me.
Just placed my order with Jegs

1 697-31595

Milodon 31595 - Milodon Road Race Oil Pans

Road Race Oil Pan •Chrysler 360
•A/B/E Body Cars
•6-Quart Capacity Plus Filter
•7'' Sump Depth

$357.30
Subtotal:$357.30
FREE Handling:$0.00
FREE Shipping:$0.00
Total:$357.30
Click to expand...

Kick ***! This is an awesome pan and the inside is amazing to look at. Quick question did you remember to order the pick up tube?
 
rumblefish360 said:
Nice work 72B-on-B
Click to expand...

Thanks!

With the road race pan, Doug's headers, 4 speed linkage, 1.12" torsion bars, and the later spool mount K with poly mounts it was pretty entertaining getting everything shoehorned into the engine bay.
 
I have had this pan sitting around for about a year now mainly being to slack to fit it in the car.

Well I finally fitted it to my Demon with 73 up K frame with TTI Headers. Tried every which way to do it without dropping the K, but there was no way around. Ended up with PS header off and DS loosened.

End result appears to be fantastic though.
 
"Holy Old Thread Batman, he's resurrected this one from the dead!"

I have one of these pans on my 416 stroker and I have a question. I originally got this for a B body setup I was working on. Well that never materialized. But the engine is still on a stand, and over the next few weeks I'll be swapping it into my 72 Dart.

The car currently has Hooker competition headers installed. They're not going to be on there long term but right now I'm not really wanting to spend $1k on a set of TTI's. Been bleeding cash with this project lately as it is.

My question is involving header clearance. Anyone know if the Hookers will fit with this pan in the dart? I know in the B body the headers I had (I think they were either Summit or Hedman cheapo deals) had to have a section cut out and re-routed to gain clearance around the sump. It was a pain in the *** and i'm not looking to repeat that effort. Thanks in advance!
 
Try Doug's Headers. D453 I think. You can also order them uncoated if you think ya might want to monkey with them.
 
Yeah the idea was I'm trying not to spend money just yet. I'd like to stick with the hookers if possible
 
I can confirm that hooker competition SB headers hit in the same place as the cheapo summit headers did.

I may try a little brute force "persuasion" and see if I can gain the needed clearance. However the interference is fairly significant. Basically the headers hit the pan on the left side kickout.
 
Am I correct to understand that there is no way the driver side Summit headers would fit the Pro Touring Milodon pan if they need bashing to fit the low-profile pan?
Style of headers is in the pictures below, from jbc426's thread "Summit Headers and 2 1/2" dual exhaust in '68 A-body w 5.9 Magnum".
I bought these headers for my 69 Valiant I'm trying to make corner. This with a dream to one day use fast-ratio pitman sounds more and more like $$$$ custom headers.

IMG_3250 (Large).jpg


IMG_3244 (Large).jpg
 
UZswapBarge said:
Am I correct to understand that there is no way the driver side Summit headers would fit the Pro Touring Milodon pan if they need bashing to fit the low-profile pan?
Style of headers is in the pictures below, from jbc426's thread "Summit Headers and 2 1/2" dual exhaust in '68 A-body w 5.9 Magnum".
I bought these headers for my 69 Valiant I'm trying to make corner. This with a dream to one day use fast-ratio pitman sounds more and more like $$$$ custom headers.

View attachment 1716380388

View attachment 1716380386
Click to expand...

So a few things-

You're correct, if those headers hit the low profile pan they will interfere even worse with the road race pan, the kick outs on the road race pan are larger.

If handling is the goal, especially at a level where a road race style oil pan is necessary/beneficial, those are the wrong headers anyway. They have tubes that go under the steering linkage, so the ground clearance is pretty terrible. Handling cars do better lower than stock, and even headers that keep the tubes above the steering (Doug’s, TTI’s) still end up being pretty low. Those summit headers will end up smashed flat.

Fast ratio steering arms don’t clear any headers for a small block A-body. I don’t know what type of steering you have, I’m assuming power steering because the fast ratio 16:1 manual steering is about as steep as you’re going to want to go. A faster ratio than that and you’ll need arms like Popeye to get the car turned at lower speeds. The T/A and AAR cars had fast ratio power steering, those ended up at 12:1. But those were E bodies, and the fast ratio arms fit better. The aftermarket borgeson power boxes now available are 14:1, and they’re lighter and smaller than the factory boxes too.
 
72bluNblu said:
So a few things-

You're correct, if those headers hit the low profile pan they will interfere even worse with the road race pan, the kick outs on the road race pan are larger.

If handling is the goal, especially at a level where a road race style oil pan is necessary/beneficial, those are the wrong headers anyway. They have tubes that go under the steering linkage, so the ground clearance is pretty terrible. Handling cars do better lower than stock, and even headers that keep the tubes above the steering (Doug’s, TTI’s) still end up being pretty low. Those summit headers will end up smashed flat.

Fast ratio steering arms don’t clear any headers for a small block A-body. I don’t know what type of steering you have, I’m assuming power steering because the fast ratio 16:1 manual steering is about as steep as you’re going to want to go. A faster ratio than that and you’ll need arms like Popeye to get the car turned at lower speeds. The T/A and AAR cars had fast ratio power steering, those ended up at 12:1. But those were E bodies, and the fast ratio arms fit better. The aftermarket borgeson power boxes now available are 14:1, and they’re lighter and smaller than the factory boxes too.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the reply, I appreciate it. So for a low car it makes sense to stick to shorty headers or the even just biggest manifolds like 340 driver side, large magnum passenger? (And maybe try to cram more power in with a supercharger, since you do see lots of people running manifolds and lots of turbo boost on modern builds)

Because even though fenderwells would technically check some of the boxes, they are destroying the body rigidity in places where people add reinforcements to inner fenders. And they are probably bad for ground clearance anyway.

For steering, I have 14:1 Borgeson and it still seems too slow for me, as I'm used to modern racks.
 
UZswapBarge said:
Thank you for the reply, I appreciate it. So for a low car it makes sense to stick to shorty headers or the even just biggest manifolds like 340 driver side, large magnum passenger? (And maybe try to cram more power in with a supercharger, since you do see lots of people running manifolds and lots of turbo boost on modern builds)

Because even though fenderwells would technically check some of the boxes, they are destroying the body rigidity in places where people add reinforcements to inner fenders. And they are probably bad for ground clearance anyway.

For steering, I have 14:1 Borgeson and it still seems too slow for me, as I'm used to modern racks.
Click to expand...

TTI headers will work with road race pan. I believe Dougs will too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top