Oil pan, which is correct

[William S.]

I'm confused! My early 65 L79 (Nov 64) has a 6 qt oil pan and no steering shock absorber (no room for it). I have read that this may be correct for an early 65, but my judging guide says I should have a 5 qt pan and a shock absorber. I plan to have the car judged so I have been looking for the correct pan, but with so many versions I am not sure what to buy. For instance, LIC lists the correct pan as 4 qt. Can someone please help educate me? Pictures would be a great help.

Thanks for your help.

[Clark K.]

Re: Oil pan, which is correct

William, my copy of the 1965 JG states that the optional 350 hp engine had the steering stabilizer ONLY if it came with manual steering from the factory (page 144). Also, on page 146, it is clear that the 350 hp engine had a five-quart oil pan factory-installed.

These three things (engine output, oil pan, & steering system) are inter-related. The larger (6-qt) oil pan that came on the optional SHP (365 & 375hp) small block engines prevented power steering to be fitted to Sting Rays so equipped. But, even though cars with the SHP small block engines were manual steering, only, cars, they were not equipped with the steering stabilizer.

But, the above explanation does not address your problem. We all know that over the decades, before we bought our beloved Sting Rays, that past owners added, removed, and substituted components. This confuses the facts and causes the quandry that you now experience.

What I would need to know is whether you have any proof that the engine in your '65 is the original factory-installed engine, or not. Also, is there any evidence that your car was factory equipped with power steering? -Clark

[Donald T.]

Re: Oil pan, which is correct

The L76 had the 6 qt pan. I suppose it is possible some very early L79s had the 6 qt pan but I'm not aware of any. I believe you should have the 5 qt pan with the steering damper assembly (assuming non PS). Total capacity would be 5 qt including 1 qt for the filter.

[William S.]

Re: Oil pan, which is correct

Clark,

My engine stamp pad does match the vin # for my car and I don't see any evidence it had power steering. So, it looks like I need to add the steering shock absorber and replace the 6 qt pan with the proper 5 qt pan. With so many oil pans out there for sale, how can I tell if I am buying the right one? The only thing I know is that the sump should be 10 1/2" long, with three 1 1/2" high ribs on the left side and two ribs on the right side, and the drain to the rear. Is this enough info to distinguish the right one from all the wrong ones? Can someone supply a picture?

Thanks again to everyone for all your help.

[Joe L.]

Re: Oil pan, which is correct

Clark,

My engine stamp pad does match the vin # for my car and I don't see any evidence it had power steering. So, it looks like I need to add the steering shock absorber and replace the 6 qt pan with the proper 5 qt pan. With so many oil pans out there for sale, how can I tell if I am buying the right one? The only thing I know is that the sump should be 10 1/2" long, with three 1 1/2" high ribs on the left side and two ribs on the right side, and the drain to the rear. Is this enough info to distinguish the right one from all the wrong ones? Can someone supply a picture?

Thanks again to everyone for all your help.

William------

I have heard that some very early 1965 Corvettes with L-79 and without N-40 were equipped with the "6 quart" oil pan. However, I've never confirmed it. Plus, if such a configuration did exist, it would seem to me that it would have had a different suffix code than an engine with the "5 quart" pan. I know of no such suffix code, though.

Inasmuch as your engine is apparently not the original engine installed in the car (i.e. VIN derivative does not match), the whole issue is pretty moot; you should assume that your car was supplied with the "5 quart" pan.

You can obtain a reproduction "5 quart" pan as manufactured by/for Keen Corvette. In addition to Keen, many of the Corvette parts vendors like Dr. Rebuild, Paragon, Corvette Central, etc. can probably supply the Keen oil pan. It is an excellent reproduction.

The good news here is that if you have a CORRECT "6 quart" pan and it's in good condition, it's worth more than the reproduction pan will cost. So, you could sell it and end up being "money ahead".

By the way, when 63-74 Corvette oil pans are referenced here, most folks including myself refer to the SYSTEM capacity rather than the oil pan capacity. That's because the oil pan capacity is a somewhat "vague" term. For example, what we refer to as a "5 quart" pan is actually a 4 quart pan, but that 4 quarts is at the "full" level which is not marked anywhere on the pan and the actual capacity of the pan filled to the brim is way more than 4 or, even, 5 quarts. So, we distinguish between the pans by describing the SYSTEM capacity of the engine when a particular pan is installed.

If you post a photo of your existing oil pan, we could tell you if it's a correct 63-72 "6 quart" oil pan.

[Duke W.]

Re: Oil pan, which is correct

I always refer to the pans as four quart and five quart, which is the approximate oil refill capacity (to the full mark on the dipstick) WITHOUT changing the oil filter.

Changing the (OE cannister) oil filter element requires and extra quart of oil, so the respective SYSTEM capcities are five and six quarts respectively.

It's always been my understanding that early L-79s were equipped with the five quart pan, which precluded use of the steering damper or the power steering option, but early in production, Chevrolet decided to offer N-40 with L-79, and this required substituting the four quart pan to allow installation of the power steering ram.

Clues might be in the base engine, L-79, and N-40 sections of the AIM. Look for any changes in the engine assembly number and sheet dates/change dates for the power steering option as it relates to L-79.

The sheet dates and change records tell a story, however, at some point, some sheets were "redrawn and revised" and that, unfortunately resulted in the elimination of the previous changes from the change record.

Anyone who has any 1965 sales bulletins or order information might also have documentation of any such change. I don't recall seeing anything about this in Corvette News, which usually reported any option changes during the year.

Duke

[William S.]

Re: Oil pan, which is correct

Joe,

Sorry if there was a misunderstanding, but my engine is original to the car. I will have to assume that someone removed the steering shock absorber when they changed to the larger 6 qt oil pan. I'll get the repro 5 qt pan from Keen and put the 6 qt up for sale, then add a shock absorber when I rebuild the front suspension and steering.

Thanks to everyone for their input. At least now I have a game plan.

[Joe L.]

Re: Oil pan, which is correct

Joe,

Sorry if there was a misunderstanding, but my engine is original to the car. I will have to assume that someone removed the steering shock absorber when they changed to the larger 6 qt oil pan. I'll get the repro 5 qt pan from Keen and put the 6 qt up for sale, then add a shock absorber when I rebuild the front suspension and steering.

Thanks to everyone for their input. At least now I have a game plan.

William------


Well, if the engine is original to the car and given the November, 1964 build and the fact the car does not have power steering, it's possible that the pan is original to the car. I would not rush right out and get a "5 quart" pan.

What is the build date and suffix code of the engine?

[William S.]

Re: Oil pan, which is correct

Joe,

The engine casting date is I154 or Sept 15, 64. The engine assy date and suffix are F0923HT or Flint Sept 23 350hp L79.

Bill

[Wayne M.]

Re: Oil pan, which is correct

....Clues might be in the base engine, L-79, and N-40 sections of the AIM. Look for any changes in the engine assembly number and sheet dates/change dates for the power steering option as it relates to L-79....

Duke --- The '65 AIM is not much help, as there's no L79 sheet per se. But under N40, it shows L79 sheet added (pulleys) on 8-13-64. For a lead time comparison, the N40 sheet for L78 was added 1-25-65. Then, on N40 sheet 6, a torque figure was added [for L79] on 9-1-64.

But more importantly, in the March 1965 issue of Chevrolet Service News, for mid-year change in lineup for Corvette it mentions addition of L78, Goldwall tires, and power steering "now available with the 350hp 327 V8..."

Now whether that meant elimination of the larger oil pan, if they were installing one prior to the N40 addition, this is not specifically addressed.

My first car was a '65 #04835 with an L79 F1212HT (no P.S.). I was too green to know what size oil pan it had, but pics taken in 1968 show an 80 psi oil gauge .

[Loren L.]

Re: Oil pan, which is correct

Wayne M. arrived with the answer before I could locate it in my 1965 Production Data Book in the March 1965 Chevrolet Service News. DO NOT CHANGE YOUR CAR TO CONFORM TO A 1965 JG!
The lead line in the subcategory Wayne quotes from is:

"The important MID-YEAR CHANGE in engine line-up"

and goes on to deal with the 396, the addition of Goldwall tires, power steering "NOW AVAILABLE" W/L79 and the deletion of 3.36 & 4.56 gears from the Corvette L79 lineup.
I would wager that from the changeover (Feb? Surely March) that you will NOT find an ORIGINAL L79 with anything but a 4 quart pan.

[William S.]

Re: Oil pan, which is correct

OK, new game plan!

I will keep the 6 qt oil pan and not install a steering shock absorber because an early 65 L79 may have came that way even though this goes against the 65 Judging Guide. This is not the only thing that I have discovered may not be covered correctly in the 65 Judging Guide. I have a rear differential casting with an assy date of 10-30-64 that is part #3830303. JG says it should be 3871375.

Thanks again to everyone for your input.

Bill

[Joe L.]

Re: Oil pan, which is correct

Joe,

The engine casting date is I154 or Sept 15, 64. The engine assy date and suffix are F0923HT or Flint Sept 23 350hp L79.

Bill

Bill------


It's possible that the build specifications for the "HT" coded engine changed at some point from a "6 quart" to a "5 quart" oil pan. That would be a highly unusual thing for them to do, especially considering that the installed oil pan had significant compatibility ramifications and the engine code was the means by which the assembly plant selected the appropriate engine. The easiest, most logical, and standard practice procedure was to assign another engine code. But, use of the same code for two differently configured engines could have happened.

[Joe L.]

Re: Oil pan, which is correct

OK, new game plan!

I will keep the 6 qt oil pan and not install a steering shock absorber because an early 65 L79 may have came that way even though this goes against the 65 Judging Guide. This is not the only thing that I have discovered may not be covered correctly in the 65 Judging Guide. I have a rear differential casting with an assy date of 10-30-64 that is part #3830303. JG says it should be 3871375.

Thanks again to everyone for your input.

Bill

Bill------


Early 1965 did use the 3830303 carrier housing so the JG is incorrect if it says that all 1965 used the 3871375 casting. I doubt that the carrier housing with casting number 3871375 was even a released part at the outset of the 1965 model year.

[Clark K.]

Re: Oil pan, which is correct

Well, if the engine is original to the car and given the November, 1964 build and the fact the car does not have power steering, it's possible that the pan is original to the car. I would not rush right out and get a "5 quart" pan.

William stated in his original post that his goal is to take his car to flight judging. I understand his desire to have his car get the minimum of originality points deductions.

If the '65 JG calls for his car (based upon the engine) to have the 5 qt. "system" pan, he will take originality point deductions. Same thing on the steering stabilizer/damper. This might be a case of changing a factory item to conform to the JG. How many times has that been done? -Clark