Canton Oil Pan clearance problem (Prothane mounts installed)

[BlackBaer5.0]

Hello,

I am doing several upgrades on my 91 5.0 LX , I intalled a Canton Oil Pan ( 7 qt deep sump) and I ran into some clearance issues behind the K-member on the passenger side. I think the problem might be related to the Prothane motor mounts I installed, but I can not think of any other way the mounts would go on. The engine sits all the way in the mount pads/k-member cradle, but the front-passenger side corner of the deep sump portion of the pan is making contactwith the back side of the K-member. Has anyone had any issues with either Canton Oil pan fittment or problems installing Prothane mounts on 5.0's , or am I just doing it wrong ??

Thanks
Geoffrey
(BlackBaer5.0)

 

[jerryD]

if it is the stock k-member, just grind away at it untill it clears.

 

[ss93cobra]

That's what my brother in law had to do with his 306 in his 88 GT.

 

[BlackBaer5.0]

Thanks for the response, but Im wondering how much the engine will move or torque when it revs up. I mean I can cut some out for it to clear but how much more is needed for the engine to move freely.

Oh I also called Canton and ofcourse they said they have never heard of fittment problems with that pan, but here is something interesting, I was looking a Stef's Fab Oil pan, which are much higher quality and expensive pan, the front right corner of the deep sump is cut back in there design ..hemmm ??

Canton asked me to send pictures into them, and they might do something to resolve the problem..
I will post my pics

thanks
Geoffrey

 

[stang22]

I don't want to insult your intelligence and I am certainly not trying to, but did you put the motor mounts on right? You can put them on the wrong side and that would cause the motor to be pushed forward about 1-2 inches.

Tim

 

[89MustangGX]

I'm not convinced about Prothane's fitment. I got a tranny mount from them that fits like junk, and upon furhter searching found it common. It wouldn't surprise me if their motor mounts fit fine in a stock application, but are off enough that you start changing things and it shows.

 

[stang22]

I'm not convinced about Prothane's fitment. I got a tranny mount from them that fits like junk, and upon furhter searching found it common. It wouldn't surprise me if their motor mounts fit fine in a stock application, but are off enough that you start changing things and it shows.

There is not doubt that they good motor mounts, but I think it raised my motor up a good 1/2 inch or so. They are huge!

Tim

 

[BlackBaer5.0]

Well i found the problem

Well I found the problem, Its the Pan. I called several other Oil pan manufactures,
1st off I called Stef's engineering, there pans look real nice, All alluminum and the welds and seams look like jewlery, I asked stef's about fittment and they said they taper the deep sump down from 9in to 7.5in for this very reason , that it would interfere with the K-member .,.hemm imagine that.
http://www.stefs.com

2nd, I called jeff johnstons' Billet fabrication.. those pans are sick ..billet aluminium rails and thick pan walls, and they too have made design modifications to fit the k-member, the corners are all cut back .. hemm imagine that I see a trend starting here.
http://www.billetfab.com/

So I would guess canton doesnt want to fess up..

I ended up returning the canton pan and pickup tube
and I ordered the Aluminium 6qt Stef's Pan for the 302 Fox body, it comes with a pickup and mounting bolts included..(nice)
total cost approx $450

the Billet fab pan costs $499 but includes all hardware and pickup


the canton pan was $265 for just the pan ...

Well you get what you pay for..

Oh also, I would suggest that anyone get studs instead of bolts, for the oil pan, it makes install sooooo easy .. just my $0.02

thanks
geoffrey