Can somebody with a UMI K-member take a picture and measure the vertical clearance between oil pan and the K-member, and state which oil pan you're using? I've heard it is tight and nothing but an LS1 F-body style pan will fit, but hoping there's more room than the rumors say.

 

I don't have a picture handy but I too am very much struggling to get the proper pan clearance to the UMI k member. I need the engine to go forward about a half inch. I feel if I shim the trans mount and use three of the four bolts in their engine mounts I "should" get there. Running UMI road race k member with their mounts and an f-body pan.

 

So basically what you're saying is the clearance is nearly nil.

 

Fact. As it sits now the pan is resting on the kmember. The engine needs to tilt in the mounts but you can't do that of you use all four mounting points. I'm also running OEM 4th gen engine side mounts with energy suspension bushings. Starting to get nervous.

 

Oh, boy, sounds like a broken oil pan waiting to happen.

 

Yes. My project has stalled a bit until I can get this corrected. My backup plan is the holley pan which gives a lot more sump clearance to the k-member, I don't have a stroker, but would need to reinvest in all my windage mods.

 

I'm running a 98-02 F-body oil pan on my 408. I probably have about 1/2" clearance between it and the UMI k-member.
I'll try to snap a pic.

 

Are you using the UMI mounts as well? What bushings? I've tried to reset the engine and I just can't get the clearance.

 

After installing poly engine mounts in my 4th gen, I said forgot it, I don't want to do that again.

So I'm running UMI's aluminum solid mounts. I think I have a picture of the mounts in my build thread.

 

Interesting. Do they rattle your teeth out? Or are they not bad.

 

With how much compression I had to put on the poly mounts during install on the 4th gen, might as well be solid at this point.

I haven't driven the 3rd gen yet, but during break in and other running time, didn't really notice them, no severe rattles or heavy vibrations.

 

Here's a pic of the space between the pan and crossmember.
I'm holding a 1/2" drill bit in between them really easy. It's probably 5/8" to 3/4" clearance.
Not sure if that helps or not.

 

That does help. My issue is front to back. Top to bottom I am Ok. How much space do you have between the front face of the pan to the back of the kmember tubes?

 

I found some pictures that show the issue. At first I thought the interference is just the way the engine and trans was sagging in the mounts (unsupported at the tailhousing) but after bolting everything in I still have the issue. I might try to shim the resting height of the trans mount and see if I can "rock/tilt" the engine forward in the mounts.



You can see the lower k-member tubing sitting directly on top of the F-body oil pan.

 

Check out the first page of my thread. I have picture showing the front to back clearance. It's like post #5.

I have the UMI mounts slid all the way back to get everything to fit and have enough clearance. It looks like yours is all the way back too?

 

I will definitely check out your thread. My mounts are kinda all the way back. By that I mean that there are the four bolt holes that secure the mount to the K-member pad. Two of the bolts are all the way maxed on rearward adjustment. The other two could go back more. The problem is that I can't get all four back and still have the mounts attach to the clamshells. I might to try to remove the single mount bolt and adjust the k-member mounts. Then put the engine back in. I wonder if the poly mounts are creating a twisting effect preventing me from moving all four mounting locations as rearward as possible.

 

I just looked at your pics and your mounts look like they are slid all the way forward and you have clearance. All four bolts look like they have equal adjustment left. I am at the end of the slots with my brackets pushed as far rearward as I can. Hmm.

 

So I'm trying to remember how the install went when I was messing with the mounts.

Are the k-member pads side specific? I feel like mine were not, I could be wrong though.

Also, I had all the bolts loose when I was installing things.
Just to note I got my k-member a long time ago, 2014-15. So maybe they changed somethings?

I will say that I bet 50% of your problem is those poly mounts. Getting them in my 4th gen was a joke, I was using the scissor jack to force the engine over to the driver side. UGH.
The install with the UMI AL mounts was pretty darn easy.

Definitely try bringing the trans up to the right height.

 

I think they are side specific and can only go one way. I might give those solid mounts a try. They aren't that expensive and should be better than the 4th rubber.





I totally hijacked qwuiks thread. Hopefully this is helping him.

 

I ended up buying the UMI solid mounts. I'll post my results separately as to not be a total al Qaeda highjacker.

 

I have used the UMI road race k member in several swaps and like it a lot.


If you look at post 10 in this thread of my son's LS3 swap into his 87 formula you will see what i do. i like the motor to sit a little more forward so i do modify the UMI motor mount brackets to give me more forward adjustment
https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/ltx-...-ls3-swap.html

This is with the holley LS swap oil pan and polley mounts

Also i had sent this info on better adjust ability to UMI last year and i think they were going to consider adjusting their motor mounts but i haven't verified it myself as my current project is using their k member with a SBC

 

Indeed. I've referenced your thread many times, including earlier today, and I love that way you built that car. I have a few questions that I might reply to your thread with.

 

i have the UMI roadrace k-member and an LS3 w/ pan # 12628771. There is boat loads of clearance between the pan and the K-member.

Please excuse the filthy car that i haven't touched in 3 years.

 

That looks perfect. What engine side bushings are those? OEM 4th gen with stock bushing?

My UMI solid mounts haven't come in yet so no update.

 

Why does everybody end up with something different?

 

Asking myself the same thing. I think it's in the combination of various engine side mounts and bushings used.

 

OEM, brand new rubber mounts/bushings.

Motor mounts adapters are the UMI LS adapters.

Motor is adjusted as far forward as it will go, which was dictated by the hawks t56 trans-x-member.

FWIW, UMI originally sent me the wrong adapters and it took an insane amount of prying to get the k member installed to the motor out of the car. I mean insane. And when i looked at the motor mounts they were being torqued very hard. I sent them pics and told them about my problem, a few days later i had the correct plates and everything went together smooth as butter.

 

I too already went through this. I am certain I have the right brackets. I am pretty sure it has to do with the energy suspension bushings.

 

The new UMI brackets are in and engine placement is better but not ideal. I spent hours trying to balance fitment with bracket placement and I ended up with about 3/8" clearance between the pan and k-member. I think I'll risk it and move forward. I am out of options. I do think the mounting height of the magnum T56 is different than T56 with the body tail housing. This is the one variable that seems to affect my pan clearance the most. I need to create about a 1" spacer block between the trans mount and trans cross member. If I dont space it, the drivetrain rocks and then the pan is back to hitting the kmember.

New mounts are nice

There is clearance, but not much

Mounts pushed back as far as possible

With the trans pushed up (better shifter placement too) you can see the gap I need to fill between the mount and the BMR cross member.

 

Well the good news is, with solid mounts, the motor won't vibrate and hit anything, lol.

 

Indeed, which is why I can live with the small clearance. My only other option is to switch oil pan setups to the Holley but I'd have to buy new baffles and crank scrapers and that's quickly another $1000. My teeth might suffer with these mounts but not as much as my soul if I dont get this girl on the road.

 

I'm enjoying the pictures and extra info in this thread. Just the kind of stuff I wanted to know.

I'm guessing you're focusing on fore-aft clearance between sump and crossember. How much space is between the front of pan and top of crossmember?

The engine pivots at the mounts, not on engine centerline, so any movement will tend to lift the pan away from crossmember. I would guess worst case scenario is just like it sits now at rest.

 

Correct. I have plenty of room all around the rest of the pan.

if you need a picture from a different angle let me know.

 

My sump will easily clear fore-aft. It's the gap on top side of crossmember that I'm concerned about because the front of my pan is deeper to clear stroker cranks.

I have the Holley 302-1 pan. I'm getting the idea that it will clear just fine. Pan dimensions, along with other LS pans, is shown in Post #935,

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/ltx-...ml#post6193942

 

I can confirm that the trans mount surface on aT56 Magnum is machined 5/16" closer to the trans output shaft centerline than the 4th-gen F-Body T56 trans mount surface is.

 

My intuition was correct then. Seems more than 5/16". More like 5/8 to 3/4.

 

 

I really appreciate this. I was trying to search for drawings but came up empty. I'll start with a 5/16 spacer and go from there.

 

 

This is incredibly helpful. I'll start with a half in shim and go from there. I'm running the prothane. I wish the Holley cross member worked with the magnum tailhousing. It's so well made compared to this BMR unit.

 

Glad to help you out with the info. The Hooker Blackheart 3rd-gen transmission crossmember is compatible with a T56 Magnum transmission as long as the engine/transmission mating plane is located in the same fore/aft location as provided by the Hooker Blackheart 3rd-gen LS engine swap mounting brackets for the stock K-member. The positioning used for that system is the same configuration GM used when they switched to the LS engine in 4th-gen F-body cars (the engine/trans mating plane was moved forward 5/8" form the previous SB Chevy position). If the engine/trans mating plane is shifted rearward, then interference of components quickly follows as you've discovered. It also affects the installation of 4L60--4L70 and 4L80 (especially this one)transmissions in a negative manner.

 

I originally had the blackheart mount and did a mock fit prior to putting the drivetrain into the car and I couldn't see how the mount would work with the tremec tailhousing. The flange on the bottom of the tailhousing where the mount goes was too wide to fit in between the cross member. It wasn't a fire and aft issue rather side to side. There was no way for it to fit. I'd have to see a picture of it to believe it because they seemed completely incompatible.

 

You can see member skinnyz using that combination of components together in post #551 of the the "Third Gen Dual Exhaust Picture Collection" thread.

 

I see that now.. Maybe I underestimated how high it would sit with the trans mount. Maybe I'll rebuy it and try again.

 

Also just for reference, in the referenced thread below you can see what trans mount, etc that i used with the blackheart crossmember... the t-56 magnum that we used, we had a 4th gen tail on so of course is different than yours, but overall we did get the magnum to fit with this combination of parts... i do really like the holley cross member... easy to adapt for better torque arm than the stocker

 

So just to confirm that wasn't a standard tremec tailhousing? You swapped it for an fbody one?

 

when I started looking for the tranny for my son's swap, bruce told me that they had just started carrying brand new magnums with f body tailhousings so I decided to go with that... hawks sent it as a complete transmission ready to go... other than getting the drive shaft yoke squared away (it uses a special yoke with the internal spline machined for the right insertion clearance for the tail housing it was a snap to put in

https://www.hawksmotorsports.com/82-...-engines-only/

 

Yup, then I still stand by my original assessment of non compatability. It's not that big of a deal.