Moroso Oil Pan ?

I'm currently running a Moroso Pan, part # 20612 on my 598. I had mishap this past weekend (wheel-stand) and damaged the pan. I want to switch out to a more shallow unit, such a Moroso part # 20614,....BUT,..... I have some concerns about fitment.

Looking at Summit Racing's website,....it says the Maximum Stroke length is 4.25". Just wondering if this is correct? I know from times to time the specs that Summit list,.. are not accurate.

Anyone have any experience with this particular pan utilizing a 4.50" stroke crank ?

#20625 i.m.o.

Lem Evans wrote:#20625 i.m.o.

I'm not real crazy about the design of that pan. Where it's notched out to fit around the steering rack is something that I don't need,....nor do I care for. My rack is much farther forward (at the edge of the pan),....not to mention the two drain plug deal.

Copperhead wrote:

Lem Evans wrote:#20625 i.m.o.

...not to mention the two drain plug deal.

That's the one I bought, but I was thinking the same thing. When I was looking into a pan swap for a Fox, the first ones that came up were a truck pan that had a similar deal where it was deeper in the front, shallow over the frame, then deeper in the rear. What's there to agitate the oil up front other than the crank and everything slinging around ferociously inside, lol? Seriously though, would there be any harm in welding a -6 or -8 bung up front and at the rear sump and connecting the front to the rear once the engine was in the vehicle? At least that way you would only have to deal with pulling one drain plug.

Copperhead wrote:

Lem Evans wrote:#20625 i.m.o.

I'm not real crazy about the design of that pan.   Where it's notched out to fit around the steering rack is something that I don't need,....nor do I care for. My rack is much farther forward (at the edge of the pan),....not to mention the two drain plug deal.

Deeper sump with less floor area and the same amount of oil in the system gives better environment for the head of the pickup. Those fox style pans look like hell but, the better ones do a nice job.

6-1/2" front and 9" rear w/o the T in the sump would be a better deal.....same deal with a kick out, at least on the passenger side, would be much better yet.

Lem Evans wrote:

Copperhead wrote:

Lem Evans wrote:#20625 i.m.o.

I'm not real crazy about the design of that pan.   Where it's notched out to fit around the steering rack is something that I don't need,....nor do I care for. My rack is much farther forward (at the edge of the pan),....not to mention the two drain plug deal.

Deeper sump with less floor area and the same amount of oil in the system gives better environment for the head of the pickup. Those fox style pans look like hell but, the better ones do a nice job.

6-1/2" front and 9" rear w/o the T in the sump would be a better deal.....same deal with a kick out, at least on the passenger side, would be much better yet.  

What about my idea of using weld in bungs to allow the front sump to drain to the rear dump? Any pros or cons to that?

Copperhead wrote:I'm currently running a Moroso Pan, part # 20612 on my 598.  I had mishap this past weekend (wheel-stand) and damaged the pan.  I want to switch out to a more shallow unit, such a Moroso part # 20614,....BUT,..... I have some concerns about fitment.

Looking at Summit Racing's website,....it says the Maximum Stroke length is 4.25".  Just wondering if this is correct?  I know from times to time the specs that Summit list,.. are not accurate.

Anyone have any experience with this particular pan utilizing a 4.50" stroke crank ?

Yes I run the #20614 with a 4.5" in a 557" and GRP alum rods in my Mud truck no fitment isses with the pan. Had to tweak the pick up some to clear crank/rods.

FWIW Mark

Keith , I put a picture of what you need on your FB page.

Lem Evans wrote:Keith , I put a picture of what you need on your FB page.

Appreciate it Lem,........

Looks like a nice piece,....