Clutch and oil pan for 5.0HO

[OX1]

Searched through a bunch of threads, but didn't find my answers.
If there are threads that beat these to death, shoot em my way.

With that said,


Will a late 80's 5.0 truck clutch work with the 164 tooth 50 oz flywheel?

From what I've read, stock 70 oil pan does not work well with 5.0 HO and/or
explorer front dress (timing cover??) True?, and if so and I wanted a stockish type,
rear sump only metal oil pan from something, what vehicle would that be?

 

[904Bronco]

I have used the steel Explorer pan on 3 Broncos... It fits well, you also get a better seal. You have to use the stock Explorer pick-up and oil dipstick.
Some have used the cast pan from the Explorer... Just that it may not take an impact well

I think a lot of people have also used the 87-93 Mustang pan.

 

[sykanr0ng]

Searched through a bunch of threads, but didn't find my answers.
If there are threads that beat these to death, shoot em my way.

With that said,


Will a late 80's 5.0 truck clutch work with the 164 tooth 50 oz flywheel?

From what I've read, stock 70 oil pan does not work well with 5.0 HO and/or
explorer front dress (timing cover??) True?, and if so and I wanted a stockish type,
rear sump only metal oil pan from something, what vehicle would that be?

Yes, that is the clutch and flywheel to use.

The Explorer 5.0L V8 oil pan is rear sump and several here have used it.
Probably better to use the steel one.

 

[68rockcrawler]

I have a stock '91 Mustang pan sitting on a shelf in my garage that I'll sell cheap!

 

[OX1]

I have used the steel Explorer pan on 3 Broncos... It fits well, you also get a better seal. You have to use the stock Explorer pick-up and oil dipstick.
Some have used the cast pan from the Explorer... Just that it may not take an impact well

I think a lot of people have also used the 87-93 Mustang pan.

Hmmm.. I have an exploder 5.0 I was going to use some parts of front dress possibly. Been a long while since I've taken a look at it, will have to check out the pan on it, thanks...........

Can't use double hump pan due to really tall trackbar riser (making trackbar really high too)

Yes, that is the clutch and flywheel to use.

The Explorer 5.0L V8 oil pan is rear sump and several here have used it.
Probably better to use the steel one.

Happen to know if 351W was the same clutch as 5.0 those years? Friend gave me 8 new aftermarket clutches a while back (most are stamped with Luk on disk and PP). Claimed they were for 460, 351m/400, and 351W. It's some off the wall name, that I can't even look up and figure it out by the clutch part numbers. Even the numbers stamped in disk or PP with the Luk logo don't come up.

I have a stock '91 Mustang pan sitting on a shelf in my garage that I'll sell cheap!

Thanks for the offer, have 3 of them, but can't use that type pan.

 

[sykanr0ng]

Happen to know if 351W was the same clutch as 5.0 those years? Friend gave me 8 new aftermarket clutches a while back (most are stamped with Luk on disk and PP). Claimed they were for 460, 351m/400, and 351W. It's some off the wall name, that I can't even look up and figure it out by the clutch part numbers. Even the numbers stamped in disk or PP with the Luk logo don't come up.

351W clutch should be the same.

But I am puzzled by the numbers not coming up in a search, LuK is a major manufacturer of clutches and their products should show up.
There is a possibility that those are counterfeit.

 

[OX1]

351W clutch should be the same.

But I am puzzled by the numbers not coming up in a search, LuK is a major manufacturer of clutches and their products should show up.
There is a possibility that those are counterfeit.

Don't think so, would seem odd to pick such an off the wall name for these clutches and practically "hide" the small Luk engraving on them. Would have thought they would have exploited it, if that was the intention.

More likely it was some chain store brand back then and just sourced through Luk. Probably not a top of the line clutch by any means, but most likely good enough for what I need. They are also upwards of 12 or more years old and the numbering system was probably changed anyway.

 

[Broncobowsher]

Don't know what the problem with a stock Bronco pan would be. Just need to put a plug in the dipstick hole in the block.

 

[69_Sport]

302 wont fit a 5.0

A stock '70 302 pan will not fit a 5.0 block.

A 302 does not equal a 5.0 in this case.

The pan rail is slightly different, requiring a 5.0-specific pan or a bit of fabrication work to make it fit.

Sounds like a pan from a 5.0 Explorer will fit.

 

[Broncobowsher]

Any pictures? I've never seen any show stopper differences. Maybe I've been missing stuff in the past. I just looked up replacement oil pans and everything was chassis specific for the years. So I went to a generic race pan not set to any chassis http://www.summitracing.com/parts/mil-31486/applications/make/ford?prefilter=1 and the applications state all years of 302/5.0 from '68 to '01. So I would like to know a little more about this different pan rail that prevents early pans from fitting late model engines as this is the first I have ever heard of it.

 

[roundhouse]

Hmmm.. I have an exploder 5.0 I was going to use some parts of front dress possibly. Been a long while since I've taken a look at it, will have to check out the pan on it, thanks...........



Can't use double hump pan due to really tall trackbar riser (making trackbar really high too)







Happen to know if 351W was the same clutch as 5.0 those years? Friend gave me 8 new aftermarket clutches a while back (most are stamped with Luk on disk and PP). Claimed they were for 460, 351m/400, and 351W. It's some off the wall name, that I can't even look up and figure it out by the clutch part numbers. Even the numbers stamped in disk or PP with the Luk logo don't come up.







Thanks for the offer, have 3 of them, but can't use that type pan.

Why would the mustang pan not work in your rig ?

 

[69_Sport]

Any pictures? I've never seen any show stopper differences. Maybe I've been missing stuff in the past. I just looked up replacement oil pans and everything was chassis specific for the years. So I went to a generic race pan not set to any chassis http://www.summitracing.com/parts/mil-31486/applications/make/ford?prefilter=1 and the applications state all years of 302/5.0 from '68 to '01. So I would like to know a little more about this different pan rail that prevents early pans from fitting late model engines as this is the first I have ever heard of it.

No pics.
It may be just the Canton pan I installed, but I had to reshape a portion of the 302 pan rail to fit my 5.0 crate engine's block. Never even considered a problem when I ordered the pan from Canton.

 

[OX1]

Why would the mustang pan not work in your rig ?

I assumed double hump pan was deeper up front, so I measured. They are within 1/4 of each other and stang pan might even be a bit better on drivers side. Those pans are annoying for draining, as it probably drains right on track bar, but I guess I'll use it.

Thanks!!!!!

 

[brianstrange]

A stock '70 302 pan will not fit a 5.0 block.

A 302 does not equal a 5.0 in this case.

The pan rail is slightly different, requiring a 5.0-specific pan or a bit of fabrication work to make it fit.

Sounds like a pan from a 5.0 Explorer will fit.

I have a 70 pan on a 5.0 block, and it works fine. You can't use the 5.0 dipstick with the Bronco pan, so just use the sock Bronco dipstick. You can fill the dipstick hole with a 3/8" well nut.

 

[ransil]

I have use both

stock oil pan make sure you use the gasket for that year
Currently using mustang pan on both my broncos using gasket for the year of the pan.

pickups from the where the pan came from.

had leakage when mismatched the gaskets.

front drain plug is a little messy, no big deal I make an equal mess removing the filter.

 

[RPM289]

I have a stock '91 Mustang pan sitting on a shelf in my garage that I'll sell cheap!

Is that a double hump pan? If so check out the 302 Ranger conversion on V8 Ranger forum they work good for it.

 

[Kbpony]

I am using a '60's pan on a 90 5.0 from a Mustang. Still have the Mustang pan and pickup if anyone wants it cheap. I am also using the 5.0 dipstick and tube. I had to do a little modification. I cut the tube at an angle where it protruded through the block into the pan area and dimpled the inside of the pan out where the dipstick slides past. It works fine, just a slight catch/drag where the dipstick passes by the edge of the pan. The only challenge I have is I am still searching for a suitable plug for the old tube hole in the pan. Ideas? I used a plastic plug with some rtv on it and recently blew it out.

 

[brianstrange]

I am still searching for a suitable plug for the old tube hole in the pan. Ideas? I used a plastic plug with some rtv on it and recently blew it out.

Try a "well nut" from a good hardware store. Use a screw with a large head and don't over tighten.