1963 6 quart oil pan and dip stick marks - NCRS Discussion Boards

1963 6 quart oil pan and dip stick marks

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Bruce D.
    Frequent User
    • August 31, 1980
    • 87

    1963 6 quart oil pan and dip stick marks

    I have an ongoing question about my 6 quart oil pan on a 340 horse motor with the correct 3 dimples on both sides and dip stick/dip stick tube. When changing oil and the filter does the six quart pan require 7 quarts? I think so... Also the dip stick a have as well as a new one bought from Long Island with the chrome handle and the felt pad at the top registers full at 6 quarts and one quart over at 7 quarts when both the oil and filter is changed. What am I missing? Could the dip stick or the dip stick tube be wrong or is my logic about 7 quarts wrong? thanks in advanced for any thoughts.
    Bruce
  • Edward J.
    Extremely Frequent Poster
    • September 15, 2008
    • 6940

    #2
    Re: 1963 6 quart oil pan and dip stick marks

    Bruce the total cap is 6 Qts. W/filter
    New England chapter member, 63 Convert. 327/340- Chapter/Regional/national Top Flight, 72 coupe- chapter and regional Top Flight.

    Comment

    • Owen L.
      Very Frequent User
      • September 30, 1991
      • 838

      #3
      Re: 1963 6 quart oil pan and dip stick marks

      I'm a little confused (which happens several times per day!).

      Are you putting 7 quarts into the engine and the stick shows the oil level at the full mark after running it and shutting down after a couple minutes? If so, I'm kinda surprised as I thought either 5 or 6 quarts total (depending on which engine option) into the 327s was pretty standard.

      Comment

      • Harry S.
        Extremely Frequent Poster
        • July 31, 2002
        • 5258

        #4
        Re: 1963 6 quart oil pan and dip stick marks

        Owen as Ed said, 5 in the pan and one in the filter. A total of 6 quarts. Either your tube or your dip stick is incorrect.


        Comment

        • Owen L.
          Very Frequent User
          • September 30, 1991
          • 838

          #5
          Re: 1963 6 quart oil pan and dip stick marks

          Harry, just to be clear, it's not my engine but Bruce's. I was just questioning what he saying was occurring.

          Comment

          • Harry S.
            Extremely Frequent Poster
            • July 31, 2002
            • 5258

            #6
            Re: 1963 6 quart oil pan and dip stick marks

            Originally posted by Owen Lowe (20119)
            Harry, just to be clear, it's not my engine but Bruce's. I was just questioning what he saying was occurring.
            Owen, agree.


            Comment

            • Joe L.
              Beyond Control Poster
              • February 1, 1988
              • 43193

              #7
              Re: 1963 6 quart oil pan and dip stick marks

              Originally posted by Bruce deLeon (3898)
              I have an ongoing question about my 6 quart oil pan on a 340 horse motor with the correct 3 dimples on both sides and dip stick/dip stick tube. When changing oil and the filter does the six quart pan require 7 quarts? I think so... Also the dip stick a have as well as a new one bought from Long Island with the chrome handle and the felt pad at the top registers full at 6 quarts and one quart over at 7 quarts when both the oil and filter is changed. What am I missing? Could the dip stick or the dip stick tube be wrong or is my logic about 7 quarts wrong? thanks in advanced for any thoughts.

              Bruce------


              The pans are usually described by system capacity. That's why I use quotation marks when describing the pans (i.e. "5 quart" or "6 quart"). As I've mentioned many times before, the actual pan capacity for either pan is FAR greater that 5 or 6 quarts if the pan is filled to the brim. As far as "full" oil capacity with the pan on the engine, that point is nowhere marked on either pan.

              1963-91 Corvette small blocks have a system capacity of either 5 or 6 quarts. The only ones with a 6 quart capacity are 1963-65 with mechanical lifters, possibly some 1965 L79, early 1970 LT-1, and all 1970-72 ZR-1. ALL others are 5 quart system capacity.

              By the way, 1992-96 small blocks have a system capacity of 4-1/2quarts. Why? Well, because when they changed to the much smaller PF-51/52 oil filter rather than the PF-25, the system capacity was reduced.

              How come there was no change in system capacity when the change was made in 1968 from the canister-style filter to the spin-on? I don't know. Apparently, though, GM considered the oil capacity of either filter to be the same. Or, at least, close enough that they did not change the rated system capacities.
              In Appreciation of John Hinckley

              Comment

              • Owen L.
                Very Frequent User
                • September 30, 1991
                • 838

                #8
                Re: 1963 6 quart oil pan and dip stick marks

                Originally posted by Joe Lucia (12484)
                By the way, 1992-96 small blocks have a system capacity of 4-1/2quarts. Why? Well, because when they changed to the much smaller PF-51/52 oil filter rather than the PF-25, the system capacity was reduced.
                Isn't the PF51/52 the longer filter and the PF25 the shorter? I used the PF52 in my '67 with the screw filter adapter because it looked a similar size to the older element-only original PF141 filter. As I recall, the PF35 was in between heights of the 25 and 52 and they all used the same thread and filter seal diameter.

                Comment

                • Joe L.
                  Beyond Control Poster
                  • February 1, 1988
                  • 43193

                  #9
                  Re: 1963 6 quart oil pan and dip stick marks

                  Originally posted by Owen Lowe (20119)
                  Isn't the PF51/52 the longer filter and the PF25 the shorter? I used the PF52 in my '67 with the screw filter adapter because it looked a similar size to the older element-only original PF141 filter. As I recall, the PF35 was in between heights of the 25 and 52 and they all used the same thread and filter seal diameter.
                  Owen------


                  The PF-51/52 is 1/2" longer than the PF-25. However, the PF-51/52 is almost 3/4" smaller in OD than the PF-25 resulting in a considerable difference in can volume.

                  The PF-51/52 uses a metric size thread unlike the PF-25. I know of no adapter to retrofit a PF-51/52 to a pre-1968 small block. One could theoretically be retrofitted to a 1968+ small block using the 91-96 oil filter adapter. However, I really don't know why anyone would want to do that. The PF 51/52 was used on 1992-96 LT1 and LT4 in order to provide clearance for the catalytic converters.
                  In Appreciation of John Hinckley

                  Comment

                  • Owen L.
                    Very Frequent User
                    • September 30, 1991
                    • 838

                    #10
                    Re: 1963 6 quart oil pan and dip stick marks

                    Joe, thanks for the reply. I guess my memory of the PF #s isn't accurate. Whatever # I used, it was a long filter very much like the length of the element-only original canister filter.

                    Comment

                    • Bruce D.
                      Frequent User
                      • August 31, 1980
                      • 87

                      #11
                      Re: 1963 6 quart oil pan and dip stick marks

                      guys thanks. my dip stick shows one qt over because I put 6 plus I for the filter. I thought the pan held 6 qts. my error
                      thanks for the clarification. I have been running the wrong way for years..
                      Bruce

                      Comment

                      Working...

                      Debug Information

                      Searching...Please wait.
                      An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

                      Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                      An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

                      Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                      An internal error has occurred and the module cannot be displayed.
                      There are no results that meet this criteria.
                      Search Result for "|||"