Correct 58 oil pan

[Justin B.]

Re: Correct 58 oil pan

Well heres another question and possibly a diffrerent approach to answering all of our questions. When you look inside of the oil pan with the two large "gussets", it has a baffle on the lowest step and it looks as if GM put these gussets and the baffle there two keep oil from easily coming out of the bottom step where the oil pump would sit, like if the nose of the car was aiming down or on a high sweeping turn the oil would not drain out of the bottom step as easy. Wouldn't a totally flat middle step allow oil to move away from the pump easier? Maybe what GM was trying to accomplish then is what was later accomplished with a trap door? There had to be a reason for these gussets and I would definetely think it would be for performance reasons. FORGET ABOUT THE BOOKS....LOOK AT THE PAN AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT THE FUNCTION FROM AND ENGINEERING STANDPOINT.

[Roy B.]

Re: Correct 58 oil pan

I have to watch where this goes ,I love a good argument to see who wins

[Ian G.]

Re: Correct 58 oil pan

I just looked in Noland's book at pgs. 126, 222 and 223 as Loren notes and also on pg. 120 where theres a pic of the 57 pan bottom also (hard to see as its far back in a large picture), but I'm inclined to say those pics indicate a flat second step -- no gussets or oil channels or whatever.

Here's my reasoning:

All the pics are hard to make out, either obscured or washed out, but I'd think the gussets would cast some kind of shadow.

The Pic on 120 is straight on and I'd think I should see gussets in that pic, but I can't make any out.

The pic on 126 is hard to tell also, but if you look at the shadows and light reflection, to me it indicates flat angles, nothing rounded like the gussets.

Since the pic on 223 of a 1960 looks the same as 222 of a 1958, that further reinforces my perception that those are both flat, since we know a 1960 pan has a flat second step for sure.

So I guess I'm in the "flat second step" camp now. Too bad I'm not restoring a 57 chevy, cause I have a great pan for one :P

[Stewart A.]

Re: Correct 58 oil pan

What do you want for 300 bucks. The proper pan ?

[Stewart A.]

Re: Correct 58 oil pan

I'm baffled !!!! I have been slowly rebuilding a 1960 for 8 months now so I'm still new at Corvettes.
I can't believe that we are having trouble identifying an oil pan of three years 58 59 60.
This thread does not make sense.
I'm going to get a beer.

[Loren L.]

Re: Correct 58 oil pan

I posted prints for all C1 oil pans ,number sorry that don't concern me and I don't know your answer , that's the number on the print. I'm concerned about a parts design if you followed my postings . The reason I don't bother with numbers like most people do is that to many people go by numbers thinking when buying they will get the right part (NOT) always , that's why I'm into design or a better word to use (what it should look like) . Over and over I've seen people lose money going by the part number and never looking at what the part should look like. Numbers were changed many times over the years on the same part.
I posted the original print of what the oil pan LOOKS like you guys can argue over numbers, (that's why people have the wrong oil pans , water pumps, Carbs and on and on).

Roy, if you cannot understand that the question is whether you posted the CORRECT part # - FIVE YEARS OF PARTS BOOKS SAY THE # ENDS IN 640 - then you fail Logic 101.
And for about the fourth time, WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF THE PRINT THAT GARY CHESTNUT NOW REFUSES TO PRINT IN HIS ANSWER? He says it is the mystery retiree; we know you are not a GM retiree, so he doesn't think you're the source. You say it is your print - WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?
"Numbers were changed many times over the years on the same part." would be true if GM was changing the parts numbering SYSTEM; but here the issue is THAT YOUR (or that of the mystery retiree) NUMBER DOESN'T SEEM TO EXIST anywhere except on your print. WHY?

[Ian G.]

Re: Correct 58 oil pan

I'm not complaining about spending $300 for the wrong pan. I just want to know what the right pan is and I'll pay for it smart guy

Also, in case you haven't noticed, prices on ebay have gone through the floor. try selling a Wonderbar for more than $300 bucks anymore.

[Roy B.]

Re: Correct 58 oil pan


I may have posted the wrong print # give me a while and I'll look for it. When I post a pic. I don't care about numbers as I stated ,I look at the design (part) to determine if it's original and as I also stated you guys argue the numbers. If you have trouble with that so be it!! Here is that rare 1960 High lift cam, late 60 GM drawing , looking outside of the pan I look for the design and spot welds locations, is the number right you decide.
You cant go by any number (it's NOT on the PAN
If your a judge do you look for numbers NO

[Ian G.]

Re: Correct 58 oil pan

Hey Roy,

I'm not really concerned with the number; it just ends up revolving around the numbers. Do you have a schematic, or picture of what the original 1959 pan should look like as well? I'd greatly appreciate it.

[Jack H.]

Re: Correct 58 oil pan

What doesn't make sense?

The oil pan was selected by the engine assy plant to accomodate that engine's specific needs (suffix code specific) based on design standards. It shipped as an integral part of the complete engine assy to St. Louis for final assy of the Corvette. The AIM does NOT disclose the PN of the oil pan...

Those who reference GM/Chevy service literature are only quoting what SERVICE kept in inventory to effect repair(s) for these vehicles. Service was notorious for minimizing the number of active parts they held in inventory. If this/that part fit and worked despite minor difference(s) from the factory original, so be it...

There were different oil pans used on the same basic engine block to achieve different results (raw oil capacity and construction 'features'). Some cars used this pan, while other cars used that pan.

Then, you have trucks. Did the truck have a tilt bed? If so, design features like internal baffle and/or 'trap door' construction to thwart potential oil flow out of the sump area may be warranted...

Bottom line, it takes access to the Flint and/or Tonawanda Engine Assy plant's records to determine what engine (suffix code) used what pan (P/N) at what time. I've not seen this basic research laid out.

We typically rely on 'observations' of known original cars to determine what's 'correct'. But, that approach is subject to small sample error.

On the other hand, there were exceptions to published drawing call outs from time to time. So, you can't trust that approach to documentation as being 100% correct/true either.

[Roy B.]

Re: Correct 58 oil pan

OK I may have used the last pic. by mistake #640 which is a 57 passenger pan . By the way I'm planing on deleteing many pic's I have in my file so any one wonted to copy better copy I dont know if there kept by NCRS here. Does this help with the arguing?
The GM prints say this pan #642 was a base pan used on 57-58-59-and 60 !
You deside about numbers leave me out
Notice on the #640 the second step the line curves UP for the detent area CAR

[Ian G.]

Re: Correct 58 oil pan

Roy I think you solved it. You can see the schematic of the gusset/oil channel right there on the '640 blueprint, and the info says 1957 only, which is consistent with what Gary and Tim mickey said that it is a 57 passenger pan from their observations.... very cool.

[Roy B.]

Re: Correct 58 oil pan

Roy I think you solved it. You can see the schematic of the gusset/oil channel right there on the '640 blueprint, and the info says 1957 only, which is consistent with what Gary and Tim mickey said that it is a 57 passenger pan from their observations.... very cool.

I hope your right I try my best to help out. Just don't ask me about numbers He He

[Loren L.]

Re: Correct 58 oil pan

2 additional photos of a correct '57-8 oil pan. Gary....

But why do the parts books list them as two different numbers if they are the same?????

[Loren L.]

Re: Correct 58 oil pan

I'm not complaining about spending $300 for the wrong pan. I just want to know what the right pan is and I'll pay for it smart guy

Also, in case you haven't noticed, prices on ebay have gone through the floor. try selling a Wonderbar for more than $300 bucks anymore.

Having avoided answering any of your posts in a so far ineffective try to solve the basic 640 vs 642 question, can I assume that I am NOT the "smart guy" you are referring to......or in the alternative point me to what it was that I wrote????

Also, for those of us who have recently decided NOT to read the stock market reports, I think "through the floor" connotes a lessening of $$$, not an increase.