I am always amazed at why people blame a header manufacture for the fit of their headers, instead of figuring out what is different with their set-up. Note, I said "What was different", with their set up. If you want to blame someone, blame Chevrolet for making so many different set ups ! For the 67-69 Camaro, there are 6 different factory engine mount stands (mounts) and engine mount set-ups ! That is factory, now people install different engines on these mounts to make their own set-ups, and expect everything to work ! (Example: Big Block engines on small block stands). Chevrolet designed these cars over 40 years ago. They no lnoger supply parts ! Now we have to deal with reproduction parts, parts that are made over seas, manufactures putting the wrong parts in boxes, etc. Yes, it is tough to find the right combination of parts to get everything to work right. 95 % of the time a simple change, is all that is needed. Frame mounts, Engine mounts, crossmembers, transmission mounts, all have to be correct, or I should say - The way the Header manufactures pattern vehicle was ! Don't blame the Header manufactures ! Some people just think it is easier to dent their headers and blame the header manufacturer for their own problems !

I definately agree with you Tom. I've read posts where people are having fitman issues with specific headers and you always find someone who has the same set and they fit perfect. It definately pays to do your homework and know what kind of set up you have ie engines mount stands, before you invest $500 bucks on a set.

The BB in my '69 utilizes BB frame mounts(repro for '69 BB from Classic Ind.) and Moroso solid engine mounts for BB, the engine has raised exhaust ports so a "standard application" header still would not work for me...........so Lemons Headers was my course of action. Custom built to fit my stock front subframe and built to fit between the frame rails unlike other headers that sometime have 1 or 2 tubes that have to exit outside the frame rail.

David F.

True but when you use the factory mounts for the factory engine the headers should fit:yes: !!!!
Maurice

What I would like to see is available components, from say Classic, with part numbers, that would provide for the best fit. Maybe people who have bought the different stands and mounts could post part #'s they used along with the year of the car, SB, BB, etc so people don't have to go thru the grief of finding the right combination.

Just a thought.

This is a great post and should coincide with MJMs' other post about headers very well. As far as mounts are concerned, I've built multiple Camaros (mostly '67 & '68) and Novas 68-72 and with each of these I've used different mounts from stock/factory, poly urethane, and solid and seem to have a fitment issue no matter which mounts I use when using Hooker 2131 headers.
So again, it would be nice if everyone would post which header they are using along with which mount and maybe we will find the best pieces to use together. It sure gets frustrating to have to take a hammer to a $700 set of headers. Who knows, there might be a perfect combination out there...hopefully we will find it.

There are exceptions, though. Find someone who thinks the Hooker 2131 supercomp fits their car well - regardless of engine mounts.

Some headers are just plain a horrible fit and others fit very well, and it's pretty much a consensus on which is which.

Tom - there is a HUGE diff between the Hooker Comps and the Hooker Super comps. The comps are unequal length and only come in 1 5/8. The Super Comp are suppsosedly equal length and come in 1 3/4 and 1 7/8. I think the main gripe is with the super comp 1 3/4 (2131). It is a poor design.

I asked Hooker why their 1 7/8 (2207) headers fit but the smaller 1 3/4 (2131) headers didn't. Here is their answer "The reason the primary tubes are not the same from a 1 3/4" to a 1 7/8" is because you have the sub flange on the larger which requires some of the tubes to be moved around." When he says "tubes are not the same" he means their location. I was asking him why the large header fit and the small headers don't.

BPOS, I think you have a good point about some of the 2131's fitting better than others...I have noticed that sometimes I only need a small dent where the last set I had to crush one tube almost flat.

And not to mention the driver's side header hangs WAY low and they decided to put the reducer bolt on that header at the bottom. sheesh.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v61/gort69/DSCN0225.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v61/gort69/DSCN3395.jpg

It sure gets frustrating to have to take a hammer to a $700 set of headers. Who knows, there might be a perfect combination out there...hopefully we will find it.

I've been there and have the dented tube on my Heddman headers to prove it!

I did not know so many different variations existed its like a mine field out there!

I requested a data base, so we could show what works and what doesn't. Evidently the moderators, did not feel it was something we needed. http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=137123&highlight=data+base

MJM, I am not sure that you do have the correct mounts in your car. IF your car is a 69 the words "short and wide", should not be in your vocabulary UNLESS you are using the 327/307 frame and engine mounts !

Tom, would you please elaborate on the difference between 307/327/350 mounts? I always assumed they were the same.
Thanks~

69 Camaro BBC with Lemon 2-1/4 primary tube to 4" collector
Small block frame mounts. Moroso solid mounts 62530
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y190/69DodgeRT/Car023-1.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y190/69DodgeRT/Car022-1.jpg

69 Camaro BBC with Lemon 2-1/4 primary tube to 4" collector
Small block frame mounts. Moroso solid mounts 62530
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y190/69DodgeRT/Car023-1.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y190/69DodgeRT/Car022-1.jpg

.........same as R/T with the exception of BB frame mounts.................
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff229/1969ProStreetCamaro/648HP468.jpg

David F.

Tom (melrose RS), There are many who believe that there are just big block or small block mounts - even the manufactures of frame and engine mounts. If a manufacture speaks of small block mounts it seems that they are speaking of the 307/327 frame mounts and engine mounts. During the 67 and 68 model years GM had a breakage of engine mounts, causing the recall fix and the new designed mounts in 1969. HOWEVER they only redesigned the higher horsepower mounts of the 302/350 and the 396 Big Block.

Why the change in the 307/327 and the 302/350's. The 302's and the 350 engines had a larger harmonic balancer that would hit the front sway bars. They changed the frame mounts, so that the engine would sit up and back more. This is why a large cap distributor fits easier on the 327 cars, BUT you can't use an 8" balancer ! This is also why you must shim down your front sway bar if you use, a larger than stock bar !

A recent problem that has been showing up, is the thickness of the transmission mount. I have heard that there is at least 3 different thicknesses out there ! This will raise or lower the nose of the engine, which can result in front of the engine clearance issues.

Another common problem is people not using a big block crossmember when they convert to a big block. This causes the engine to be twisted in the subframe, and numerous counts of headers not fitting.

The biggest problem, is of people, thinking that they have done everything right, and actually it isn't. (No offense to anyone) :)

-Tom

I like to think it is the monuts but I have a set of Hedman Hussler headers on my 67 because no one else recommends a different one for a factory AC car. As it is, it is very tight in there and not much room to work. I had to ding it to get the Flaming River Steering U joints fitted and now have to be very careful about removing the spark plugs and several of them sit right against the header. I don't think any of these problems are due to motor mount issue. It just no one is designing good headers for a specific application. If I did not have a factory AC I would have all the space in the engine bay to work with and many different header choices.

Please see post further on in thread.

With my Moroso solid mounts I had to dimple the #1 tube down by the box ,so I changed mounts to Early Energy sus. polys and what a purfect fit ,should of installed the mounts at header install ,ha didn't think it would move motor around that much ,but diff mounts do Happy Motoring

I agree with the initial post. Research is the most important thing.

However, when you call most companies tech departments, you get this answer. "they were made for a small block, or a big block." then we ask, well, in your r&d and prototype development phase, what mounts and frame stands were used on your trial fitting car? "there are different mounts and frame stands for these cars???? I didn't know that!!!"

Tom You are right I have the 307 frame mounts with the correct (2 5/8 wide) short (thinner) motor mount. The 69 302/350 hi pro is the taller (2 3/8 wide) thicker motor mount. I have no clearance problem with the 8" balancer. The question is with the right combination of frame and motor mounts does the height of the motor in the car change in relation to the crossmember? You also stated that the 69 combination moved the motor back, any idea how far?
Maurice

Although much of this info is from my personal experiences, a lot has come from David Pozzi's great web site. http://www.pozziracing.com/first_gen_suspension.htm His web site is a wealth of info. on first gen suspensions along with frame and engine mounts !

Maurice, please do not call your frame stands "tall". The terms "short and wide" are reserved for the 307/327 style engine mount and the "tall and narrow" are for the '69 302/350 's and the '69 Big Block. I understand your Logic, but I don't want other's to get confused.

The combined heights of the frame and engine mounts between the 307/327 and the 302/350 is only about an 1/8".

I have never had a set of the 307/327 frame mounts and a set of the 302/350 frame mounts, to compare these two. Logic says the bolts to the frame are different as the engine mounts, share the same center.

If you had both cars, sitting side by side, you can see the difference on room at the firewall, but probably not at the mounts.

From the link Tom supplied !
CAMARO ENGINE MOUNTS

UPDATED 10/15/08 corrected a wrong height measurement for 69 302 motor mount.
There is a lot of confusion on what frame and engine mounts GM used in the Camaro.


There were three thicknesses of engine mounts, the left mount according to the article below was used on all 307 and 327 low perf engines 67-69. I believe this is an error, this mount is more narrow and MAY be for a 67, 68 396. My 67 327/275 has the middle ones, and I've had my Camaro since it was new in Oct 1966.
The center mount is for 67-68 high perf 302, 350, 396 engines.
The right hand 2 1/8" tall mount is for 69 302, 350, and 396 engines only.
The early Camaro engine mounts were not interlocking type, at least on the low perf engines. They just had a block of rubber glued between two plates of metal and would tear allowing the engine to lift up. The fan would hit the shroud and the engine could even hit the hood. There was a danger of the engine pulling on the throttle linkage and having an "unintended acceleration" event. I suspect the 67 and 68 high performance engines used an interlocking type of mount that would interchange with the low perf mounts. It interlocks on the bottom edge only and is not as durable as the 69 mount.

In 1969 the factory installed interlocking mounts on the high perf engines only. These mounts are thicker and required a shorter frame mount to keep the engine where in the correct position.
************************************************** *****

It would appear that if you use the correct engine mount with the proper frame corresponding mount the engine position won't change in relation to the frame which would not cause a header fit problem. Does everyone agree?:)

No !

I fail to see, what it is, you think you have found Maurice.

The above does not discredit anything I have said. I just gave credit to David's site for the info that was given ! What you have copied from David's site, is only talking about engine (motor) mounts. I said in an earlier post, that the combined height only varies about an 1/8 of an inch ! Yes, the 69 engine mounts are thicker... That is why they call them "Tall" ! What are you trying to say ? They could have moved the mount by 6" and still say they increased the thickness to keep it the same height !
Are you out to just prove me wrong ? I am here to help. If you want to place blame on the header manufactures, go right ahead. You are the one that didn't know, what mounts he had. They don't pay me to support them, so I could care less.

TOM.... BUDDY... I was agreeing with you pull your horns back in!!! I am only trying to find a solution to the header problems that everyone seems to have. :mad:

Yeah i just purchased a set of Hooker Super Comps for my 69 BBC... I talk to there tech which they have some feed back on, and they said if you have the right frame mounts and motor mounts with exhaust ports in the stock location they should fit like a glove even with power steering. I will see if this is true in about 2-3 weeks..

Maurice,
I apologize for feeling offended, when I should not have. It sure seemed like someone had to prove me wrong. I am not the type of person that thinks he is right, and he has to be right. On this particular subject, I have "studied" the problem quite extensively, so I do need solid proof, if something is different, from what I have relayed to you.
-Tom

You are going to find that from manufacturer to manufacturer that the motor mounts are going to be different even for the same application. The original mounts are not available and the replacement mounts are usually a superseded mount where multiple mounts that are somewhat similiar are made into a single mount. Add to this, many are made to a looser tolerance in china. Not to mention that the replacement frame stands are made in china and there tolerances are probably suspect to. Moving on to Hooker Headers, the majority if not all those headers are made from the original patterns (30+ yrs ago). They were fitted to the cars when they were actually still stock with the original mounts. I do not usually find that there more modern stuff is any worse than their earlier parts, but it is worth mentioning that they are made in Mexico now so I could see their tolerance range being somewhat looser. Hooker is now owned by Holley and nobody that designed those headers from the original company is still there, so expecting their current staff to know anything other than if it is stock it will work is really asking too much. I find that the majority of parts that I use when restoring thes cars must be tweaked or modified in some way to fit and work. Almost nothing anymore is a bolt-on. For those of you that don't understand this do some research on tolerance stack up in the manufacturing world. A thorough understanding of this topic will enlighten you and hopefully end some frustation. And by the way, I like Hooker headers and use them on everything I build. They usually fit as well as I would expect with only minor tweaking, although it is not uncommon for me to go through a selection of different mounts to find what fits best. Also do not always expect what is supposedly right to work the best. My race car has a big block with Moroso solid mounts on stock s/b frame stands with a Hooker 2 1/8 tube with the stock steering box and it clears fine.

OK, so lets lets do what was suggested and start a thread that people can supply what they have, the type of mounts, the PART# and make of the headers they have tried or are useing so that we can have a data base for people to check. NO bashing just facts as best they know.:hurray:

Tom the reason I copied David information was for people who read that post in the future know what we were talking about. The point I was trying to make is that if you use a frame stand off, any stand off that was used in that model, with the correct mount for that stand off, and the header manufacture says his headers will fit say 67 t0 69 Camaro 265 t0 400 with power steering those headers should fit that application. If everything is correct in the car and if they don't fit and they won't / can't correct the problem it would be nice for people to know so they don't experiance the same frustration and loss of hard earned dollars. :beers:
Maurice

I'll just say that Hooker has managed to design a header that doesn't really fit any of the mount combos very well at all. Whether it's PS box clearance, pitman arm clearance, or ground clearance the 2131 Supercomp DRIVER"S side header is not a good fit. The pass side is amazingly nice, so long as you're willing to re-route your factory fuel line. (1969)

You are going to find that from manufacturer to manufacturer that the motor mounts are going to be different even for the same application. The original mounts are not available and the replacement mounts are usually a superseded mount where multiple mounts that are somewhat similiar are made into a single mount. Add to this, many are made to a looser tolerance in china. Not to mention that the replacement frame stands are made in china and there tolerances are probably suspect to. Moving on to Hooker Headers, the majority if not all those headers are made from the original patterns (30+ yrs ago). They were fitted to the cars when they were actually still stock with the original mounts. I do not usually find that there more modern stuff is any worse than their earlier parts, but it is worth mentioning that they are made in Mexico now so I could see their tolerance range being somewhat looser. Hooker is now owned by Holley and nobody that designed those headers from the original company is still there, so expecting their current staff to know anything other than if it is stock it will work is really asking too much. I find that the majority of parts that I use when restoring thes cars must be tweaked or modified in some way to fit and work. Almost nothing anymore is a bolt-on. For those of you that don't understand this do some research on tolerance stack up in the manufacturing world. A thorough understanding of this topic will enlighten you and hopefully end some frustation. And by the way, I like Hooker headers and use them on everything I build. They usually fit as well as I would expect with only minor tweaking, although it is not uncommon for me to go through a selection of different mounts to find what fits best. Also do not always expect what is supposedly right to work the best. My race car has a big block with Moroso solid mounts on stock s/b frame stands with a Hooker 2 1/8 tube with the stock steering box and it clears fine.WOW I think you just answered every and any question ill ever have... Dam what am i going to do now, just tweak all these after market parts to fit at its best :thumbsup:.

The thing that got my attention was that Al, was very vocal at bashing Hooker headers and Mike was very supportive of Hooker Headers. I agree with both of you ! My Hooker headers fit just fine, and the fit and quality of the headers is much better than some of the others. However, my DS header does hang lower than the PS and the collector bolt is on the bottom, magnifying the problem. I am in the process of Dimensioning the frame mounts, and I will post my findings at a later date.

I can say that I had a lot of trouble with Hooker Header fitment on my BBC:
http://i328.photobucket.com/albums/l346/Marroweter/Engine/Engine%20Install/EngineInstall032.jpg
http://i328.photobucket.com/albums/l346/Marroweter/Engine/Engine%20Install/EngineInstall066.jpg

This is with the proper mounts, slimmer steering box and header recommendation from Hooker. YMMV.

I can say that I had a lot of trouble with Hooker Header fitment on my BBC:
http://i328.photobucket.com/albums/l346/Marroweter/Engine/Engine%20Install/EngineInstall032.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r216/skeeter55/11pics056.jpg
http://i328.photobucket.com/albums/l346/Marroweter/Engine/Engine%20Install/EngineInstall066.jpg

This is with the proper mounts, slimmer steering box and header recommendation from Hooker. YMMV.Hey Ed... Are they supper comp or comps.. I'm a little nervous with my BBC and stock power steering that i will end up doing the same. I just got these they are Hooker supper comps part #520-2205-1

Ed, you STILL have not told us what you were or are using for a transmission x-member, when you had to dent up your headers.(from previous postings) I still do not believe your engine is offset correctly ! Help us find the problem ! That is what this thread is all about ! Find the problem, don't just blame the product.

For those that don't know... If you use a small block transmission crossmember or anything other then a big block transmission crossmember when using big block mounts, your engine is twisted on the engine mounts and your headers will interfere with the steering box. The tail of the transmission must be offset, just like the engine is. Your driveshaft will not be on center, but this is OK. If you wanted to squeeze every bit of HP from your engine you would want everything on center, and then I would reccommend lemon's headers

For those that don't know... If you use a small block transmission crossmember or anything other then a big block transmission crossmember when using big block mounts, your engine is twisted on the engine mounts and your headers will interfere with the steering box. The tail of the transmission must be offset, just like the engine is. Your driveshaft will not be on center, but this is OK. If you wanted to squeeze every bit of HP from your engine you would want everything on center, and then I would reccommend lemon's headersThats a very good point, but how can you tell the diff between small and BB cross member.

Thats a very good point, but how can you tell the diff between small and BB cross member.

I'm sure this will help. Excellent information on Dave's site!

http://www.pozziracing.com/camaro_engine.htm

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii152/tjs69_photos/1st%20gen%20crossmembers/Crossmembers-BB4-speedBBTH-400NovaC.jpg

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii152/tjs69_photos/1st%20gen%20crossmembers/BBC1PontXa.jpg
NOT OFFSET !

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii152/tjs69_photos/1st%20gen%20crossmembers/P0009639sm.jpg
Small block Chevy NOT OFFSET !

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii152/tjs69_photos/1st%20gen%20crossmembers/crossmember4.jpg
Close-up of an offset Big Block

I went to the shop tonight and snapped some good shots of the mounts.
Sure would like to post them.......any help on posting pics?
Ken

How to Post Pictures on Team Camaro : http://www.67rs-ss.com/pictures/pictures.html By Click ... AKA Jim

or you can send them to me, and I will post them for you.

Here are some pics of the motor mounts I used. They are the "dimpled" 302 stands with a big block mount. I still have to go back and make sure of the crossmember. A small vid is attached as well, of how the Super Comps sound open headers.
http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq249/KMG_69/refpics2009001.jpg

http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq249/KMG_69/refpics2009005.jpg
http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq249/KMG_69/refpics2009006.jpg
http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq249/KMG_69/refpics2009007.jpg
http://s452.photobucket.com/albums/qq249/KMG_69/?action=view&current=SBCInstall005.flv

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii152/tjs69_photos/1st%20gen%20crossmembers/Crossmembers-BB4-speedBBTH-400NovaC.jpg

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii152/tjs69_photos/1st%20gen%20crossmembers/BBC1PontXa.jpg
NOT OFFSET !

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii152/tjs69_photos/1st%20gen%20crossmembers/P0009639sm.jpg
Small block Chevy NOT OFFSET !

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii152/tjs69_photos/1st%20gen%20crossmembers/crossmember4.jpg
Close-up of an offset Big BlockThanks Tom... This should be in a sticky if not already :thumbsup:.

Ken,
By "302 stands" you must mean the 302/350 frame mounts. As for your "Big Block mounts", I assume you are talking about engine mounts, and there is not such a thing. Big Block and Small Blocks (the 302/350 and the 396) use the same engine mounts.

The thing that got my attention was that Al, was very vocal at bashing Hooker headers and Mike was very supportive of Hooker Headers. I agree with both of you ! My Hooker headers fit just fine, and the fit and quality of the headers is much better than some of the others. However, my DS header does hang lower than the PS and the collector bolt is on the bottom, magnifying the problem. I am in the process of Dimensioning the frame mounts, and I will post my findings at a later date.

Tom - are you running the Hooker COMP or the SUPERCOMP? Just curious, 'cause there's a huge diff. The supercomps are equal length and they had to snake the extra tubing around, hence the problem(s). I've heard more favorable reports on the COMPS, but still some grd clearance issues. And yes, you're correct - I DID bash the Supercomps - in order to get them to fit!! The pavement bashed them the rest of the way. They are now safely tucked away in a box in my attic, and could be had for a deal. ;)

Just trying to pass along some info here, that's all. Haven't heard of a single soul who's thrilled with 'em. (2131)

Hey Ed... Are they supper comp or comps.. I'm a little nervous with my BBC and stock power steering that i will end up doing the same. I just got these they are Hooker supper comps part #520-2205-1
Skip from his pictures of the headers they look like comp headers. Super comp headers (on bb). Wrap #5 tube over #7 tube
I had both bb and sb frame mounts in my 69 with a bb. Of course the headers fit better around the steering box with the bb frame mounts.

Al, I am running the competition headers and they fit fine. I have heard some guys, say that the super comp's fit better ! I think it depends on which frame mount you are using.

On Hooker Headers: My consensus is -

On Big Blocks with Big Block frame mounts super comps fit better ?
on Big Blocks with small block mounts - only Lemon's headers seem to work.
On 302/350 frame mounts competition fit better ?
On 307/327 frame mounts super comps fit better ?

I would like everyone's feedback on the above. Agreeing or Disagreeing ! Thanks ! -Tom

Hey Ed... Are they supper comp or comps.. I'm a little nervous with my BBC and stock power steering that i will end up doing the same. I just got these they are Hooker supper comps part #520-2205-1

They are the comps (p/n #2457hkr, they also recommended #2205hkr which I believe are the super comps.). Maybe the supers would have fit better.

Ed, you STILL have not told us what you were or are using for a transmission x-member, when you had to dent up your headers.(from previous postings) I still do not believe your engine is offset correctly ! Help us find the problem ! That is what this thread is all about ! Find the problem, don't just blame the product.

Actually I did in the other thread. It is the G-Force cross-member:
http://www.transmissioncenter.org/HPIM189-3.jpg

It has an inch offset built in:
http://i328.photobucket.com/albums/l346/Marroweter/Transmission/Transmission008.jpg

Believe me it is not the cross-member. Its not like I had to force the cross-member to fit and it made the headers hard to fit. Most of the pics are taken with just the transmission supported but the engine on the frame mounts, so it is fitting where the mounts have the engine. (I couldn't bolt up the old mount due to no offset and didn't have the G-Force yet).

I have measured the frame mounts (Classic Industries Big Block mounts P/N #K701 listed as Big Block frame mounts) they have 3/4" more height on the drivers side than the passengers. Along with the Energy Suspension engine mounts (P/N #3-1134G)
http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?autofilter=1&part=ENS-3-1134G&N=700+0&autoview=sku

Also considering I had to grind down the header mounting flange (to clear cylinder head bolts) and also elongate a couple bolt holes on the mounting flange (to even get them to mount to my cylinder heads). I think I am safe to say the fitment is terrible. Who knows maybe with the new trans (changing to a 4L65E) and G-Force cross member bolted in it will improve things a bit. Hopefully should have pics of that late this week.

Ed, I am not trying to pick on you... But you beat on your headers, before you even put in the crossmember !? Why ? Your transmission mount, will put a tilt to your engine, up or down as well as making your engine crooked or straight ! From your picture, the engine did not look straight. It sounds like you have made a lot of modifications to your headers. Let's see how she looks when it is done !

Ed, I am not trying to pick on you... But you beat on your headers, before you even put in the crossmember !? Why ? Your transmission mount, will put a tilt to your engine, up or down as well as making your engine crooked or straight ! From your picture, the engine did not look straight. It sounds like you have made a lot of modifications to your headers. Let's see how she looks when it is done !

I don't take personal, just trying to share my experience. I also appreciate the troubleshooting help.

Transmission mount will control tail-shaft height, but it is not meant to push the engine and transmission laterally any direction but just to hold it place (if you have to really push it in place something is probably wrong).

I had the transmission supported with a jack (had the old member bolted on, but w/o modifying the frame mount hole it won't bolt up to the sub-frame due to no 1" offset on the trans cross-member). But I couldn't even get the engine on the mounts due to the headers being in the way no matter what height I held the trans to (all the way against the tunnel to nearly unsupported).

Believe me I didn't jump into beating on the headers that much w/o seeing if there was any way I could get it to fit first. I also was doing all this work at a local Junior College auto shop and there were several Auto Shop teachers that looked at it as well (and a couple have built 1st gens before they are all hot-rodders), and the consensus was beat em if I wanted them to fit.

Ed, Do you know what this picture is of ? The one tube looks like a modified version to fit your set-up ?

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii152/tjs69_photos/Headers/11pics056.jpg

I know what you mean about forcing it and it is not supposed to...

Would you have been able to bolt in your old crossmember, and have your transmission just setting on it ? You could have just guessed at about where the offset was.

Ed, Do you know what this picture is of ? The one tube looks like a modified version to fit your set-up ?

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii152/tjs69_photos/Headers/11pics056.jpg

I know what you mean about forcing it and it is not supposed to...

Would you have been able to bolt in your old crossmember, and have your transmission just setting on it ? You could have just guessed at about where the offset was.

Yeah that header looks like it would fit a lot better.

I had a 700R4 bolted up (I was originally hoping to use that trans for awhile, but ended up being a 27spline so no way it was going to take the new motor's torque) and was using the old crossmember that worked when I had the 307 in the car with the 700R4.

I think the height was pretty spot on, and there wasn't much lateral freeplay of the trans tail shaft once I got the engine on its mounts, so I just used the crossmember to keep the trans height close.

Al, I am running the competition headers and they fit fine. I have heard some guys, say that the super comp's fit better ! I think it depends on which frame mount you are using.

On Hooker Headers: My consensus is -

On Big Blocks with Big Block frame mounts super comps fit better ?
on Big Blocks with small block mounts - only Lemon's headers seem to work.
On 302/350 frame mounts competition fit better ?
On 307/327 frame mounts super comps fit better ?

I would like everyone's feedback on the above. Agreeing or Disagreeing ! Thanks ! -Tom

Taking into consideration that my BB with raised exhaust ports was installed on 302/350 frame mounts, I would have to agree with the statement in bold about the 302/350 frame mounts. I encountered 2 small yet annoying "issues" when using the raised exhaust port heads........

1. Header tube on #5 cylinder required the use of a "shorty" spark plug and even then changing that plug was a nightmare.
2. The header was transferring heat the the power steering because it was in contact with it. The fitment would have been much worse but I had the correct BB(Turbo 400) trans crossmember which helped some.

I have since installed the correct BB frame mounts, but have also switched to Lemons headers as the Hooker headers had seen better days from ground clearance issues. If someone needs my info for a database, I can supply it if needed.

David F.

Taking into consideration that my BB with raised exhaust ports was installed on 302/350 frame mounts, I would have to agree with the statement in bold about the 302/350 frame mounts. I encountered 2 small yet annoying "issues" when using the raised exhaust port heads........

1. Header tube on #5 cylinder required the use of a "shorty" spark plug and even then changing that plug was a nightmare.
2. The header was transferring heat the the power steering because it was in contact with it. The fitment would have been much worse but I had the correct BB(Turbo 400) trans crossmember which helped some.

I have since installed the correct BB frame mounts, but have also switched to Lemons headers as the Hooker headers had seen better days from ground clearance issues. If someone needs my info for a database, I can supply it if needed.

David F.Hey David: Was that a supper comp or comp header that you had the issues with.. I haven't got the motor back yet so im just getting all the trial errors down.. Today i finished the motor compartment and the under carriage with new BB mounts, gas line, brake lines and POR-15 IS THE $HIT IT DOESN'T COME OFF YOUR HANDS...:thumbsup: Thank Skip

Hey David: Was that a supper comp or comp header that you had the issues with.. I haven't got the motor back yet so im just getting all the trial errors down.. Today i finished the motor compartment and the under carriage with new BB mounts, gas line, brake lines and POR-15 IS THE IT DOESN'T COME OFF YOUR HANDS...:thumbsup: Thank Skip

Skip, It was the Comp's.

David F.

Skip, It was the Comp's.

David F.Thanks David, that makes feel a little better :yes:.

Hi Guys Back again
From my experiance on my 1969 with the 307 / 327 mounts if you use the Hooker 2131 super comp 1.75 " tube headers you will probably have problems with the idler arm hitting the # 7 exhaust tube. There are no other issues that I found. The collector flange is welded to the collector and on a lower car this flange may hit the pavement on the drivers side as the bolt hole is at the bottem. You could cut this mounting flange off and use the slip on one from Hooker and modify the #7 tube then get them ceramic coated if you really needed these headers.
Maurice

Hi Guys Back again
From my experiance on my 1969 with the 307 / 327 mounts if you use the Hooker 2131 super comp 1.75 " tube headers you will probably have problems with the idler arm hitting the # 7 exhaust tube. There are no other issues that I found. The collector flange is welded to the collector and on a lower car this flange may hit the pavement on the drivers side as the bolt hole is at the bottem. You could cut this mounting flange off and use the slip on one from Hooker and modify the #7 tube then get them ceramic coated if you really needed these headers.
MauriceWas this a BBC ... I have a BBC with the 2205 super comp 2" and haven't installed them yet, so it must be even more difecult..Thanks Skip

Was this a BBC ... I have a BBC with the 2205 super comp 2" and haven't installed them yet, so it must be even more difecult..Thanks Skip


Small block, Skip