speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

I have to buy my motor mount set up for my 65 Skylark in the next couple weeks and I would love to hear what everyone has to say about their motor mounts and adapters for their a-body conversion.

Tell me what you used and would you buy them again.

rockytopper

I built my on frame mounts and used the f-body oem factory engine mounts. You can then put the engine exactly were you need it. Go efi don't carb it. EFi is easy. Good luck your project You got one heck of a a very nice Buick.
Rocky

bczee

iTrader: (12)

I used the early BRP style, which require you to more the Frame Stands, but that is ok, cause I was able to put the engine where I wanted it and didn't have to hassle with mixing and matching part to get everything lined up.

Most of the plates will all work..if you ???.. but you need to look at the big picture, what or how you want your engine to sit, what accessories you plan to use, what trans, etc..

I do like the Edelbrock products..
+1 on the EFI, it's worth it.!

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

You are the 2nd and 3rd persons to try to get me to go with EFI. Maybe later. I definitely understand the advantages. I raced GNs and worked on Tuned Port Vettes back in the day, but I just want simplicity for now. For, me carbs are simple. I have nearly 20 years of racing the old school stuff and I kind of like it.

Mr_Bond

iTrader: (11)

Nice, I got a buddy that want to do the same thing to his 64 with the 300 in it.

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

Well, I ordered the Edelbrock swap motor mount brackets. It says you have to use small block Chevy frame pads and motor mounts.

I will let you all know how it works out.

Deserttaco

iTrader: (1)

Just an FYI I ordered and tried to use them, but since I wanted to run the stock AC compressor in the stock LS2 location, the Edelbrock plates interfere with the placement. If you aren't running Air conditioning, then there's no problem.

Steve

SUPERBOOST

iTrader: (11)

Well, there is good and bad about the brp kit.My engine in my 67 chevelle sits a little higher than I would like it to and you have to clearence the bell housing area a little more because the motor sits higher.It looks fine when your done.The good thing is all the factory f body accessories will fit including the air compressor.I like the factory accessories fitting a lot.You may want headers but the factory manifolds fit like they were made for it.You also use nothing from the small block,frame stands or motor mounts,looks clean.

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

Well, I just learned a lot more about this deal today. It turns out that tie rods clearing the oil pan are the primary concern on A-bodies.

I was told today that neither the JZ Motorworks pan: http://jzmotorworks.com/LS1Pan.html nor the AutoKraft pan: http://www.autokraft.org/products/ will clear the tie rods when turned to lock when using the most motor mount kits including the Edelbrock kit. This is troubling because, based on what I have read, I came to the conclusion that these were the two best A-body oil pans out there that do not require a remote oil filter.

I was told that the BRP mounts: http://www.brphotrods.com/mm5/mercha...Store_Code=BRP lifts the motor up higher to allow the inner tie rods to clear either pan. But, this raises a host of other concerns. Will it hit the tunnel on the 64-65 A-bodies?, will I have hood clearance problems? Will the change in angle cause driveshaft vibration? and will the Edelbrock headers that I would like to run work?

Most of the threads I have read talk about fabricating motor mounts. So the question is, does anyone out there have a bolt in motor mount, oil pan and header combination out there that actually fits in a 64-65 A-body?

I would really like to use the ultra sweet Edelbrock headers. I also have a complete 2001 Corvette accessory set up for the front of the motor. This seemed to have the best clearance for an A-Body so I hope that was a good choice too.

john 67

f body seems to have the best clearence , canton makes one but is costly, look up mast motorsports they have a new pan but I dont see the dimensions for it but it has some good features.John

Deserttaco

iTrader: (1)

I don't believe that there is a prefect oil pan for these swaps just yet... There are too many variables to make a pan fit one specific car. Where as most of the aftermarket pans are meant to fit a range of vehicles. Actually there isn't really any Kit that Ive seen. There are a couple of Factory options also. From what I understand the F-body oil pan is a good fit, but it places the engine back quite a ways, unless you modify it to fit around the crossmember.

The CTS-V pan is the one I decided to use, It has it's advantages, and disadvantages. The advantage is that I can move the engine forward a little, it's easier to install, but it hangs below the crossmember roughly 1 inch. It's also a little thicker at the front (Tie Rod Clearance) than the F-body pan. My solution is to roughly raise the engine up about 3/4-1 inch. I'll give you the reasons that I chose to do it this way. 1) raising the engine up will solve my oil pan hanging below the crossmember problem. 2) it will tuck the headers up higher in the chassis, so they will be less likely to drag over speed bumps. (I am also using the Edelbrock headers) 3) Tie Rod clearance.... Lets face it, if the engine and oil pan are up out of the way there won't be any issues with Tie rod clearance.

Now the issues I'm facing because I've raised the engine up. Center of Gravity is the biggest... I doubt that by moving the COG of the engine up by one inch is really going to drastically change the handleing of the car that much. Afterall I'll be lowering the overall COG quite a bit from stock. The Transmission doesn't fit.. Well it didn't fit at the lowest height with the stock BRP mounts. I ended up cutting out the tunnel out, and will fab a new one, I also have a T-56, so my tranny is bigger than your auto. so you will have to do a lot more surgery than I did if you decide to raise it up. Hood clearance... Not even close, I probalby have 5-6 inches of hood clearance with raising it up an inch. (Mine's a 70, but I'd imaging that it's pretty similar)

One other option. Take an F-body pan, notch it for the crossmember, and Notch the front for Tie Rod Clearance...

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

Wow John, that is a really nice pan design. Looks like we have a new player!

http://www.mastmotorsports.com/2010/..._pan_views.pdf
While it is hard to tell from the images, it looks lower profile in the front than either the JZ Motorworks pan or the AutoKraft/Champ pan. This would surely help the A-body tie rod situation.

I will give them a call tomorrow and see how much it costs and get the dimensions.

bczee

iTrader: (12)

There one or two threads out there talking about the new Mast pan.. it is not expected to be on the market till the end of the year or early next year. It does look good, but we will see..

FYI.. when used a CTS-V pan in my swap 5 years ago.. I used the Early style BRP plates and used the T/N Energy Suspension engine mount, Mod'd my short and wide stands to work with the T/N mount, this raised the engine just a bit to help.

I had to cut the top of my trans tunnel anyway for the T56.. so I was able to adjust for engine/trans tilt.

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

I spoke to Mast Performance today. While they were non committal, I gathered that we are looking at 2 months for this pan. For those who are interested, there are excellent detailed pictures of the pan on their facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/album.php...2949521&ref=mf

clm69z28

In my 72 Chevelle with the Edellborck kit and Autokraft pan I had to shim the pass side about 1/2" to clear the tie rod but that's it. Frame sag will make the problem worse, but it wasn't that big of a deal to get it to clear.

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

Can you service your starter with that set up? The guy with the 64 Tempest says he has to pull his tranny to get his starter out with the Edelbrock headers and AutoKraft pan.

Bullitt4110

iTrader: (31)

Why not just pull the header off if you need to take the starter out?

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

If I read his thread correctly, he said the he could not get the headers in without pulling the motor.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/conversio...ping-list.html

fbrown540

68-72 is different. My starter on 68 Lemans can be removed without any problems. Edelbrock mounts and headers.

bczee

iTrader: (12)

All you would need to do is just loosen the header, tilt or move the header enough to get the starter out.. !? you would not have to remove the header completely !?