Toddoky

The crossmember depicted in this thread will not install on any A-body model with a boxed frame. Those cars will require their own specific crossmember, which will be developed in the future.

wihntr

As far as the engine mounts and headers, will they still fit in my cutlass? Thanks

Toddoky

Yes, there's no compatibility issues with those components.

Toddoky

Time to talk about drivetrain/U-joint working angles.
I've installed a driveshaft into the Lemans today taken driveshaft angle measurements for a few different guys who have inquired about what can be expected in that regard when using the Hooker engine brackets and transmission crossmember.

In order for the information to be relative, a description of the car set-up needs to be given so that you'll have an understanding as to how it might compare to your particular car. Thankfully, this Lemans was delivered to me with an upgraded aftermarket rear suspension system (stock 10-bolt)with 1" drop springs and adjustable upper control arms, which made it a breeze for me to match the rear pinion angle to the transmission yoke angle for ease of taking measurement that are easier for the average guy to understand.

The 1" drop of the rear suspension is quite common, so this car is in the ballbark of what a lot of guys will be using...if you are lowering your car in the rear more than that amount (like a 2" drop for example), you will more than likely have to cut and modify the tunnel over your transmission and add shims between the transmount and the crossmember to achieve acceptable angles. If you are running a 9" Ford rear end with a 2" rear suspension drop, you might just squeak by without having to cut the floor due to the lower height of the pinion in those rear ends.

With the LS engine/4L80 trans installed using the Hooker forward-bias engine brackets and the Hooker transmission crossmember, the driveshaft angles depicted in the attached photo measured as follows:

Transmission yoke= 2.7 degrees down
Driveshaft= .7 degress down
Pinion= 2.7 degrees up

For those of you who have been studying up on your driveshaft math, these angles equate to 2 degree operating angle at both the front and rear U-joints.

In order to achieve these results, the body bushings need to be in good shape and you'll have to do some slight deadblow/ball pien hammer clearancing of the tunnel in a few areas that will be spelled out in the Hooker crossmember instructions.

joejbal

Thanks for all of the info. Could you tell us how high the engine sits. Maybe the center of the crank with respect to the top of the crossmember

Toddoky

I'll have to see if I can find a suitable point of reference to take a measurement from that could easily be repeated by someone wanting to take the same measurement. I may just post the assembled height of the engine brackets and mounts as that can easily be compared to any other type of mount/swap plate/frame stand assembly.

Toddoky

Joejbal, here's a photo of the Hooker 64-67 A-body engine bracket assembled with the 4th-gen F-body engine mount it's designed for use with. A comparative measurement will be easy for anyone to take in or out of their vehicle to understand if their current engine bracket/mount set-up is making the job of achieving desirable U-joint working angle more difficult than it needs to be by placing the engine higher than it needs to be.

The summed height of the engine mount assemblies provides half of the geometry characteristics needed to achieve desirable U-joint working angles, the other half is the fore/aft positioning of the engine/trans mating plane they provide, which is critical depending on the particular transmission that is being used in the swap.

Toddoky

A user on another forum recently asked me about clearance between the long-tube headers I just prototyped and the starter as well as the Quicktime T56 bellhousing. I posted photos on the other forum earlier today and thought I'd include them in this thread also for the benefit of everyone following the development of these new Hooker components.

1989GTA

Plenty of clearance. Looking good.

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

Wow. You have the engine in quite a bit further forward than I have mine installed. My power steering pulley is parallel with the power steering pump high pressure line. But, I do have Vette accessories vs. your truck accessories. Have any photos of the centerlink to oil pan clearance when the steering is turned to full lock?

Toddoky

The mock-up position depicted is what's produced using the forward-bias Hooker engine brackets, which offer distinct fitment advantages over using the rear-bias Hooker engine brackets...the use of the truck accessories also would add greatly to the different alignment you see between this set-up and yours. The long-tube headers install with either set of the engine brackets. Yes, I do have a photo of the tie-rod to pan clearance at full-lock...only the passenger side is shown as the driver side has miles of clearance.

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

That is very good clearance for a 64-67. That pan works out nicely.

Toddoky

Yes, the Holley 302-2 pan has allowed me to achieve fitment characteristics in many LS swap applications that otherwise would be impossible. I forgot the mention previously that the inner tie-rod ends and center link shown in the photo are Pro Forged parts and they are noticeably larger than the stock pieces I removed from the car. This means a user won't have to worry when they upgrade/rebuild their suspension that upgraded aftermarket parts won't clear the pan at full lock.

old66tiger

Headers look good. I may consider them but I am not going to rip stuff apart and start over.

I have the hooker adapter plates , car shop BOP adapters and ES short and wide mounts. The adapters, mounts and engine plates have a 3.625 install height. So my engine is close to the same install height as the Holley prototypes.

So I can get an idea if the headers will work...I am curious to know...

How close is the front edge of the 302-2 pan sump to the back side of the front crossmember? I am running the 302-1 pan and figuring the delta between the 302-1 pan and 302-2 pan, I would have about 3/4 " space between the crossmember and the pan if I would be running the 302-2 pan.

Toddoky

I understand where you are coming from. The front corners of the sump of the 302-2 pan are 1/4" away from the rear face of the crossmember in the Lemans/GTO frame when installed with the Hooker forward bias engine brackets, and the same parts installed in the Chevelle frame netted 3/8" clearance in the same areas. I don't believe the 302-1 pan would give you any fitment issues with these new headers, but your engine mounts just may as the driver side primary tubes hug tight to the 4th-gen F-body mounts they were designed for use with. I should have time to do a mock-up on the engine for you with the old style Hooker swap plates on an engine stand when I pull the engine...that should tell you what you need to know. The new Hooker 68-72 A-body headers ended up fitting with typical 1" set-back swap plates, so there's a possibility these might also.

Bcars68

You guys hiring? How cool is it to get to develop hot rod parts all day long!
My question is on the headers, will they be available separately? What is the primary size and what kind of collector attachment will they use? I have built my own motor and trans mounts for my Lsa/ tr6060 combo in my 66 Chevelle. Mounts have overall height ovf 3.25 inches. Cylinder head sits about 3/4 inch off firewall and Holley 302 oil pan has a 1/4 inch to the crossmember. Bottom of oil pan still sits even with crossmember.
Do you think I will have clearance issues? I know it's a hard question to answer but from your pics of the prototypes they seam to have quite a bit of room.
Any guesstimate? Thanks

Toddoky

The days spent creating parts are indeed enjoyable to me, but the days eaten up writing instructions and internal system related documentation can be just as monotonous and non-stimulating as it would be at any other place of business. All things considered, there's nothing I can imagine that I'd rather be doing. It would be hard to make a call on the fitment of the headers with your set-up due to the unknown geometry of your mounts...the front-most driver side primary tube hugs the 4th-gen F-body engine mount very closely, so if the fitment envelop of your mount is any larger you may experience interference. Beyond that, I don't see any issues.

Bcars68

Thanks for the info. I think my overall size is smaller than the f body mounts so hopefully the headers will fit.
Do you get a say in final material choise? Flange thickness? Tube thickness?

Toddoky

You could tell for sure by buying a replacement 4th-gen F-body engine mount from your local parts house to check things over (they're only about 10 bucks). I forgot to mention previously that the headers will be available separately and are designed to use a slip-connection on the collectors for connection to an exhaust system. They will be available in 304SS only upon their initial release and be constructed from 18 gauge material...you'll be able to get them with 1-3/4" or 1-7/8" primaries and 3" collectors. Flange thickness is 3/8".

brad900

Does the forward bias mounts allow the 11" brake booster to clear without relocating the rear coil?