Need some help with A-Body clearances
11-25-2010, 10:48 PM
#1
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Need some help with A-Body clearances I have searched the A-body sticky and still have some unanswered questions.
I finished my swap last summer, LQ4 into a 72' Chevelle using the GM LS Swap oil pan and modifying the truck exh manifolds.
1) The GM swap pan only saves about 1" off the truck pan depth so it still hangs pretty low past the cross member. I am running the Edelbrock swap mounts and the tall and narrow frame/ motor mounts. I have spotted some guys running the f-body pans, but did not find the motor mounts they were using. Any body use the f-body pan with the same frame mounts I have an get it to work? Any luck with a CTS-V pan?
2) I modified the truck manifolds to fit "enough". Now removing them I noticed I was getting frame contact. Anybody try using f-body manifolds or anyother factory manifolds? The swap headers are still pretty pricey. Do any aftermarket f-body headers work?
Thanks
I finished my swap last summer, LQ4 into a 72' Chevelle using the GM LS Swap oil pan and modifying the truck exh manifolds.
1) The GM swap pan only saves about 1" off the truck pan depth so it still hangs pretty low past the cross member. I am running the Edelbrock swap mounts and the tall and narrow frame/ motor mounts. I have spotted some guys running the f-body pans, but did not find the motor mounts they were using. Any body use the f-body pan with the same frame mounts I have an get it to work? Any luck with a CTS-V pan?
2) I modified the truck manifolds to fit "enough". Now removing them I noticed I was getting frame contact. Anybody try using f-body manifolds or anyother factory manifolds? The swap headers are still pretty pricey. Do any aftermarket f-body headers work?
Thanks
11-26-2010, 01:25 AM
#2
I have tried the F-body pan without notching it. It does fit. You have to move the engine back to get this to work, as by using the Early BRP style of mount/plates. This requires moving the frame stand back. It will fit, but tight, maybe 3/8" clearance between the pan and cross member as well as about that between the passenger head and firewall. Too bad BRP has removed the early style installation pages that were on there web site.
I wanted a bit more clearance to get air in and around the pan. I had picked up two CTS-V oil pans as takeoffs from Roy Brizio/Chevy dealer, he couldn't use them on is rod builds and used F-Body pans. I used one and sold the other to Phil years ago and he has used it to model his CTS-V pan kits with.
F-body exhaust manifold work great.. I used them for a year before i got my Edelbrock headers.. I would only make one suggestion, plug the driver side O2 bung and drill and weld a new one at a better angle to get more clearance between the O2 and the frame.
Aftermarket F-Body has have been used also.. some have made minor tweeks to get them to work, others have just dropped them in without any mod's.
I wanted a bit more clearance to get air in and around the pan. I had picked up two CTS-V oil pans as takeoffs from Roy Brizio/Chevy dealer, he couldn't use them on is rod builds and used F-Body pans. I used one and sold the other to Phil years ago and he has used it to model his CTS-V pan kits with.
F-body exhaust manifold work great.. I used them for a year before i got my Edelbrock headers.. I would only make one suggestion, plug the driver side O2 bung and drill and weld a new one at a better angle to get more clearance between the O2 and the frame.
Aftermarket F-Body has have been used also.. some have made minor tweeks to get them to work, others have just dropped them in without any mod's.
Last edited by bczee; 11-26-2010 at 01:31 AM.
11-26-2010, 07:45 PM
#5
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the responses, I have already picked up a CTS-V Pan from the classified section and have a few feelers out for manifolds.
I'm carburated so I will be plugging and running.
These were options I considered, but 1 the price, 2 I like using GM OE parts when available, and 3 most I have seen require an oil filter relocation which I do not want to do, more $ and something else to leak, fail, and worry about.
I am curious if they would work as well. As far as the linkage goes I would recommend going to a hyd throwout. I did this for my muncie about 5 years back when I converted from an auto to a stick. Helps save space and is fairly cheap when you add up the prices. Aside from the clutch master, linkage fitment is never an issue because you only have one line to worry about.
I am hoping to get the time soon to post a "reverse" build thread. I finished the car last summer, but am redoing a few things and taking pictures as I am tearing it back down this winter. Looking back there are many small details that go into these swaps I don't see online and places where $, time, and headaches can be avoided or saved.
F-body exhaust manifold work great.. I used them for a year before i got my Edelbrock headers.. I would only make one suggestion, plug the driver side O2 bung and drill and weld a new one at a better angle to get more clearance between the O2 and the frame.
The Milodon and moroso pans don't hang below the crossmember
Anyone tried stock GTO exhaust manifolds. I'm picking up a pair next week and checking if they'll clear in my 72 442 and allow me to use the z bar linkage.
I am hoping to get the time soon to post a "reverse" build thread. I finished the car last summer, but am redoing a few things and taking pictures as I am tearing it back down this winter. Looking back there are many small details that go into these swaps I don't see online and places where $, time, and headaches can be avoided or saved.
11-26-2010, 07:56 PM
#6
As for the oil filter relocation, read the oil pan threads I can think of 2 available pans right now that don't require filter relocation. JZMotorworks & AutoKraft. The coming Mast Performance pan wont require a remote filter either. They are all in the $400 neighborhood.
11-27-2010, 07:21 AM
#7
I'll let you know on the GTO exhaust manifolds. I'm picking up a pair later this week and will try a test fit next weekend.
The Z bar is already there and it looks like clearance is a non-issue. They're much higher and farther forward than the normal Z bar mount.
I'll post pics of crossmember and steering clearance.
The Z bar is already there and it looks like clearance is a non-issue. They're much higher and farther forward than the normal Z bar mount.
I'll post pics of crossmember and steering clearance.
Thanks for the responses, I have already picked up a CTS-V Pan from the classified section and have a few feelers out for manifolds.
I'm carburated so I will be plugging and running.
These were options I considered, but 1 the price, 2 I like using GM OE parts when available, and 3 most I have seen require an oil filter relocation which I do not want to do, more $ and something else to leak, fail, and worry about.
I am curious if they would work as well. As far as the linkage goes I would recommend going to a hyd throwout. I did this for my muncie about 5 years back when I converted from an auto to a stick. Helps save space and is fairly cheap when you add up the prices. Aside from the clutch master, linkage fitment is never an issue because you only have one line to worry about.
I am hoping to get the time soon to post a "reverse" build thread. I finished the car last summer, but am redoing a few things and taking pictures as I am tearing it back down this winter. Looking back there are many small details that go into these swaps I don't see online and places where $, time, and headaches can be avoided or saved.
I'm carburated so I will be plugging and running.
These were options I considered, but 1 the price, 2 I like using GM OE parts when available, and 3 most I have seen require an oil filter relocation which I do not want to do, more $ and something else to leak, fail, and worry about.
I am curious if they would work as well. As far as the linkage goes I would recommend going to a hyd throwout. I did this for my muncie about 5 years back when I converted from an auto to a stick. Helps save space and is fairly cheap when you add up the prices. Aside from the clutch master, linkage fitment is never an issue because you only have one line to worry about.
I am hoping to get the time soon to post a "reverse" build thread. I finished the car last summer, but am redoing a few things and taking pictures as I am tearing it back down this winter. Looking back there are many small details that go into these swaps I don't see online and places where $, time, and headaches can be avoided or saved.
Trending Topics
11-28-2010, 06:52 PM
#11
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the BRP mount style move the motor back? This is say compared to the Edelbrock mounts. It looks awfully sketchy if the GTO manifolds will fit after seeing a set today. They seem to drop alot in the center and this is right where the crossmember is.
11-28-2010, 07:06 PM
#12
BPR mounts move the motor as far forward as any mounts available.
The Edelbrock setback mounts move the motor back about 2 3/4" in comparison.
http://matt.undiagnosed.org/ls1/imag...t_plate_V2.jpg
I hope the GTO manifolds fit, they seem to flow as well as anything.
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles.../photo_03.html
The Edelbrock setback mounts move the motor back about 2 3/4" in comparison.
http://matt.undiagnosed.org/ls1/imag...t_plate_V2.jpg
I hope the GTO manifolds fit, they seem to flow as well as anything.
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles.../photo_03.html
11-28-2010, 08:53 PM
#14
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed, I thought they moved the motor back, but I guess I as wrong. Ah well, $50 for a set of used manifolds and if they don't fit they will be in the classified section.
I just can't bring myself to spend $600+ on a set of headers. When this was a bigblock car almost any set of headers I considered were ~$300. I know they are stainless compared to many sbc and bbc headers and with that comes the added material and manuacturing burden cost and they probably don't sell as much as regular sbc and bbc headers, but over double the price? Yet again it does seem like any exhaust kit price has jumped in the last few years.
I just can't bring myself to spend $600+ on a set of headers. When this was a bigblock car almost any set of headers I considered were ~$300. I know they are stainless compared to many sbc and bbc headers and with that comes the added material and manuacturing burden cost and they probably don't sell as much as regular sbc and bbc headers, but over double the price? Yet again it does seem like any exhaust kit price has jumped in the last few years.
11-28-2010, 09:59 PM
#15
As far as motor mount placement on the Engine, yes it would move the engine forward if dropped in on the original location of the Engine Frame Stands.
But if you follow the instructions for using BRP Plates. It is required to move the frame stand backwards. If installed as designed by BRP, it moves the engine back about as far as you can go. And if using a un-modified F-body oil pan.. it will fits with 3/8" clearance between the pan sump and the Crossmember, also leaving about 3/4" between the Firewall and the passenger head.
If you tried to use Standard S&P plates.. the Oil pan would come into contact with the Crossmember (can't fit without moving the frame stand again and that is where 1" set backs come into play).
So.. with that logic and physical placement and following instruction as desgined by BRP.. BRP plates will moves the engine backward. Of course if you don't move the frames stands, then yes, it will moves the engine forward and you didn't read the instructions....!
And yes I did try both sytles of plateson my Chevelle conversion... But since I wanted to retain the LS1 OEM AC compressor.. I had no choice but to use the BRP Style of plates.. cause the Standard and 1" setback will come into contact with the plate and compressor. I actually build a set of plates with both Standard S&P and Early BRP mount locations and tried it with different combinations.. I ended up cutting the S&P part off to use just BRP bolt locations.
But if you follow the instructions for using BRP Plates. It is required to move the frame stand backwards. If installed as designed by BRP, it moves the engine back about as far as you can go. And if using a un-modified F-body oil pan.. it will fits with 3/8" clearance between the pan sump and the Crossmember, also leaving about 3/4" between the Firewall and the passenger head.
If you tried to use Standard S&P plates.. the Oil pan would come into contact with the Crossmember (can't fit without moving the frame stand again and that is where 1" set backs come into play).
So.. with that logic and physical placement and following instruction as desgined by BRP.. BRP plates will moves the engine backward. Of course if you don't move the frames stands, then yes, it will moves the engine forward and you didn't read the instructions....!
And yes I did try both sytles of plateson my Chevelle conversion... But since I wanted to retain the LS1 OEM AC compressor.. I had no choice but to use the BRP Style of plates.. cause the Standard and 1" setback will come into contact with the plate and compressor. I actually build a set of plates with both Standard S&P and Early BRP mount locations and tried it with different combinations.. I ended up cutting the S&P part off to use just BRP bolt locations.
11-29-2010, 09:45 AM
#16
Me...read instructions? That's never going to happen.
I've already got a set of 1" setback plates....somewhere in my garage. So I'll be using them. Then I'll bolt up the mounts so that hopefully the CTS-V pan will fit behind the crossmember and the truck accessory AC compressor will fit in front of it.
Then we'll see which exhaust will fit. I dont want to spend a lot on aftertmarket headers with a 5.3 either.
I've already got a set of 1" setback plates....somewhere in my garage. So I'll be using them. Then I'll bolt up the mounts so that hopefully the CTS-V pan will fit behind the crossmember and the truck accessory AC compressor will fit in front of it.
Then we'll see which exhaust will fit. I dont want to spend a lot on aftertmarket headers with a 5.3 either.
11-29-2010, 09:51 AM
#17
Oh.. when all else FAILS..... then Read the Instructions....
Not sure if you have mod'd up the Standpard or 1" plates and tried to mount the OEM Compressor..they will come into contact with each other.. that not going to work!. I've tried that..
Not sure if you have mod'd up the Standpard or 1" plates and tried to mount the OEM Compressor..they will come into contact with each other.. that not going to work!. I've tried that..
11-29-2010, 10:14 AM
#18
Check out the pics in the 2nd post. Maybe the truck accessories spaces the AC compressor farther out?
https://ls1tech.com/forums/conversio...rbo-4l60e.html
Otherwise I'll make new plates.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/conversio...rbo-4l60e.html
Otherwise I'll make new plates.
11-29-2010, 12:53 PM
#19
Launching!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have homemade BRP style plates with energy suspension mounts. the F- body pan clears the crossmember like 1/2in. i cant see going back 2 1/2in further back and not having tunnel clearance issues.....the passenger side GTO manifold is the problem. it dumps too close to crossmember.
FYI- The GTO accesories are perfect for A-body / BRP mount setup because i was even able to use factory low-mount alternator on driver side which literally clears steering box by a hair. (after hitting box with grinder...hehe).will post a pic
FYI- The GTO accesories are perfect for A-body / BRP mount setup because i was even able to use factory low-mount alternator on driver side which literally clears steering box by a hair. (after hitting box with grinder...hehe).will post a pic