1st Gen Camaro LS1 Motor mount options
01-29-2007, 11:59 AM
#1
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1st Gen Camaro LS1 Motor mount options I’ve read most of the posts and I a bit confused as to which option I should go with.
This is how I understand it (by the way, my LS1 is out of '01 Camaro and I'd like to use the acc mounts...)
ATS
1. Motor sits low and back (compared to BRP)
2. Can’t mount AC in original location
3. Allows the use of original steering box
4. Must notch oil pan.
5. Cut hole in transmission tunnel about 4” back from stock (Manual)
BRP
1. Motor sits higher and forward (compared to ATS)
2. Can use original AC mount
3. Must use rack and pinion steering
4. No need to notch oil pan
5. Cut hole in transmission tunnel about 1” back from stock (Manual)
If I got it right it looks like I’ll need to notch pan and get AC relocation kit for the ATS option. For BRP I’ll need to get the Rack and pinion.
I like the idea of not notching the pan and using the original location for the AC.
Is it OK to use the original AC compressor with a Vintage Air setup?
As for cost I believe it’s about the same…so I’m leaning towards the BRP option.
Is rack and pinion steering in these car a good thing or bad?
Is BRP’s Rack and pinion good?
Would love to hear form guys that have used the BRP and ATS in 1st gen Camaros
This is how I understand it (by the way, my LS1 is out of '01 Camaro and I'd like to use the acc mounts...)
ATS
1. Motor sits low and back (compared to BRP)
2. Can’t mount AC in original location
3. Allows the use of original steering box
4. Must notch oil pan.
5. Cut hole in transmission tunnel about 4” back from stock (Manual)
BRP
1. Motor sits higher and forward (compared to ATS)
2. Can use original AC mount
3. Must use rack and pinion steering
4. No need to notch oil pan
5. Cut hole in transmission tunnel about 1” back from stock (Manual)
If I got it right it looks like I’ll need to notch pan and get AC relocation kit for the ATS option. For BRP I’ll need to get the Rack and pinion.
I like the idea of not notching the pan and using the original location for the AC.
Is it OK to use the original AC compressor with a Vintage Air setup?
As for cost I believe it’s about the same…so I’m leaning towards the BRP option.
Is rack and pinion steering in these car a good thing or bad?
Is BRP’s Rack and pinion good?
Would love to hear form guys that have used the BRP and ATS in 1st gen Camaros
01-29-2007, 12:31 PM
#2
I've been going over the same things for months now and still can't make a decision.
From what I have read you cannot use the GM compressor with Vintage Air. However VA does sell a bracket that will allow you to mount their Sanden compressor in the same location. I think it costs $100.
The thing that is holding me back on the BRP solution is that I have been unable to hear from anyone who has driven a car with their kit so I'm a little worried about bumpsteer and handling in general. The angle on the steering shaft also looks a little extreme in some of the photos I have seen. The points in it's favor are the use of the stock accessory drive versus $1800 to $3000 (for the ATS Sidewinder) and stock oil pan versus $400 (Autokraft) to $500 (plus an external oil cooler for the ATS pan). I'm sure the ATS system (especially with the Chicane LM setup) will outperform the BRP but the BRP cost is hard to beat if you are on a tight budget.
Don
From what I have read you cannot use the GM compressor with Vintage Air. However VA does sell a bracket that will allow you to mount their Sanden compressor in the same location. I think it costs $100.
The thing that is holding me back on the BRP solution is that I have been unable to hear from anyone who has driven a car with their kit so I'm a little worried about bumpsteer and handling in general. The angle on the steering shaft also looks a little extreme in some of the photos I have seen. The points in it's favor are the use of the stock accessory drive versus $1800 to $3000 (for the ATS Sidewinder) and stock oil pan versus $400 (Autokraft) to $500 (plus an external oil cooler for the ATS pan). I'm sure the ATS system (especially with the Chicane LM setup) will outperform the BRP but the BRP cost is hard to beat if you are on a tight budget.
Don
01-29-2007, 02:07 PM
#3
Staging Lane
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NJ 08619
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dhutton
The thing that is holding me back on the BRP solution is that I have been unable to hear from anyone who has driven a car with their kit so I'm a little worried about bumpsteer and handling in general. The angle on the steering shaft also looks a little extreme in some of the photos I have seen.
01-29-2007, 02:50 PM
#4
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BRP route I've taken the BRP route. I think one of the benefits of BRP is being able to use long tube headers (better exhaust flow). Also, I didn't install the steering rack exactly as BRP suggested. BRP wants you to cut the crossmember all the way across the top. I cut the top/front so that the rack could be rotated back and the steering shaft goes thru the middle hollow part of the crossmember. (At the back of the crossmember, I cut a silver dollar sized hole for the steering shaft. If you all want details, let me know.
With regard to the a/c and alternator, the alt can stay right where it is, no clearance issues. The a/c is another matter. What I've read is that the VA kit must use the Sanden 508 compressor. I bought the VA bracket (Steel Eze)for this compressor but have not installed. Don't get a/c bracket from BRP. It's poor. The subframe must be cut to fit the Sanden and probably to fit the original.
I know it sounds bad to be cutting the subframe, but it wasn't that bad and my opinion is keep the stock drive belt system if at all possible. The cost of the S&P or March pulley setup is huge and I don't think they're as trouble free as stock. The LS1 accessory setup has been in thousands upon thousands of cars with huge amounts of testing.
With regard to the a/c and alternator, the alt can stay right where it is, no clearance issues. The a/c is another matter. What I've read is that the VA kit must use the Sanden 508 compressor. I bought the VA bracket (Steel Eze)for this compressor but have not installed. Don't get a/c bracket from BRP. It's poor. The subframe must be cut to fit the Sanden and probably to fit the original.
I know it sounds bad to be cutting the subframe, but it wasn't that bad and my opinion is keep the stock drive belt system if at all possible. The cost of the S&P or March pulley setup is huge and I don't think they're as trouble free as stock. The LS1 accessory setup has been in thousands upon thousands of cars with huge amounts of testing.
01-29-2007, 04:01 PM
#6
The YearOne 69 Camaro was done by Phill of BRP and with there complete kit... you can check out BRP's web site for the YearOne project pictures.. I have talked to him before.. was willing to answer question.
And a plus is that the Rack kit is utilizing a stock Gen 4 F-Body R/P unit. That could be a cost cut and a plus if you need to replace it.
And a plus is that the Rack kit is utilizing a stock Gen 4 F-Body R/P unit. That could be a cost cut and a plus if you need to replace it.
01-29-2007, 06:37 PM
#7
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
67ls1camaro - yes please post photos if you can.
I didn't realize there was cutting involved for the R&P.
So if i can't use the OEM compressor (why is that), then why not go with ATS.
I guess getting some real costs for each option would also help.
I didn't realize there was cutting involved for the R&P.
So if i can't use the OEM compressor (why is that), then why not go with ATS.
I guess getting some real costs for each option would also help.
Trending Topics
01-29-2007, 07:20 PM
#8
On The Tree
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: tx
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I talked to Phil eariler today and he said that with his kit, "the 69 camaro will turn just like the 98+ camaro." He went on to say that "as a matter of fact ,the 69 will turn a bit tighter of a radius than the 98+".
01-30-2007, 07:06 AM
#9
Originally Posted by dhutton
From what I have read you cannot use the GM compressor with Vintage Air.
01-30-2007, 02:33 PM
#11
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
details ssv, i'll try to post pics. don't have any right now. here's the body of an email I replied to Chris with:
Here's what I did, starting at the steering column.
1. Flaming River steering column with DD (double-D) output.
2. Stainless vibration dampening u-joint on the end of the column (DD to x number of splines shaft).
3. Heim joint supporting the splined shaft. Made a small bracket that bolts to the subframe in the
holes where the steering box was. According to Borgeson (the people who sell all the steering shafts
and u-joints), a heim joint is only needed if you use more than 2 u-joints. I have 2, but I supported it
anyway.
4. A second u-joint at the end of the splined shaft. This one ends up right at the corner formed by the
rail of the subframe and the crossmember (at the back of the crossmember). This is a tight fit.
5. The next piece is the straight shaft supplied by BRP. As I recall it's splined on one end and has a
welded internal spline at the rack end. This shaft goes on the rack.
A few thoughts. The first time I put it all together and drove the car I found out that the #5 shaft was rubbing
the edge of the hole at the back of the crossmember. I thought I'd have to take it apart and make the hole a
little bigger. At the same time, I changed the column drop I got from Flaming River (they redesigned it). This
brought the steering column up closer to the bottom of the dash and changed the steering shaft angle just
enough to where the shaft going thru the crossmember no longer rubbed. This introduced a slight problem
that I was willing to live with. The two piece support bracket at the firewall under the dash no longer lined up.
Only two of the bolts go in. Minor.
I think the car steers fine. Not much to compare it to though. Never drove the original 67 Camaro. It started out as
a shell.
Here's what I did, starting at the steering column.
1. Flaming River steering column with DD (double-D) output.
2. Stainless vibration dampening u-joint on the end of the column (DD to x number of splines shaft).
3. Heim joint supporting the splined shaft. Made a small bracket that bolts to the subframe in the
holes where the steering box was. According to Borgeson (the people who sell all the steering shafts
and u-joints), a heim joint is only needed if you use more than 2 u-joints. I have 2, but I supported it
anyway.
4. A second u-joint at the end of the splined shaft. This one ends up right at the corner formed by the
rail of the subframe and the crossmember (at the back of the crossmember). This is a tight fit.
5. The next piece is the straight shaft supplied by BRP. As I recall it's splined on one end and has a
welded internal spline at the rack end. This shaft goes on the rack.
A few thoughts. The first time I put it all together and drove the car I found out that the #5 shaft was rubbing
the edge of the hole at the back of the crossmember. I thought I'd have to take it apart and make the hole a
little bigger. At the same time, I changed the column drop I got from Flaming River (they redesigned it). This
brought the steering column up closer to the bottom of the dash and changed the steering shaft angle just
enough to where the shaft going thru the crossmember no longer rubbed. This introduced a slight problem
that I was willing to live with. The two piece support bracket at the firewall under the dash no longer lined up.
Only two of the bolts go in. Minor.
I think the car steers fine. Not much to compare it to though. Never drove the original 67 Camaro. It started out as
a shell.
