64-67 A-Body motor mounts
02-04-2017, 08:31 PM
#2
How much cutting of your tunnel do you want to have to do to achieve optimized U-joint working angles? Are you using the stock aluminum T56 bellhousing, or an aftermarket steel bellhousing? What rear end and oil pan are you using?
02-04-2017, 08:55 PM
#3
I just got done reading through the entire oil pan thread over on chevelles.com....I plan to use the holley 302-2 pan/canton 15-274, stock t56 bellhousing, ford 9" rear end.
I know I am going to have to do some cutting on the tunnel, I would like to try and keep it minimal, but the odds are against me. I figured if the engine would be low enough and moved forward a bit, the cutting wouldn't be a severe.
I saw you talking in the oil pan thread on the chevelles site for a while, thanks for helping out.
I know I am going to have to do some cutting on the tunnel, I would like to try and keep it minimal, but the odds are against me. I figured if the engine would be low enough and moved forward a bit, the cutting wouldn't be a severe.
I saw you talking in the oil pan thread on the chevelles site for a while, thanks for helping out.
02-05-2017, 08:20 AM
#4
You've already made some good parts choices that will help you achieve desirable end-results if you are concerned about achieving optimized U-joint angles. You are correct thinking that moving the bellhousing mating plane forward, and the engine down, will help minimize the amount of work that you will incur trying to optimize the fitment of your T56...if you leave the bellhousing mating plane in the stock SB location, you can count on having to modify the entire tunnel extensively.
By moving the bellhousing mating plane forward by 1.25" you will be placing the front surface of the LS block and the cylinder heads in just about the same location that they are positioned on an OE SB Chevy installation. This is due to the rear of the LS block being 1-3/16" shorter than a SB Chevy engine.
At the same time you are moving the bellhousing plane forward, you need to get the engine crankshaft centerline as low as possible in order to achieve optimized U-joint working angles. This is where the use of the stock frame stands and typical swap plates conspire against your efforts, as their discrete installed height limits how low you can go before being maxed out.
The Hooker A-body LS swap engine brackets delete the frame stands from the equation entirely and are designed around the lower package height of 4th-gen F-body mounts to put the crankshaft centerline where needed to optimize the U-joint working angles.
At this point you've got a good geometric package going and are only lacking an oil pan for the engine to be able to claim installation victory. Unfortunately, the engine is so low at this point that very few oil pans have the minimized height at their front half that's required to prevent the inner tie rod ends from striking the oil pan at full-steer.
This is where the 1.25" front height of the Holley 302-2 pan, and the generous radius along its sides were put to full use to provide this clearance; any pan taller than 1.25" at the front is not going to clear the tie rod ends when used with the Hooker engine brackets.
I hope you find this information useful.
By moving the bellhousing mating plane forward by 1.25" you will be placing the front surface of the LS block and the cylinder heads in just about the same location that they are positioned on an OE SB Chevy installation. This is due to the rear of the LS block being 1-3/16" shorter than a SB Chevy engine.
At the same time you are moving the bellhousing plane forward, you need to get the engine crankshaft centerline as low as possible in order to achieve optimized U-joint working angles. This is where the use of the stock frame stands and typical swap plates conspire against your efforts, as their discrete installed height limits how low you can go before being maxed out.
The Hooker A-body LS swap engine brackets delete the frame stands from the equation entirely and are designed around the lower package height of 4th-gen F-body mounts to put the crankshaft centerline where needed to optimize the U-joint working angles.
At this point you've got a good geometric package going and are only lacking an oil pan for the engine to be able to claim installation victory. Unfortunately, the engine is so low at this point that very few oil pans have the minimized height at their front half that's required to prevent the inner tie rod ends from striking the oil pan at full-steer.
This is where the 1.25" front height of the Holley 302-2 pan, and the generous radius along its sides were put to full use to provide this clearance; any pan taller than 1.25" at the front is not going to clear the tie rod ends when used with the Hooker engine brackets.
I hope you find this information useful.
02-07-2017, 05:45 AM
#6
The only Canton pan I found with similar geometry to the Holley 302-2 pan is their part number 15-274. It has an advertised depth at its front end of 1.5", which means it is a 1/4" taller than the Holley pan and would therefore experience contact with the inner tie rod ends on your car if used with the Hooker A-body engine brackets.