Are these hookers too close...
10-23-2008, 10:22 AM
#21
TECH Resident
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Roswell, GA
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Hookers fit fine with Hooker mount plates--they don't claim to fit with ATS-style plates. I didn't like how close I was to the firewall with the Hooker plates, so I switch to ATS-style. I don't know for sure of any headers that fit with ATS-style plates other than the $$$$ ATS headers.
10-24-2008, 11:52 AM
#24
I wouldn't have beat on the header to make the room. I would have tried a tubular upper control arm (bought me about 1" more room on my S10), different mounts, or cutting, welding in a patch piece, and recoating. I like to see on my swaps about 1/2 - 1" of clearance all the way around the header. I know that is kinda tough but that's what I shoot for.
10-24-2008, 08:23 PM
#25
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had no problems at all with the S&P shorties, and on a stock tune with stock cam and heads, we got 280rwhp and 365 lb-ft throught the T56 and 8.5". A lot of people bag on the mid length headers, but then have to beat up the long tubes, and finagle like hell over speed bumps...
10-25-2008, 12:08 AM
#26
Man I hate you dented those. You could have knotched that upper control arm a little more imho.
The hooker headers are designed to work with hooker motor mounts, right? Do the motor mounts come with frame stands as well, or do you have to use the factory frame stands on the car? There were two types of sbc frame stands and one bbc frame stand. The 307/327 frame stands are shorter than the 302/350 stands. GM did this because the 307/327 motors had 6 3/4" balancers and the 302 and 350 motors had 8" balancers. So, if the hooker mounts are designed to work with the stock sbc frame stands, they need to be used with the 302/350 stands so that it lifts the motor higher in the frame, thus giving you more header clearance. I haven't researched this swap in detail, this is just an observation/guess based on the header clearance issues i've seen on both sides of the motor. Information on mounts and frame stands can be found here.
http://www.pozziracing.com/camaro_engine.htm
I had the same exact problem you had with my 1 3/4" primary dougs headers on the drivers side of my 406 SBC. I cut some material out of it and cleaned it up with a grinder, and have plenty of clearance w/o denting the headers. The only dents that are in mine are the ones that the manufaturer put in for straight plug clearance.
before
after
The hooker headers are designed to work with hooker motor mounts, right? Do the motor mounts come with frame stands as well, or do you have to use the factory frame stands on the car? There were two types of sbc frame stands and one bbc frame stand. The 307/327 frame stands are shorter than the 302/350 stands. GM did this because the 307/327 motors had 6 3/4" balancers and the 302 and 350 motors had 8" balancers. So, if the hooker mounts are designed to work with the stock sbc frame stands, they need to be used with the 302/350 stands so that it lifts the motor higher in the frame, thus giving you more header clearance. I haven't researched this swap in detail, this is just an observation/guess based on the header clearance issues i've seen on both sides of the motor. Information on mounts and frame stands can be found here.
http://www.pozziracing.com/camaro_engine.htm
I had the same exact problem you had with my 1 3/4" primary dougs headers on the drivers side of my 406 SBC. I cut some material out of it and cleaned it up with a grinder, and have plenty of clearance w/o denting the headers. The only dents that are in mine are the ones that the manufaturer put in for straight plug clearance.
before
after
Last edited by 67SS&99SS; 10-25-2008 at 12:20 AM.
