New Hooker 2nd-gen F-body LS swap components now released
#61
Does Hooker have a "complete" exhaust package to go from your headers all the way to the back.? Or is it designed to use someone else's? Getting ready to do a 79 Camaro LS swap and it looks like Holley might have a lot of the answers
#62
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Yes, there are 2.5" and 3" systems for 2nd-gen F-bodies that are in line for their first production runs down in our Mississippi facility right now. They both connect directly to the new Hooker 2nd-gen LS swap headers and are bolt-in compatible with the Ridetech 4-link rear suspension if you need that feature. It's going to take a couple more weeks to get them wrapped up and on the shelf, but they are coming. They are stainless steel and provide the highest ground clearance that can be found from what I've seen.
#63
Another question, what is the performance difference between the hooker "stock" manifolds and mid length and long tube headers. My build will probably just center around a stock 5.3 so roughly the 300 HP range and the 4L60E trans
#64
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Todd
#65
So have you do HP numbers to compare stock, vs LS manifolds, long headers? Just curious cause I believe a stock 5.3 is advertised at 295 HP and headers would be a cheap and easy horsepower adder without even removing a valve cover
#66
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Your are correct about your easy bolt-on HP assumption. Stock take-out 5.3 engines have HP ratings in the range of 285-295HP and another 20-25HP can be coaxed out of them with nothing more than a good set of long-tube headers and a decent exhaust system. You will also typically see gains in peak torque with good long tubes in the range of 10-12 lb. ft. and measureable torque increases across the board. The mid-lengths combined with the same decent exhaust system will usually net you a power increase of around a 6-8HP with negligible increases in peak torque. The mid-lengths are really good at providing maximum ground clearance with a measurable increase in power, but they are no match for the power to be found in a properly sized set of long tubes. If you do not plan on breaking into the engine or adding a power adder of some type, go with a set of 1-3/4" long-tubes and a good 2.5" exhaust system like the one from Hooker and you will be happy I assure you.
#69
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Yes, there is an O2 bung in the collector of each header assembly and the Holley oil pan fits without any modifications in 2nd-gen cars.
#70
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
The 12612HKR engine mounting brackets for 1970-74 F-bodies and the 12613HKR engine mounting brackets for 1975-81 F-bodies both split the fore/aft positioning of the engine between the typical stock (1" back) and the 1" forward swap plates, so what you end up with is a position that requires a stock transmission to be pulled forward about 1/2" to 3/4" to mate up to the engine.
#72
11 Second Club
iTrader: (1)
So will both of the pans (302-1 and 302-2) fit on a late 2nd gen with the Holley/hooker 75-81 mounts?
#73
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
On the Holley oil pans, I seen a new one at the LS Fest and it was an improved clearance pan part# 302-2. I seen it in the smaller catalog I picked up there also but haven't seen it or a price on it yet.
So will both of the pans (302-1 and 302-2) fit on a late 2nd gen with the Holley/hooker 75-81 mounts?
So will both of the pans (302-1 and 302-2) fit on a late 2nd gen with the Holley/hooker 75-81 mounts?
#74
11 Second Club
iTrader: (1)
The new pan was designed to address fitment issues specific to the 1st-gen F-body cars Ernie. Although both pans will install on a 2nd-gen, the existing 302-1 Holley pan would be more desireable to have in a 2nd-gen in my opinion due to the ability to run a stroker crank and a full-length windage tray, which you cannot do with the new pan (it requires the use of a 3/4 length windage tray like the stock GM 4th-gen F-body pan does). For those that want the full windage tray and stroker crank capabilities of the existing Holley pan in a 1st-gen AND a desireable 3 degree engine inclination angle, you will have to notch the engine crossmember to provide the needed clearance. Others have used the pan without notching the crossmember by placing shims or washers under the mounts, but that methods has adverse affects on the installed engine inclination angle and the resultant U-joint working angles.
Thanks, I guess I'll be buying some parts here soon.... I'm glad you guys stepped in and make a nice trio of parts that fit nice and neat on the second gens.
#75
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Thanks for noticing our efforts. We felt that the market was maturing and the timing was right to start approaching these LS swaps from a fully-engineered position to elevate the experience from the parts-bin proposition it's been to this point. Mixing and matching parts from various manufacturers that were never designed specifically to work together works sufficiently for some, but we wanted to ensure a better outcome and be able to controll the critical variables of the swap, which isn't possible with different parts from various manufacturers.
#76
On The Tree
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: WA
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
God damn those cast exhaust flanges and collector parts are an awesome idea. As an engineer with some metalcasting background I love the cast in ribs and steps built into the flanges. I have always hated choosing between the performance of headers and the their leak potential. Sure thick flanges help, but the warpage from welding is always a problem. That design should elimante or greatly reduced warpage. Awesome job.
#77
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
God damn those cast exhaust flanges and collector parts are an awesome idea. As an engineer with some metalcasting background I love the cast in ribs and steps built into the flanges. I have always hated choosing between the performance of headers and the their leak potential. Sure thick flanges help, but the warpage from welding is always a problem. That design should elimante or greatly reduced warpage. Awesome job.
#78
Teching In
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Castle rock Colorado
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a serious buyer when these headers come out... I own a 1971 camaro with a soon to be installed LS3, tremec tko600. I wanted the ground clearance and mechanical clutch friendly header and these seem to be the ticket?!!
Is it best to use Hooker LS swap engine mounts?
Thanks
Is it best to use Hooker LS swap engine mounts?
Thanks
#80
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
I'm a serious buyer when these headers come out... I own a 1971 camaro with a soon to be installed LS3, tremec tko600. I wanted the ground clearance and mechanical clutch friendly header and these seem to be the ticket?!!
Is it best to use Hooker LS swap engine mounts?
Thanks
Is it best to use Hooker LS swap engine mounts?
Thanks