eBay LS Swap Headers - Test fit on a 67 Camaro

[n77nxc]

I've been on the hunt for a set of headers to replace the Dynatech LT's I have on my 67. The Dynatechs hang extremely low, and I cringe every time I scrape them on something.

I ordered a set of eBay shorty headers awhile back based on a recommendation from a member here. I had my doubts about the fitment/quality, but for the price ~$175, it was worth a shot. After roughly 6 months, I finally decided to take the time and see if they would work.

I'm not here to argue about Chinese vs. American but purely to inform others about the fitment. They fit like a glove with my setup. I searched high and low to see pics of these installed on a 1st gen Camaro and turned up nothing. So here goes:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1646/25027911884_08027bdc14_b.jpg

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1486/25658454275_5942a4c189_b.jpg

I only took pics of the driver side since most header issues involve clearance with the steering box. I have set back brackets on my car and if the engine was pushed forward, there could potentially be interference with the steering box.

Next up is to fab the downpipes. I'll post more pics once I get the downpipes installed. :thumbsup:

[Corey R.]

Looks like they clear fairly well. How close is that tube on cylinder 7 to the 90 degree PS fitting? It looks close. I have seen some 1st gen folks have issues with fitment and long term durability with the long tube headers (67Rally comes to mind).

What material are these made out of?

[n77nxc]

Looks like they clear fairly well. How close is that tube on cylinder 7 to the 90 degree PS fitting? It looks close. I have seen some 1st gen folks have issues with fitment and long term durability with the long tube headers (67Rally comes to mind).

What material are these made out of?

Its the angle of the photo. There is plenty of clearance there. I can verify the exact measurement.

They are stainless steel. Probably the cheapest type but we will see how long they last. This was more of an experiment, so I'm not worried about it.

I'm just glad to get the Dynatech's off the car. Those are a nightmare on lowered 1st gens.

[rustomatic]

I think I have these same headers on my Falcon (5.3 LS). It'll be some time before I get any heat in the headers, but overall, I was very impressed with the materials (flanges/thickness) and welds. I mainly bought them because the manifolds I thought I was going to use presented too many problems. An added benefit of the headers is decent weight savings. They fit the around the block and bellhousing like gloves . . .

[Z06vette]

I have been eyeing these up. Has anyone tried them?

http://www.speed-engineering.com/ls-conversions-swaps/exhaust/ls-conversions-swap-headers/camaro-longtube-headers-ls-conversion-swap-1967-69-ls1-ls2-ls3-ls6-engines.html

Trying to get my buddy to give them a shot, as he has dynatechs as well with poor ground clearance. Shimming the tailshaft would help a ton, but he's running a t56 and it hits the tunnel. In the short term we are going to cut the collectors off the dynatechs & run a slip fit collector with a thin style band clamp.

[n77nxc]

Those Speed Engineering headers closely resemble the Dynatechs. I can see those still having ground clearance issues.

[Vega$69]

I have been eyeing these up. Has anyone tried them?

http://www.speed-engineering.com/ls-conversions-swaps/exhaust/ls-conversions-swap-headers/camaro-longtube-headers-ls-conversion-swap-1967-69-ls1-ls2-ls3-ls6-engines.html

Trying to get my buddy to give them a shot, as he has dynatechs as well with poor ground clearance. Shimming the tailshaft would help a ton, but he's running a t56 and it hits the tunnel. In the short term we are going to cut the collectors off the dynatechs & run a slip fit collector with a thin style band clamp.

This the problem. On T56 tranny installs the tunnel needs to be cut to get proper driveline angle which also brings the header collectors level with the subframe and achieves more ground clearance. Also keeps the engine level in the engine bay and the rear of the engine parallel to the firewall and puts less stress on the motor mounts.

We have dynatechs on a 69 lowered 2" on Hotchkiss springs. Clearance work ok. I ran Hooker Supercomps on 2 cars and they tuck up nicely higher then the FBody oil pan.

[Z06vette]

Ya, he needs to raise the tunnel. We'll do it eventually. I raised mine last winter during a motor & subframe swap with the alston chassisworks cap. For now we'll delete the collectors flanges to the slip fit style. There's only a few scrapes on the header tubes themselves, but the collectors are ground down a bit. Its still going to scrape, but at least it will be on a flat surfaces vs a vertical one.

[n77nxc]

Looks like they clear fairly well. How close is that tube on cylinder 7 to the 90 degree PS fitting? It looks close. I have seen some 1st gen folks have issues with fitment and long term durability with the long tube headers (67Rally comes to mind).

What material are these made out of?

I checked the clearance and it's a little over an inch.

[camarodude87]

Can you post a link of where you got your headers from. Im looking for a set myself for my 69 Camaro

[Hugger67RSSS]

I have been eyeing these up. Has anyone tried them?

http://www.speed-engineering.com/ls-conversions-swaps/exhaust/ls-conversions-swap-headers/camaro-longtube-headers-ls-conversion-swap-1967-69-ls1-ls2-ls3-ls6-engines.html

Trying to get my buddy to give them a shot, as he has dynatechs as well with poor ground clearance. Shimming the tailshaft would help a ton, but he's running a t56 and it hits the tunnel. In the short term we are going to cut the collectors off the dynatechs & run a slip fit collector with a thin style band clamp.

I have those exact headers going into a 66 GMC truck. They appear to be pretty well made. Welds look good and flanges are thick. I've had them bolted up and they align with all the bolts fine. I know they are knock-offs but was worth a try. I'll start a thread on the truck in a few days and take some pictures of them.

[toddoky]

This the problem. On T56 tranny installs the tunnel needs to be cut to get proper driveline angle which also brings the header collectors level with the subframe and achieves more ground clearance. Also keeps the engine level in the engine bay and the rear of the engine parallel to the firewall and puts less stress on the motor mounts.

We have dynatechs on a 69 lowered 2" on Hotchkiss springs. Clearance work ok. I ran Hooker Supercomps on 2 cars and they tuck up nicely higher then the FBody oil pan.

Ya, he needs to raise the tunnel. We'll do it eventually. I raised mine last winter during a motor & subframe swap with the alston chassisworks cap. For now we'll delete the collectors flanges to the slip fit style. There's only a few scrapes on the header tubes themselves, but the collectors are ground down a bit. Its still going to scrape, but at least it will be on a flat surfaces vs a vertical one.

Hey guys, just as a side-not to this thread, you only have to raise the tunnel on a 1st-gen LS/T56 swap to be able to achieve desirable U-joint working angles if you are using the stock frame stands and swap plates to mount the engine. The Hooker 1st gen LS engine mounting brackets and T56 crossmember mount the engine and transmission lower in the chassis than is possible using the frame stand/swap plate mounting method and requires no tunnel modifications to install either a 4th-gen F-body T56 or T56 Magnum transmission in the car while achieving optimized U-joint angles. The Hooker Blackheart 1st-gen headers are designed around this mounting geometry and provide tight tucked ground clearance.

[im4u2nvss]

Hey guys, just as a side-not to this thread, you only have to raise the tunnel on a 1st-gen LS/T56 swap to be able to achieve desirable U-joint working angles if you are using the stock frame stands and swap plates to mount the engine. The Hooker 1st gen LS engine mounting brackets and T56 crossmember mount the engine and transmission lower in the chassis than is possible using the frame stand/swap plate mounting method and requires no tunnel modifications to install either a 4th-gen F-body T56 or T56 Magnum transmission in the car while achieving optimized U-joint angles. The Hooker Blackheart 1st-gen headers are designed around this mounting geometry and provide tight tucked ground clearance.

Quick queston toddoky. Do you know if 1/2 height body mounts will still clear with the Hooker swap setup? Or would tunnel need to be raised to clear F-body T56(may be getting greedy but wanted to ask).

[toddoky]

Quick queston toddoky. Do you know if 1/2 height body mounts will still clear with the Hooker swap setup? Or would tunnel need to be raised to clear F-body T56(may be getting greedy but wanted to ask).

No, the Hooker 1st-gen LS swap system is not compatible with the use of 1/2-height body mounts. This is primarily due to the way the crossmember is designed to extend up into the formed pockets in the floor to maximize exhaust system ground clearance (photo attached), which leaves only about 1/8" between the top of the crossmember and the floor pocket sheet metal. It would take quite a bit of sheet metal work to make everything play nice together if you wanted to use 1/2 height body mounts.http://i765.photobucket.com/albums/xx292/toddoky/12626HKR-to%20install%202004R-2_zps2o5vhhxw.jpg (http://s765.photobucket.com/user/toddoky/media/12626HKR-to%20install%202004R-2_zps2o5vhhxw.jpg.html)

[n77nxc]

That crossmember is next on my list. My BMR crossmember is now limiting how far up I can place the downpipes.

[toddoky]

That crossmember is next on my list. My BMR crossmember is now limiting how far up I can place the downpipes.

It's a great piece, but be advised that it will only work for you if you are using the Hooker 1st-gen engine brackets, or others that provide the same fore/aft engine placement. If you are using common 1" set-back plates, the mount on your transmission will extend too far back and the case of the T56 will crash into the crossbar...it's a mess of a situation.

[n77nxc]

It's a great piece, but be advised that it will only work for you if you are using the Hooker 1st-gen engine brackets, or others that provide the same fore/aft engine placement. If you are using common 1" set-back plates, the mount on your transmission will extend too far back and the case of the T56 will crash into the crossbar...it's a mess of a situation.

Hmmm, I'll have to investigate a bit. I'm running a 4L60E.

Solid info though! Thanks!

[toddoky]

Hmmm, I'll have to investigate a bit. I'm running a 4L60E.

Solid info though! Thanks!

There is a specific Hooker crossmember for the 4L60, but you would suffer the same grief if using the frame stand/1" set-back swap plate set-up.

[im4u2nvss]

No, the Hooker 1st-gen LS swap system is not compatible with the use of 1/2-height body mounts. This is primarily due to the way the crossmember is designed to extend up into the formed pockets in the floor to maximize exhaust system ground clearance (photo attached), which leaves only about 1/8" between the top of the crossmember and the floor pocket sheet metal. It would take quite a bit of sheet metal work to make everything play nice together if you wanted to use 1/2 height body mounts.

Thanks toddoky.

[toddoky]

Hmmm, I'll have to investigate a bit. I'm running a 4L60E.

Solid info though! Thanks!

Here's a bottom-up view of the Hooker 1st-gen LS/4L60 set-up. You can see in the photo that there's little room for deviation from the designed fore/aft engine/transmission location that is designed into the Hooker 12618HKR engine brackets. http://i765.photobucket.com/albums/xx292/toddoky/12625HKR-on%2072%20Nova-2_zpsabfi7ed9.jpg (http://s765.photobucket.com/user/toddoky/media/12625HKR-on%2072%20Nova-2_zpsabfi7ed9.jpg.html)