Engine set back question - Lateral-g Forums

tyoneal · #1 01-01-2007, 04:29 AM

To All:

Have many of you built your car with the engine set back about six inch for better weight distribution? (69 Camaro)

My '33 has that so the 429 will fit right, but I don't see many people doing that with the 69 Camaro's.

Is it just to much hassle for the amount of improvement one gains?

What configuration would be the optimum placement for the drive train if you could have it anyway you wnat it?

That trick car Schwartz performance put together really seems to be set up correctly.

Has anyone done a mid-engine Camaro? (I know it's an idiotic question, but this group is very creative, and I'm always surprised by what people are trying)

Even Sacriligious thinking of putting a torque monster Diesil will probably eventually make itself into a 69 someday. Look at all the performance, "Banks" is getting. Those things rock and get good milage to boot.

I'm just think out loud.

Happy New Year to all of you!

Thanks,

Ty O'Neal

DAWG · #2 01-01-2007, 06:17 AM

if seen a bunch of camaros with the engine pushed back at the strip
alot of firewall modification is a given.
I actually seen one with access to the distributor in the dash.

Teetoe_Jones · #3 01-01-2007, 11:45 AM

Mine is setup with a 6.5" setback into the firewall. This causes issues in multiple areas:
1: Pedal room. With the engine setback into the passenger cabin, you lose the area for conventional firewall mounted pedals. Add a roll cage down bar next to the A pillar and that space becomes even smaller.
2: Factory dash will no longer work. The engine is set so far back, that is goes beyond where the dash ends, making a full aftermarket replacement a requirement.
3: Shifter placement. The transmission is also now placed even further behind, making it hard to place the shifter in a good spot. You can move the driver rear ward (making a rear seat impossible) or run an auto, and place the shifter where ever you want.

My car is different than most in the respect that I had a very specific suspension and drivetrain requirement for my 68. I basicly have a full tube chassis with a C5 Corvette layout, LS1 engine with rear mounted T56 transaxle. I have no back seat, no factory dash, and a ton of fabrication to still complete. Not a recommended direction for 99% of the people out there building camaros.

Tyler

pdq67 · #4 01-01-2007, 06:35 PM

Please check into how the Gotlieb Brothers did this in their "Big Red-1" '69 Camaro.

The "Grandfather" of Pro-Touring cars, imho.

And somewhere on the Boards is a post of where a guy used just a new garden metal wheelbarrow bucket modified to make a firewall insert and I'm here to tell you, it was most impressive in my book!!

pdq67

novanutcase · #5 01-01-2007, 07:42 PM

Saw the wheelbarrow thing and as inventive as it was I cringe at the thought of someone looking into my engine bay and seeing "craftsman" stamped on the set back sheetmetal!

Teetoe - Since your running the Transaxle version of the T56 do you really lose that much foot space? Do you have photos of the footwells? 6 1/2 inches doesn't seem like a lot to move it back so I don't understand why your factory dash wouldn't work but you are obviously experiencing this so you should know. Couldn't you have shortened the torque tube or move the shifter forward and lengthen the shifter rod that goes from the shifter to the Trans? Pics would be greatly appreciated as I am thinking of doing this in my '66 Nova.

Thanks!

John

James OLC · #6 01-01-2007, 08:45 PM

In our discussions regarding a full chassis '67, I think that the number that we came up with was approximately 6 to 7 inches of engine setback for "ideal" placement. Proper positioning of the steering rack to avoid bump steer issues was one of the key considerations as was, as Tyler can attest to, weight distribution. I ran about 2.5" of setback in my Super Stock car with no major issues (aside from headers and distributor clearance) but the additional 3.5" to 4.5" introduces a 'few' kinks as Tyler described.

Teetoe_Jones · #7 01-02-2007, 10:36 AM

Novanutcase-

The engine is the part killing my footwell space, notthe trans. The Tranny would be killing seat bracket mounting, and other items like that. We had to lengthen the torque tube to make the transaxle work in the 68 Camaro. Here is what a 6.5" engine setback looks like from the inside:

That is 11" from the roll cage down bar to the engine cowling on the interior. Not much space for a set of pedals.

Tyler

DocDave · #8 01-02-2007, 10:54 AM

I am also planning on moving the engine back a bit in my 67 nova. Don't know exactly how much yet, but someone once told me the ideal placement is having the #1 plug even with the pivot point of the front wheels. This keeps most of the weight behind the wheels instead of hanging out over them. Now how possible is this without taking up all your passenger compartment space? Don't know. I will let you know when I start mocking up my engine/transmission placement.

**Sales@Dutchboys** · #9 01-02-2007, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teetoe_Jones

Novanutcase-

The engine is the part killing my footwell space, notthe trans. The Tranny would be killing seat bracket mounting, and other items like that. We had to lengthen the torque tube to make the transaxle work in the 68 Camaro. Here is what a 6.5" engine setback looks like from the inside:

That is 11" from the roll cage down bar to the engine cowling on the interior. Not much space for a set of pedals.

Tyler

That Looks great