JBA Headers Fitment Issue
Here is what I used and a picture:
http://store.summitracing.com/partde...5&autoview=sku
This is in my 66 fastback, but it has a cable clutch and lowered motor mounts:

http://store.summitracing.com/partde...5&autoview=sku
This is in my 66 fastback, but it has a cable clutch and lowered motor mounts:

The towers are only close by about .250 in. Not bad at all. But there isn't much room, and the engine can be offset also like already mentioned. That would cause it to hit the box, if it were to the driver side. Just by looking at it, you can't tell damage. Just sent a car over for paint, the rails were .500 inches to the driveside, and the pass rail was .250 in high in front. found this out because the hood was barely off. But the paint job was $$$$ so they measured and found it to be off. We totally missed it. No accident, no frame damage, no signs.Huh. I don't care the headers much for that reason. they just cut it to close. Any discrepancy, and whamo, there's the tower. The other headers mentions will fit better, but about the same level of difficulty to instal. both have a messed up #7 primary tube.
tx65coupe just rub them on the gear box to mark them and use a brass punch to massage them it wont take much.i have the same headers on my65 took 2or 3 times in to get it right (going at it slow) but you cant even see it now
good luck
good luck
Thanks for the tips Quesey. That is what I was thinking might work. What size or type of brass punch did you use. I don't have any of them, so I would have to go buy one anyway.
Also, We discoverd tonight that if the motor was about 1/2 inch back that the JBA headers would fit. The only problem then would be the close clearance at the steering box.
Does anyone know if the Ron Morris adjustable mounts that are for stock height are the same height as 66+ style mounts? If they are then they would probably allow me to move the engine back enough. If they are any lower though, it probably won't work.
http://www.ronmorrisperformance.com/...Code=Eng_Parts
It seems alot of people like the RMP mounts.
Fakesnakes, What mounts are you using?
Also, We discoverd tonight that if the motor was about 1/2 inch back that the JBA headers would fit. The only problem then would be the close clearance at the steering box.
Does anyone know if the Ron Morris adjustable mounts that are for stock height are the same height as 66+ style mounts? If they are then they would probably allow me to move the engine back enough. If they are any lower though, it probably won't work.
http://www.ronmorrisperformance.com/...Code=Eng_Parts
It seems alot of people like the RMP mounts.
Fakesnakes, What mounts are you using?
Last edited by tx65coupe; Apr 22, 2009 at 10:43 PM.
Attached is a pic. My number 8 tube goes inside the box. You can see that I slightly ground down the corner of the casting just to give a bit of extra clearance, though it wasn't hitting. I'd say that both the number 7 and 8 tubes clear by a half inch or so (I can stick my finger between them). FWIW, I measure 7-3/8" from the rear outer valve cover bolt straight back to the firewall and 11" to the inner fender apron (outer most part on the same plane that the distribution block bolts to).
FWIW, I would dimple the header tubes as a last resort. Summit Racing is very good at taking back parts you are not satisfied with. First thing I'd do is order another set and compare the fit. Pick the better fitting of the two and return the other one. Next thing I'd try is to space the engine up an 1/8" to 1/4" or so using spacers between the block and the insulator. If that doesn't do it, I'd splurge for the RMP motor mounts (they are stronger than stock since the mount is captured) so you can adjust it just right. Lastly, I'd dimple if need be.
Gothand,
Thanks for the picture and the additional input.
I am probably going to go with the RMP adjustable mounts. Did you get stock height ones or lowered ones. I believe that I will have to use stock height ones. It appears that the lowered ones are for 351 swaps.
I am going to take the same measurements from my rear valve cover bolt to compare to yours. Did you measure from the center of that bolt, accross it, or from the outer edge.
Is your T5 pushed as far back as the mount will allow it to be?
Thanks for the picture and the additional input.
I am probably going to go with the RMP adjustable mounts. Did you get stock height ones or lowered ones. I believe that I will have to use stock height ones. It appears that the lowered ones are for 351 swaps.
I am going to take the same measurements from my rear valve cover bolt to compare to yours. Did you measure from the center of that bolt, accross it, or from the outer edge.
Is your T5 pushed as far back as the mount will allow it to be?
Last edited by tx65coupe; Apr 22, 2009 at 11:31 PM.
I just took some measurements. Mine measures about the same 11 inches to the inner fender apron by the distribuition block. It also measures almost 7 3/4 inches to the firewall.
The slots in my T5 crossmember will allow about 1/2 inch of back ward movement.
The slots in my T5 crossmember will allow about 1/2 inch of back ward movement.
Mines a 289, stock eng mounts, C4, with part # D690YA. The manual version is D690YS. The catalog is at http://www.pertronix.com/catalogs/default.aspx
bottom of the page. Looks like they have a few newer versions too. Doug Thorley was known for his headers in drag racing circle in southern CA, but a bad divorce, and other issues really shook up the company. The parent company is now pertronix. They still make very, very good headers, with thick flanges, and absolutely one of the best gaskets I've ever used. This is my third set, and never had a header leak.
bottom of the page. Looks like they have a few newer versions too. Doug Thorley was known for his headers in drag racing circle in southern CA, but a bad divorce, and other issues really shook up the company. The parent company is now pertronix. They still make very, very good headers, with thick flanges, and absolutely one of the best gaskets I've ever used. This is my third set, and never had a header leak.


