Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Exhaust manifold and fuel pump question.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Engine: Exhaust manifold and fuel pump question.

    a little background first, 53 Coupe body sitting on a 58 Hawk Frame with the Hawk steering box.

    First question, when Studebaker started using Chevrolet engines they must have changed the passenger side motor mount quite a bit from the earlier mounting. The picture shows what my problem is. Does anyone have a picture of how Studebaker's SBC engine mounts look?

    Second question, what exhaust manifold/header works that clears the steering box/drag link? I'd really like to use a Ram's Horn 2.5 inch manifold but I don't have one to trial fit, maybe block hugger headers? All suggestions appreciated.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1927.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	103.2 KB
ID:	1760047

  • #2
    Studebaker used the 283 engines in 1965-66 in sedans and wagons. They did not have Hawks. There are no 'stock items' for what you are talking about.

    Comment


    • #3
      Chev. engines were put in Lark types. The Larks have a shorter WB and the engines sit further toward the front by a few inches. Your mounts look all right, maybe a little heavy. I have never used a set of rams horns on one. I build my own headers, usually for turbos.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by (S) View Post
        Studebaker used the 283 engines in 1965-66 in sedans and wagons. They did not have Hawks. There are no 'stock items' for what you are talking about.
        I'd just like to see how it was done by the factory, probably no easier solution than an electric fuel pump (that's what I did on my 38 Chevy) but ....a picture would be worth a thousand words

        Comment


        • #5
          It looks like your engine sits in the same place as the 350 in our '53 Coupe does, based on the location of the pully over the steering bell crank. We didn't cantilever a mount out to the original mount like you have, instead we removed those and added a tube crossmember for the m ounts. Anyway; we used block hugger headers, there is plenty of room for them. With our mount the stock 350 fuel pump fits fine too. We're also using the stock 350 HEI distributor. The 700R4 tail shaft mount is bolted through the "wing" crossmember. When we had the TH350 we used a 4" piece of plate from the trans mount bolts the reach the wing. That worked fine for 30 years.
          Last edited by bensherb; 02-19-2019, 12:47 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by bensherb View Post
            It looks like your engine sits in the same place as the 350 in our '53 Coupe does, based on the location of the pully over the steering bell crank. We didn't cantilever a mount out to the original mount like you have, instead we removed those and added a tube crossmember for the m ounts. Anyway; we used block hugger headers, there is plenty of room for them. With our mount the stock 350 fuel pump fits fine too. We're also using the stock 350 HEI distributor. The 700R4 tail shaft mount is bolted through the "wing" crossmember. When we had the TH350 we used a 4" piece of plate from the trans mount bolts the reach the wing. That worked fine for 30 years.
            Was your engine centered and what brand of block hugger headers did you use. The space between the Hawk steering box/drag link and the engine is close. I don't have any stock ram's horn manifolds to even trial fit and I hate to order and have to send back. I mounted the 700R4 just like you did -- I added some reinforcement where it bolted down. I probably should have done the engine mounts like you did

            Comment


            • #7
              Yes, the engine is centered. The headers were the cheapest we could find, I think about $50 back then, no idea of a brand name or if there was one. We had several different Iron manifolds, don't remember which fit or didn't but went with the block huggers, not sure why. I think the collector flange of the headers is lower than the ramhorns that could be why.

              What kind of reinforcement did you do for the trans mount? We used the single bolt mount and cantelievered 4" off it to reach the TH350 trans. Drilled small hole through top of wing, big hole in bottom for nut and access. Never had any issue in 30 years.
              Click image for larger version

Name:	20180514_200801.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	74.7 KB
ID:	1725503
              Last edited by bensherb; 02-27-2019, 02:22 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                I didn't do much reinforcement on the batwing except where the transmission bolted down. I had to find a mount that I could screw the bolts in because the thickness of the bat wing was greater than mount that I had. Also, the mount came out close to front edge of the bat wing and I decided to weld a pad onto the wing just to make it easier to drill the holes. I ran the reinforcement over the width of the wing (well most of it) The reinforcement was a piece of 1/4 inch thick by 1.5 inch angle iron, I had to cut one of the legs down so it would be flat. I had the wing out a number of times before I got it "right".
                Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1933.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	133.3 KB
ID:	1725521

                Comment


                • #9
                  That's the same mount we used; basic GM mount from '58-'02. It's available with one stud, one, two or three threaded holes, it just depends on what the original application was, the generic replacement is the three hole version. The mounting hole we drilled in the wing, is centered left to right and front to back.

                  With the hole centered in the wing I did clearance the wing, in the GT with the Stude engine, for access to the trans pan bolts so pan can be removed without removing the wing. In the '53 with Chevy engine clearance wasn't needed, it's tight but you can just squeek the pan past the wing. I guess the Chevy sits at a slightly different angle allowing more clearance.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by bensherb View Post
                    That's the same mount we used; basic GM mount from '58-'02. It's available with one stud, one, two or three threaded holes, it just depends on what the original application was, the generic replacement is the three hole version. The mounting hole we drilled in the wing, is centered left to right and front to back.

                    With the hole centered in the wing I did clearance the wing, in the GT with the Stude engine, for access to the trans pan bolts so pan can be removed without removing the wing. In the '53 with Chevy engine clearance wasn't needed, it's tight but you can just squeek the pan past the wing. I guess the Chevy sits at a slightly different angle allowing more clearance.
                    I set the engine back about as far as I could (move weight to the rear for better balance and I will be able to pull the trans pan if I have to. The engine/trans both will be rebuilt so I hope I never have to take either pan off

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 1953champcoupe View Post
                      I set the engine back about as far as I could (move weight to the rear for better balance and I will be able to pull the trans pan if I have to. The engine/trans both will be rebuilt so I hope I never have to take either pan off
                      We did the same thing, but made sure we could still use the HEI distributor, as we wanted the electronic ignition. I have the GM HEI in both cars, Chevy and Stude engines. Both fit fine and can easilly be removed and replaced without issue.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2142.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	69.8 KB
ID:	1725729Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2125.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	68.2 KB
ID:	1725730For anyone that did a search and want to know what the final outcome was, here goes. I took a chance and bought headers from Speedway Motors (https://www.speedwaymotors.com/Tight...ders,3816.html) They fit great on the passenger side, on the drivers side when I bolted them up they were a little closer to the steering box than I liked, so I marked 'em, took 'em off, applied a little heat and an air chisel with a flat bit and flattened the area where it was close. Well......things were looking ok but I looked down where there was some "interference with the motor mount....well I heated and "modified" the tube for additional clearance and finally just ground on my motor mount for additional clearance. Had I done that to start with I suspect that the only tube that would have need massaging was the forward one. I didn't take any shameful pictures after I massaged the headers but here are two pictures of the headers in place before modification.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X