67 TKO LS Motor Mount Compatability Advice

[BaroneDog]

Been reading a lot on this website about the many different LS/Motor Mount/Header/Tranny combinations out there and could not find my exact setup, so wondering if anyone out there has done the following combination in a 1967 shortbed with a low hump:

1. Doug Thorley 323-Y (1 7/8') Headers
2. CPP Sheet Metal Stands
3. Dirty Dingo Sliders
4. TKO 600 Transmission
5. CPP Tranny Crossmember

From what I have read, people have had very good luck with these headers clearing with #1-3 combo above, but I fear that this setup might put the engine a bit too high and cause interference between the TKO and my low hump tunnel. I have seen a few threads that indicate the TKO will clear the low hump tunnel, but did not get much details about the motor mount setup.

If you used a motor mount setup that put the engine lower, did you have to trim the frame rails for headers to clear? From what I read the 67 has a bit wider frame rail near the motor mounts.

There was one thread with a 67 that used the ECE mounts (which sound like they sit lower than the CPP/DD combo) but used the 1 5/8" Thorley 324-Y headers and the photo looked very tight on the driver side, which got me worried about the 1 7/8" clearing in that setup. The Thorley instructions for the 323-Y indicate that the headers should clear, but it sounds like some frame trimming is required for the ECE in the 67, which I am trying to avoid.

Any thoughts and experience is appreciated. Thanks!

[NC_John]

Originally Posted by BaroneDog

Been reading a lot on this website about the many different LS/Motor Mount/Header/Tranny combinations out there and could not find my exact setup, so wondering if anyone out there has done the following combination in a 1967 shortbed with a low hump:

1. Doug Thorley 323-Y (1 7/8') Headers
2. CPP Sheet Metal Stands
3. Dirty Dingo Sliders
4. TKO 600 Transmission
5. CPP Tranny Crossmember

From what I have read, people have had very good luck with these headers clearing with #1-3 combo above, but I fear that this setup might put the engine a bit too high and cause interference between the TKO and my low hump tunnel. I have seen a few threads that indicate the TKO will clear the low hump tunnel, but did not get much details about the motor mount setup.

If you used a motor mount setup that put the engine lower, did you have to trim the frame rails for headers to clear? From what I read the 67 has a bit wider frame rail near the motor mounts.

There was one thread with a 67 that used the ECE mounts (which sound like they sit lower than the CPP/DD combo) but used the 1 5/8" Thorley 324-Y headers and the photo looked very tight on the driver side, which got me worried about the 1 7/8" clearing in that setup. The Thorley instructions for the 323-Y indicate that the headers should clear, but it sounds like some frame trimming is required for the ECE in the 67, which I am trying to avoid.

Any thoughts and experience is appreciated. Thanks!

I needed a high-hump for a T56 behind a small block in my '70. I am working the LS swap now with all the same parts you are considering and test fitting indicates it should fit exactly the same. I am absolutely going with the bigger headers and although I haven't bought or tried them yet I don't have any concerns about fitment. I just hope they won't hang low.

Wait a few months and I can tell you first hand how they work!

[BaroneDog]

Originally Posted by NC_John

I needed a high-hump for a T56 behind a small block in my '70. I am working the LS swap now with all the same parts you are considering and test fitting indicates it should fit exactly the same. I am absolutely going with the bigger headers and although I haven't bought or tried them yet I don't have any concerns about fitment. I just hope they won't hang low.

Wait a few months and I can tell you first hand how they work!

Thanks for responding!. Do you mean that the small block, in its stock position, puts the tranny at the same height and angle as the LS with CPP/DD combo?

[NC_John]

Originally Posted by BaroneDog

Thanks for responding!. Do you mean that the small block, in its stock position, puts the tranny at the same height and angle as the LS with CPP/DD combo?

My T-56 is a super tight fit in my truck. I even had to trim the back of my high-hump to fit the tail section (might be pics of that in my build thread). That being the case, I don't have any room to move the transmission fore or aft at all and want it at the same height so my transmission crossmember stays the same. I didn't want to have to modify my driveshaft again either.

Before I took the small block out I measured the spot where the top of the bellhousing sat relative to the firewall (still have a piece of string with a weight marking the spot on the truck). When I test fit the 6.0, I could get it in the same spot. That was done without the transmission attached (it was getting reworked for LS service).

So........ it looks like it's going to be real close if not dead on.

[BaroneDog]

[QUOTE

Before I took the small block out I measured the spot where the top of the bellhousing sat relative to the firewall (still have a piece of string with a weight marking the spot on the truck). When I test fit the 6.0, I could get it in the same spot. That was done without the transmission attached (it was getting reworked for LS service).

So........ it looks like it's going to be real close if not dead on.[/QUOTE]

Good news. Please let me know if it works out as planned. Thanks!

[NC_John]

Originally Posted by BaroneDog

[QUOTE

Before I took the small block out I measured the spot where the top of the bellhousing sat relative to the firewall (still have a piece of string with a weight marking the spot on the truck). When I test fit the 6.0, I could get it in the same spot. That was done without the transmission attached (it was getting reworked for LS service).

So........ it looks like it's going to be real close if not dead on.

Good news. Please let me know if it works out as planned. Thanks![/QUOTE]

I will but the way things are moving, it's going to be a while. I want it back in the truck NOW. It'll clear up a ton of space in the garage.

[Sean1985]

I did an ls3 and tko 600. I used everything you did except the trans mount. It did not clear the low hump. I had to get a high hump to get the proper angle.

[BaroneDog]

Originally Posted by Sean1985

I did an ls3 and tko 600. I used everything you did except the trans mount. It did not clear the low hump. I had to get a high hump to get the proper angle.

Thanks Sean1985! Bummer to hear it did not fit with a low hump. If you used a different motor mount and/or adapter plate, would there have been enough room to move the engine/transmission down further and get the correct angle? Or would the headers have hit the frame?

From your thumbnail, it looks like you have a stepside. What year? Is that the truck you did this in? Sorry for all the questions and thanks in advance for the help!

[Sean1985]

Yes I did it in the red stepside. 67. There is not too much more room between the oil pan and the crossmember. I used a holley oil pan. I don't think you can maintain a 3 degree angle or less and use the low hump. I was pretty bummed at first but once I did it it was fine. I just wish I would have known all this before I bought my trans. I would have went with the t56. My Thorleys hit the frame barely. I had to die grind about 1/4" on both sides of the frame. I used the metal header gaskets instead of the cork gaskets DT sent out. Gives you a little more clearance.

[BaroneDog]

Originally Posted by Sean1985

Yes I did it in the red stepside. 67. There is not too much more room between the oil pan and the crossmember. I used a holley oil pan. I don't think you can maintain a 3 degree angle or less and use the low hump. I was pretty bummed at first but once I did it it was fine. I just wish I would have known all this before I bought my trans. I would have went with the t56. My Thorleys hit the frame barely. I had to die grind about 1/4" on both sides of the frame. I used the metal header gaskets instead of the cork gaskets DT sent out. Gives you a little more clearance.

Would a T56 have fit under a low hump or do you mean that you would have opted for the T56 if you knew you had to go to the trouble of welding on a high hump?

[Sean1985]

Originally Posted by BaroneDog

Would a T56 have fit under a low hump or do you mean that you would have opted for the T56 if you knew you had to go to the trouble of welding on a high hump?

Yea if I knew I needed a high hump I would have got the t56. I didn't weld the high hump on. I bolted it in just in case I ever have to get in there again.

[NC_John]

Cut the low hump out. Drill and bolt the high hump on. You'll have to remove it again if you ever need to get the transmission out again (at least I do).

[BaroneDog]

Originally Posted by NC_John

Cut the low hump out. Drill and bolt the high hump on. You'll have to remove it again if you ever need to get the transmission out again (at least I do).

Thanks. What is the best way to get a high hump pan? LMC does not appear to carry them. Can you only get them used/ salvaged?

[NC_John]

Originally Posted by BaroneDog

Thanks. What is the best way to get a high hump pan? LMC does not appear to carry them. Can you only get them used/ salvaged?

Just watch the parts classifieds here and/or put out a WTB post. That's how I got mine.

[Sean1985]

I got mine used from a local guy. I heard slosh tubs make fiberglass ones.

[hfd410]

I got one from slosh tubs. Very simple install

[gringoloco]

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/k...UaAvXOEALw_wcB