So I spliced a 1987 Dakota front clip onto a 1957 Plymouth frame. I just got my frame back from power coat and reassembled the front suspension, loaded the engine and transmission in, and it looks like the hemi is a tad heavier than anticipated. I'm about three inches lower than expected. Anyone have experience getting custom front coils or air bags for a first gen Dakota???

So, is it because you welded the clip in too high or because the springs are too weak.

Cause airbags won't fix the first.

I am guessing you deal with a lot of stupid people in your life.
You have my sympathy.
Yes, it is due to the springs being too weak, and not due to the clip installed in the wrong position.

I deal with a lot of people who may or may not be stupid, but more of them are trying to do things they have no idea how to do.

So it helps to make sure where we are in a discussion before we go into it.

For custom coils, Espo Springs and Things are pretty good about making springs to spec and will work with you to figure out the specs.

http://www.springsnthings.com/index.htm

Airbags, dunno, I don't do airbags.

Wow! I'd love to learn more, I'm doing the same thing with my 58.
I built 2"spacers for my race truck but that's probably not a good idea for a heavy street car. Got any advice for my spice? Maybe some pics?

i am imagining you used a 4 cylinder dakota for the swap----budget fix--junkyard dakota v8 springs---i imagine original pickapart springs will run $70-----i would put those on and see where it sits----on my 50 hudson i used 2 inch drop spindles and cut one coil off the v8 springs and it sits at original height with a 750 lb motor....or if you are into just buying things and getting long distance advise then you are at the right spot....

I'd love to see some pictures too (I've kicked around changing the front suspension on my 57 from time to time).

You will also probably want to remember that new springs will also settle at least an inch or so during the first year.

Rockauto has pairs of v8 springs for less than $100.

R.

I used a 4 cylinder Dakota frame under my 57 truck, and when it was all back together, it sat too low. Like mentioned above, I got a set of V8 Dakota coils and it sets where it should now.

I would share some pics, but all my files are too large to run on this board.

So was it a 4 cylinder donor?

87 Had no V8 option, so it's either a 4 or V6 donor.

It was a V6.

Picture doesn't work, it says I need to create an account or sign in.

The V8 springs will probably bring it up a little, probably enough to be OK. I'd go for new replacement springs. Air bags should also be available, if you want to go that way. Gene

".... the hemi is a tad heavier than anticipated....."

Well there's your problem You could always put it on a diet

http://hothemiheads.com/cylinder_heads/aluminum_heads_street.html

Yeah there's about 3.500 reasons there are not a pair of those on mine too.

Thanks for the pictures....are you running a build thread anywhere? I would love to see some more detail. What engine and transmission are you going to be running? The trim looks like it's a Savoy?

On my 57 Plaza I went about as far as I could with the stock suspension (which really wasn't that much) NOSR Chrysler Windsor torsion bars, Imperial sway bar and AAJ disc brakes. Pretty much handles like a nose heavy 57 Plymouth

.

Thanks to everyone who has replied.
I have not been putting together a build thread. I really dont have the time to do a build thread right. If there is something you or anyone else wants to see I will dig through my pics and post it up. I bought a 6.1 hemi with the nag1 trans, wiring harness, gauge cluster, shifter, gas pedal, brake pedal assembly, steering column cluster, computers, exhaust back past the rear cats, and fuel tank with pump off ebay. It is all out of a 06 Chrysler 300 SRT. My original frame had some damage and keeps eating a-arm bushings among other things, so I figured I would try to address everything at once. This was my first car, purchased in 1984.

Here is a picture at the yard where I picked up a frame. The guys are trying to kill themselves/cut the frame loose.

Thanks for the pics and info, I'm going to run into some of the same hurdles as I'm doing a 90 dakota front clip, 5.7 nag1 from a 05 magnum. I might need to start a build thread.

Sweet ride

I am sure a build thread would be appreciated by others. There is more than one way to do just about everything. In a perfect world I would have built/bought a frame fixture table and probably done away with the factory frame all together. For a time, I considered doing a back half, which would have left so little left of the OEM frame I even started to consider a full tube spec chassis. At the time I was limited to a 20x20 garage that had to house the project, tools, hot water heater, and clothes dryer, in a neighborhood where driveway projects would not be tolerated. A lack of room, time, and money led to the path I chose. Your biggest decision will be how to locate and hole the portions of frame for attachment and welding. Again, a fixture table would be great. I went with measuring where the frame of the plymouth sat at ride height, and the same with the dakota stub. I then welded square tubing to the sections of frame to hold the heights and angles.

I tried to make sure the frame sections overlapped each other by a value nearly equal to the dimensions of the tubing. In other words if one section of frame was made of 3x5, I overlapped the sections by 5". I welded the portions of the frames together that matched up, which was not much as the dakota frame is narrower than the '57 and also positions higher when at factory ride height. I then used 3/16" plate to bridge across from one frame section to the other. I used an oxyacetylene rosebud, a vise, and hammer to form the plate steel pieces into rough shape, and then tacked and welded the pieces into position using large C-clamps, heat, and hammer for final shape.


Making sure you position the kick up from the parent frame to the dakota far enough forward as to avoid interference with the firewall is important.

A lot of people will view this process as barbaric. I did not have anything beyond gravity holding the frame sections down to the floor. I considered buying 3/8" x 4' x 8' sheets and welding the legs positioning the frame sections to the sheeting. I was quoted a price of $370 a sheet for the steel, and would need 5 sheets. At that point I might as well buy a prefabricated frame fixture table.
I marked the locations of the legs on the floor using a sharpie to ensure that I had not moved anything around to a different part of the garage floor, as I leveled and positioned the frames in that location and the floor is not level across its surface.
That being said, the heat from welding did pull on the frame, causing some slight bowing upward of the rails. This distortion may have been minimized by welding the legs to plate or attachment to a fixture table. The distortion was nearly equal from the left side to the right side, and was equal to .125 to .1875 of an inch. Some will gasp at this result, but I am not building the space shuttle. Typically, automotive collision repair of unibody cars mandate that the dimensions between reference points on structural members be within 3mm to constitute an adequate repair. This is equal to .118 inches. Do your best to keep things within an 1/8th of an inch.

I also took the opportunity to relocate the leaf spring mounts to the inside of the rails to make room for more tire. Right now, I am planning on running caltrac mono-leaf springs and bars.

Sadly, some dodge dakotas were injured and/or killed in the making of this feature...

I've been known to rent a storage facility of sufficient size for projects that need more room. Don't know how long your frame work went, but two months of rental on a 20x10 storage place was worth it to me on occasion. A generator fixes power issues and I already have a portable one.

I've also been known to build a laundry room to clear out space in the garage. makes her happy to be out of the garage, makes me happy to have the room. I recently, well two years ago anyway, did just that.

Looking great there

Yeah, I rented a 10x20 for the plymouth at $180 a month from December to July. Picked up the frame in December. Then the shop space opened up... $600 a month.
The fab took longer than it should because I work 50 hours a week and am taking online college classes to finish up a B.S. I failed to finish years ago. I can build cars, I just cant make more time.
All of the work up until July was done in the garage of a rental that my lease states will have absolutely no vehicle maintenance performed on premises. I don't have a full time her, so that is one hurdle of happiness that I have not had to clear.

Ow, rental costs are high. I understand about the time issue.

For those that may wish to follow the example of this build with their own, where the Dakota clip was welded on top of the original 57 frame is likely the reason the finished product now sits too low. Its more work, and more difficult, but if the Dakota clip would have been welded to the 57 frame with top of the 57 frame welded at 1/2 the height from the top of the Dakota frame, the ride height would probably been correct.

As is, the Dakota crossmember is raised up from the 57 frame too much because the Dakota was welded on top of the 57 frame. I don't know what the height (top to bottom) the 57 frame is, but lets assume that it is 4" high, measured between the top and the bottom of the frame.

If the Dakota frame was sunk into the 57 frame at 1/2 the 57 frame thickness (in our case 2") you would have raised the front of the 57 frame up 2" higher in the air then it is currently.

The body sits on top of the rear section of the frame. The suspension attaches to the front frame. When you want to determine ride height, you need to make your measurements from either the top of both sections, or from the bottom of both sections. Measuring from the top of one and the bottom of the other will result in something either being too high or too low. Its best to make these measurements while the vehicle weight and the motor weight is still on the frame sections. If the front frame section is 6" off the ground, measured from the top of the frame with the motor weight there, at the cut location, and the height o the top of the rear section of the frame is 6" to the top of the frame with the weight of the vehicle on it, at the cut location, when you splice to two sections together, you need to maintain the two height measurements to maintain the same vehicle ride height.

If you want to lower the vehicle ride height, you can rise the front section the amount you want to lower the the vehicle. That means that if you want to lower the front of the car 2", you will raise the front section 2" higher then your beginning measurements. Use caution here, this will be the actual height change at the weld joint, everything else will have to be adjusted accordingly, and any change in the equipment from the original equipment present at the time of measurement will alter the changes you are making.

In this case, he determined the front ride height from the bottom of the front crossmember, and from the top of the rear frame. Its easy to do. Had he taken both measurements from the top, he would probably have seen the 4" (or whatever the 57 frame height is) difference and thought it might be too much. Generally speaking, a 2" difference between the two measurements is a big difference on the ride height.
I sure hope this makes sense, sometimes things are lost in the translation. Gene

If the LCA's sit parallel to the ground right now then you are right.

If they sit with the inner pivot lower then it needs more spring.

Very helpful information! I took measurements from the dakota before pulling the engine and trans so the measurements would be as it sat fully weighed. I didn't get that opportunity with the 58. I'll have to pay close attention to ride height before final fitup. Thanks for all the info!

Poorboy,



For those that may wish to follow the example of this build with their own, where the Dakota clip was welded on top of the original 57 frame is likely the reason the finished product now sits too low. Its more work, and more difficult, but if the Dakota clip would have been welded to the 57 frame with top of the 57 frame welded at 1/2 the height from the top of the Dakota frame, the ride height would probably been correct.

For the record, the question asked at the start of this post was if anyone had experience ordering custom coils or air bags for a first gen Dakota. You have spent a bit of effort in your response, and I appreciate your interest. The photo do not show enough detail, but the Dakota frame is embedded into the '57 frame, not simply laid across the top of it and then attached. The section from the Dakota was cut away from the rest of the frame with fixtures attached to ensure the ride height was maintained along with the factory geometry of a-arm angles and steering rack output shaft/tie rod angle. Again, the photos I have provided are inadequate in giving enough prospective/information for that to be obvious.



As is, the Dakota crossmember is raised up from the 57 frame too much because the Dakota was welded on top of the 57 frame. I don't know what the height (top to bottom) the 57 frame is, but lets assume that it is 4" high, measured between the top and the bottom of the frame.

Again, the Dakota frame is sunk into/embedded into the '57 frame. The '57 has 6" of clearance from the ground to the bottom of the frame rail, and that was the clearance I provided with the fixtures prior to any cutting of the replacement frame. The clearance from the ground to the bottom of the crossmember under the engine was 9" on the Dakota prior to any cutting, which I provided with the fixtures prior to cutting as well. I am aware that a. that does not tell you what the distance from the underside or top of the frame rail of the Dakota was at the connection point, and b. 9" - 6" = 3", the amount I am attempting to recoup with different springs/bags. Hopefully by the end of this response, it will be understood that it is a coincidence that the difference in measurements provided is 3" and not an indicator of the cause.

If the Dakota frame was sunk into the 57 frame at 1/2 the 57 frame thickness (in our case 2") you would have raised the front of the 57 frame up 2"t higher in the air then it is currently.

Understood. No further explanation needed. I agree, sinking the Dakota sub-frame further into the '57 frame would cause the overall ride height to increase. However, as I have tried to explain, with the weak springs I would have ended up with a correct ride height, with no suspension travel, and poor suspension geometry.

The body sits on top of the rear section of the frame. The suspension attaches to the front frame. When you want to determine ride height, you need to make your measurements from either the top of both sections, or from the bottom of both sections. Measuring from the top of one and the bottom of the other will result in something either being too high or too low. Its best to make these measurements while the vehicle weight and the motor weight is still on the frame sections. If the front frame section is 6" off the ground, measured from the top of the frame with the motor weight there, at the cut location, and the height o the top of the rear section of the frame is 6" to the top of the frame with the weight of the vehicle on it, at the cut location, when you splice to two sections together, you need to maintain the two height measurements to maintain the same vehicle ride height.

I would think that it would be obvious that you would take your measurements from the same side of the frame rails, top or bottom and all sides/each end of the frames. Just to be clear however, you would not have to provided you accounted for the different datum points when calculating ride height.

If you want to lower the vehicle ride height, you can rise the front section the amount you want to lower the vehicle. That means that if you want to lower the front of the car 2", you will raise the front section 2" higher then your beginning measurements. Use caution here, this will be the actual height change at the weld joint, everything else will have to be adjusted accordingly, and any change in the equipment from the original equipment present at the time of measurement will alter the changes you are making.

Understood. What you are saying is that by raising the front suspension mounting locations i.e. the subframe/graft from the Dakota, as it relates to the frame you are attaching it to, you are effectively lowering the overall ride height of the car. No disagreement there.

In this case, he determined the front ride height from the bottom of the front crossmember, and from the top of the rear frame. Its easy to do. Had he taken both measurements from the top, he would probably have seen the 4" (or whatever the 57 frame height is) difference and thought it might be too much. Generally speaking, a 2" difference between the two measurements is a big difference on the ride height.

Incorrect. I did use the bottom of the front crossmember of the Dakota frame, along with measurement elsewhere on the subframe to provide the proper caster angles when completed, and I used the underside of the '57 frame to the ground as my frame of reference. Again, the pictures do not show enough detail.

As it currently sits, if I stand on the front horns of the frame with the engine and transmission installed, the lower a-arms run out of travel and contact the frame near the spring buckets. The angle of the upper a-arms even without my standing on the horns are angled upward from the center of the chassis to the outside of the chassis. The lower a-arms do as well though not as severely. Basically the suspension looks like a mini-truck with the coils cut too far. The springs need to be replaced. So my question was, does anyone have experience ordering custom coils or air bags for a first gen Dakota. It sounds like I might get away with just throwing some v8 springs in rather than custom order anything.

Shane

Again, not a great picture, but note where the centerline of the torsion bars would be at the transmission crossmember, and the centerline of the lower a-arm bolt holes.

For those of you interested, here is a picture of a v8 spring next to a v6 spring. I found a pair of V8 springs for $50 at the local salvage yard. Eaton Spring out of detroit offers new V8 first gen dakota springs for $162 a pair. Moog and others only offer V6 springs.

Installed... oh look, I can run a tape measure.
It currently sits 1.250" higher than my anticipated ride height. The weight of the doors, front clip, and seats should drop it to right where I want it.

What oil pan are you using? Dipstick? Looking good!

One more question, what you got in mind for brake master cylinder and booster?

it looks like you got it as you want it now. also, it appears that your setup is like a M2, in regards to the engine placement directs almost the entire engine weight roughly at the center of the wheel. this was exactly why the M2 had 4, 6, and 8cylinder springs of differing rates. that is also why when the M2 setup is used in a prewar hot rod almost 100% of the time you will be using 4 or 6 cylinder springs even with a heavy big block, as the engine weight has been shifted behind the spindle center line, often by a large amount. as your new springs appear used, and you still need to install the front clip and fluids, if you had some idea how much those components weighed, you could get a couple of friends that weighed roughly the same weight to stand on the frame horns and get a pretty accurate idea how the car would sit at ride height. but i agree, i believe you will be real close to the stance you desire once those items are reinstalled. the car looks very nice by the way.

Nice work

I am using a jeep srt8 oil pan and dipstick. Ordered it from a website called moparoverstock.com if I remember right.
Right now, I plan on using a jeep tj booster and master cylinder. The booster diameter is 8".

steering nearly completed.

Thank you for posting. The information is very helpful and is greatly appreciated.
I can't wait to get cutting, ........now if I could only remember were I put everything!

Can you give some info on the steering couplings and shaft. I like that!

The components were purchase from borgeson.com Starting from the rack and going towards the steering wheel....
I went with a polished stainless double u-joint 3/4"36 spline x DD at the steering rack, polished stainless 3/4" shaft, a 3/4" rod end for support of the shaft, then on to the polished stainless 3/4" DD x 3/4"36 spline single u-joint at the fire wall. I made a mounting plate at the fire wall to hold the carrier bearing which holds a 3/4" x 3.5" shaft with 36 splines on both ends, polished stainless 3/4" DD x 3/4" smooth bore single u-joint on the interior side of the fire wall, mating to a 3/4" solid round shaft that runs up toward the steering wheel thru the steering column. The top 9" of OEM steering shaft was pinned to the 3/4" shaft to allow the steering wheel to mount with factory splines and threads. There is a little trickery at the base of the steering column housing where I mounted another carrier bearing to support the shaft as it passed out of the column housing.

Jeep TJ booster and master cylinder installed

Header mock up has begun..

looks like a really tight fit on the drivers side threading the steering shaft through the tubes. very doable though, as i had to do the same thing on my humpback. just make sure you can easily remove the shaft for future reasons when necessary. on another note, [how's that for introducing a hijack ?] is it possible for you to measure the diameters of the crank, waterpump, air conditioning compressor, and alternator pulleys ? i am looking at ratios for comparison purposes on a thought i have had kicking around in my head for a while. yes, my thoughts can be dangerous at times and require more work than is deserved. thanks in advance !

I was looking at your header mockup and thinking, why not just use Dakota headers it should clear. Then I realized "yeah, it's got a Hemi".

Nice work there.

Moparx, I will try to get some measurements for you this coming saturday.
Supercuda, I had hoped to use dakota headers, but no one offers gen III hemi headers for a first gen dakota. Also, I suspect I might have run into floor pan clearance issues, but not sure. They do offer headers for later gen dakota/hemi swaps for those interested.

Is there a height difference between the 6.1 and a 5.7 Hemi? The picture of the motor on the chassis with the body mounted, makes it appear the motor might be above the hood height. Are you anticipating hood clearance issues?

We have a 57 Dodge, stock chassis, we are planning on installing a 5.7 from a truck into. It is my understanding that the truck intake is taller then the car intake. I'm growing concern about hood clearance. Gene

The Dakota front frame clip is responsible for the height of the engine. It is going to be close, but it will clear the hood. As for the truck engine being taller than the 6.1 intake height, I cant say for sure, but it seems unlikely. With a stock frame/chassis, you should have plenty of room.

Moparx:

Crank Pully: 6.5" dia.
Alternator: 2.375" dia
A/C: 5" dia
Powersteering: 4.875"dia
Water Pump: 4.375" dia
Idler pulley: 2.750" dia


\

thanks ! that info gives me some ratios of the components vs crank pulley. that will help me a bunch to determine some rpm spreads. thanks again !

Header mock up completed...

Are you going to build your own headers from a header kit, or have a set made someplace? Gene

I don't own a TIG welder, and when I finally buy one, it will be capable of welding .250 wall tubing ($$$). I also don't own a band saw. Given the cost of obtaining these items, and the rate at which my build is eating away at my disposable income, I will be having GP headers fabricate the headers based on the mock up. http://www.gpheaders.com/

Very nice work. I might have missed it, but what are you using for a steering column?

I am using the factory column. I cut the length down, installed a bearing on the end of the cut down housing, and pinned a section of solid 3/4" dia. shaft to the remaining factory steering shaft. After the solid section passes thru the bearing installed at the firewall end of the housing, I have a u-joint installed to make the connecting to the bearing plate attached to the firewall.

Very impressive.
I like the way you mocked up those pipes with off the shelf stuff.
I probably will never build a set of headers, but I surely will be able to use a version of that for making my own dual exhaust systems.
Hope you don't mind me stealing that idea.

I am afraid it was not my idea. I was looking for mock up ideas and tripped across this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s1-AZcPWAA
turns out http://www.stainlessheaders.com/ is a sister company of GP Headers- http://www.gpheaders.com/. You rent the mock up header flanges, merge collectors, a dozen swivel joints, and some PVC angle fittings from GP Headers ($600 deposit). You can then weld up a fixture to hold the mock up, and use header pieces purchased from stainlessheaders.com or other vendors, and return the mock up pieces to GP Headers to get you deposit back, or ship the mock ups to GP Headers to have them fabricate the headers for you...

I made my headers on my Coupe. Made the flange patterns, made the stubs (hardest part) and then cut the tubes piece by piece and tacked where needed. Ran them to my buddy's shop where he tig welded them
Best thing I did for the car, everything fits and as much clearance as possible. I made mine equal length primaries, what a pain.

Love the progress pics, keep em coming!

A quick progress pic... The tunnel is basically done. Larger than I would like, and made without the nice things like a slip roll, etc.



The headers have been shipped from the fabricator and hopefully will be installed by the end of this coming weekend.

The tunnel looks good. Once you get carpet on it it will look like it was always that way.

Just noticed, was that a stick car you changed the column in or an automatic car you changed the dash on (to eliminate the shifter pod)?

you did a good job on the tunnel, and the shifter looks like it grew there. as was said, after the carpet is laid down, it will look like "factory". i know the deal about bending a tunnel without a slip roll, as i did my driveshaft and transmission transition tunnel sections the old fashion way by wrapping around anything that was the shape i needed to get what i wanted. and using 16ga. material, that was a mighty chore indeed ! then after it was completed, i stumbled into a power slip roll that was disassembled and being tossed in the junk ! well, that was grabbed, and almost 100% of the parts were there. and it works great ! but if only i had it then.........

Thank you for posting, ......it keeps a lazy old dog motivated!

So much so that my Dakota is finally in the early stages of disassembly.

The headers have arrived. I hope to trial fit them in the car tomorrow...





Mike P- “The tunnel looks good. Once you get carpet on it it will look like it was always that way.

Just noticed, was that a stick car you changed the column in or an automatic car you changed the dash on (to eliminate the shifter pod)?”

Thanks. My car was an automatic with the two speed powerflite. I have been running a TF727 with a manual valve body and Lokar shifter for the last15 years or so.

Moparx- "you did a good job on the tunnel, and the shifter looks like it grew there. as was said, after the carpet is laid down, it will look like "factory". i know the deal about bending a tunnel without a slip roll, as i did my driveshaft and transmission transition tunnel sections the old fashion way by wrapping around anything that was the shape i needed to get what i wanted. and using 16ga. material, that was a mighty chore indeed ! then after it was completed, i stumbled into a power slip roll that was disassembled and being tossed in the junk ! well, that was grabbed, and almost 100% of the parts were there. and it works great ! but if only i had it then........."

Thanks. It seems like you never have the right tools for the job, no matter how many tools you have.

Old Ray- "Thank you for posting, ......it keeps a lazy old dog motivated!

So much so that my Dakota is finally in the early stages of disassembly."

Your welcome. I seem to benefit from doing a little bit as often as possible, rather than long marathon sessions of building activity. I dont burn out as easily. Good luck with your project.

It is no fun getting them in..
I am going to have to dimple the tube for cylinder #6 due to starter interference.



[URL=http://s1249.photobucket.com/user/5280dart/media/20170415_180335_1492308365401_resized_zpsayibn5kb.jpg.html]

Looks like they fit like they were made for that location. LOL!

Was dimpling the tube for starter clearance an issue with the header build, or the fixture you sent them, or was it for clearance during installation?

At this point, would you go this route again?
Gene

I am pretty sure it is the result of the mock up moving during shipping. For example, the tube for cylinder #2 seems to have moved closer towards the valve cover at the turn down towards the collector. I struggled getting the mock up rigid enough to prevent movement in this area during its construction. It doesn't take much movement at the header flange to make a big difference 8-12 inches away from that point.
The PVC was touching the starter when I did the mock up. I had hoped that the difference in O.D. between the schedule 40 pvc and the 1 7/8" primary tubes of the final product would provide sufficient clearance. It would have been very tight under the best of circumstances. I had figured on possibly having to dimple a bit. I had the UPS store package the mock up for shipment, so I did not control that part of it.
I have since dimpled the tube for the starter clearance, and may contact the fabricator tomorrow to see about modifying the header. It isn't bad at this point, and I am not sure it is worth the hassle. In short, I would do it again, but probably would consider making a jig to hold the mockup securely for shipping to ensure no movement. I considered it prior to sending this set, but got in a hurry/lazy.

......just thinking (always dangerous).....sheet metal screws at the connectors or PVC glue if they didn't have to be disassembled for construction ???

Sheet metal screws were used. Truth be told, one of the areas most susceptible to play is at the swivel connectors where they screw into the stubs at the header flange. The stubs and the swivels are threaded, but the swivels are made of aluminum and the stubs are steel. To help address galling and also probably due to repeated use, the threads are not very tight, allowing movement. In some cases I drilled into both the stubs and swivels and ran screws in to try to stabilize things, which seemed to help. You would not think a little play in the threads would make much difference, but at the other end of a lever, it adds up. combine that with a very restricted installation location for the tubes, and it doesn't take much to cause some interference.

Actually, if that one tube is your only issue, I think it came out pretty good. Most production headers on a standard set up have at least one issue someplace (unless the header quality has improved dramatically in recent years). Gene

I would agree. Looking at tables of dimensions for schedule 40 pipe shows an outside diameter of 1.900". I went with 1.875" primary tubes. That provides only .0125" of clearance added when switching from the pvc to the stainless tubing. I thought I measured it with calipers and there was more difference than that... but? I cant even say for certain that there wasn't some tension in the mock up pulling the #6 tube further toward the starter after everything was unbolted, as it was contacting the starter and I didn't do a whole lot of yanking on it to see if it was a little bound up.
Then throw in movement of components of the mockup during shipping, regardless of how many screws I put in to hold it together... It had to survive a trip from Washington state to Minnesota with who knows how many transfers on the way. Then you have to build a welding fixture to hold all of the new header components in the same location as the PVC mock up parts, cut and fit each change in direction of each tube so it all fits correctly, then finish weld everything hoping the heat does not pull anything too far out of line. Add to that a very restrictive final install... Cant really complain too much. If I had chosen 1.625 primaries it would have helped. I could have routed one or more tubes out of the frame rails and into the fender wells to give a little more room. There are other configurations that would have been more complicated but provided some wiggle room. The dimple will cost me zero horsepower. The only downside really is that I feel compelled to ceramic coat the headers to help prevent heat soaking the starter, which adds cost to what is already an expensive exhaust system. I could have saved some money by going with mild steel instead of 304 stainless, and gone with formed collectors rather than merge collectors for those of you pondering a similar project..... The price difference in materials and components would probably offset the cost of the coating, which is $345 for a pair of long tube headers by http://performancecoatings.com/ in Auburn WA.

they turned out very nice in my opinion ! you did a good job mocking them up. do you have a pic of the dimpled area by the starter ? would it be possible a simple [simple being a relative term of course :grin] heat shield could be fabbed for the starter, or the starter wrapped with some kind of shielding wrap ?

I would take a picture of the dimple, but I boxed and shipped them for coating... kind of want this part of it over already.

awesome man

Headers have returned from ceramic coating:

Its tight.

Now for the bad news... I am getting into the hood with the intake manifold near the throttle body.

fender gaps are going to need some attention...

`

As much as I hate to say it, it looks like the front of the nose needs to come down to align the fenders and door gaps. That will make the hood clearance even worse.

How close is the hood to throttle body, and is it just the throttle body, or the intake as well? Will you have clearance for an air filter assembly? Maybe if its just the throttle body clearance, you can add a tapered shim between the intake and the throttle body to gain the clearance you need. Gene

Oh man I can truly sympathize. I had exactly the same problem on my 57 when I put the Hemi in. The slope on the hood interfered with the front of the air cleaner for the Tri-Power. In my case it was either lose the Tri-Power for a shorter intake or use a hood scoop.

I agonized over that for about a month (especially as IMO there are no scoops that really look good on these cars). In my case the Tri-Power won and I sacrificed a 61 Thunderbird hood for the scoop.





.

Well for what it is worth, it looks good. I actually was trying to figure out what you used....
Kinda leaning toward a 1969 dodge power bulge.... I am going to contact some of the supercharger manufactures and hope that they offer a unit for the 6.1 with about an inch less total height than the srt intake manifold. I briefly considered a 1" body lift, and then a corresponding 1" suspension drop. Dont really want to go that route.

Starting to install the wiring harness...

Trying to find a place for all the stuff is a bit of work...

Had to cut a 2.375" hole in the firewall, behind the passenger side fuel rail for the harness to pass thru. There is a portion of the harness that has to be snaked under the intake manifold, cam sensor, water temp, a/c pump, etc. That took some doing.

Looking good! Can't wait to see that thing finished!

Update:

https://youtu.be/JKxprk77HLw

Great to see/hear it run! Did you come up with a hood clearance solution?

No solution on the hood just yet.

Well, time for an update. Here is my hood clearance solution...

I had to deepen the driveshaft tunnel due to the need for a larger diameter driveshaft, lowered stance, and the elevated install height of the transmission.

I am running 3" exhaust all the way back, with an H-pipe and Dynomax Ultraflo mufflers...

And I swapped in a 8.8 ford rear end out of a 1998 ford explorer. That provided 3:73 gears, tracloc differential, 31 spline axles, and disc brakes for the low cost of $300.

Awesome!

Nice work

The scoop doesn't look bad. .

Just looking at the tape, are you having to offset it to one side?

How are you planning on attaching it to the hood?

Nice work on the rear end and exhaust!

No on the need to offset. I was using the tape to help center it up for the initial cut...

The scoop will be welded in place.

That kind of hurt...

".....That kind of hurt..."

I know that feeling LOL. At least when I did mine I didn't have paint on it.

Good progress though.

Man, it took a great leap of faith to cut into that hood! I would have been beating my head against the wall for months hoping to find a different alternative.
It came out looking good! Nice job. Gene