Motor mount choices

[rennat_2006]

Whats everyone running for budget friendly ls swap motor mounts? Im kinda leaning towards something like the dirty dingo slider mounts for the adjustability. Ive got a 6.0 and 4l80e that im planning on swapping into my wifes 72 c10.

Other question is are most sticking with the 67-72 v8 mounts or swapping to the later model clamshell type? I believe the 70 c10 i finished up a failed ls swap one a few years back they had converted to 73-87 mounts and used the dirty dingo sliders on them. Any benefits from one to the other?

[Thinkamann]

I have built a few LS swapped 72's. On two I used Dirty Dingo slider with stock truck mounts and haven't had any problems with them. On another I used LSx Innovations with stock mounts and have yet run into a problem with those either.

[sweetk30]

i had a bad trip with dirty dingo years ago on his crap product and never will buy his stuff again after the way i was treated when i talked with him on his welding ability's or lack of them .

i used an adjustable set and set the engine/trans 1.25" back on a 73-87 c-10 and once there i will not be moving it .

so knowing this i would just find a fixed set the amount you want and bolt them in and go .

[verdell]

I've personally seen these used on everything from my '60 Apache, 67-72s, square bodies, all the way up to a 1998 Silverado (currently undergoing Gen IV 5.3 transplant). They provide adjustability and zero issues so far.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1973-1987-C...ty!39701!US!-1

[AZ 67 C10]

I used the DD sliders and the factory V8 mounts. Everything fits well, angles are good, no shimming or clearance issues.

[rennat_2006]

Awesome thanks guys

[rennat_2006]

So from what i can find the stock 67-72 engine mounts bolt to the engine block with 3 bolts then bolts to the frame stands with 1 big bolt, after wear and tear they tear apart and rip apart around the frame stand bolt. Is this correct?

If so it sounds like getting the frame stands off of a 73-87 to convert to the clam shell mounts that are "caged" to limit the travel when they tear apart is a better way to go. Im going to run polyurethane motor mounts one way or the other when i do the ls swap.

[toddoky]

Using clamshell style mounts definitely has its advantages, which is why GM transitioned to their use from the old-school, 3-bolt type of mounts. More specifically, I'd say the 4th-gen F-body GM clamshell mounts offer the cleanest installation of an LS engine in a vehicle as long as there are frame-side brackets available for your vehicle application that were designed to use them. I don't know what your project time frame is, but there will be a new Hooker Blackheart 67-72 C10 LS swap system of components getting released over the next couple of months and the engine mounting components are designed as I've mentioned above.

[rennat_2006]

Where does the hooker system place the engine in relation to the stock sbc?

[toddoky]

I can't give you a discrete location relative to a SB as the truck used for development was equipped with a 6-cylinder engine. The engine placement chosen was incrementally determined by what was required to permit the installation of a PG, TH350, TH400, 2004R, 4L60E, 4L80E, 6L80 or T56 Magnum transmission behind an LS while achieving desirable U-joint operating angles in a typical 4"-6" rear suspension drop scenario.

Under these circumstances, the old-school automatic transmissions can easily be installed under a stock low-height floor, but a 4L60E, 4L80E will require some hammering to get them in under the same floor.

If you want to be able to install a 6L80 or T56 Magnum transmission, or a 4L60E or 4L80E without having to hammer on the floor, you'll need to install a high-hump floor panel.

If you want a reference point relative to a SB Chevy, take a measurement off of your wife's truck from a discrete location on the firewall to the front machined surface of the engine block and relay to me and I'll provide a distance from the same point on the firewall to the front machined surface of the LS engine block in our development truck. Here's a couple of images that depict the overall engine placement.

[rennat_2006]

Perfect i will do that tonight.

Can you let out any pricing details on this new kit, it looks nice from the pictures above.

[toddoky]

Originally Posted by rennat_2006

Perfect i will do that tonight.

Can you let out any pricing details on this new kit, it looks nice from the pictures above.

I don’t know what the pricing will be as the process by which the parts are entered into our system has not yet concluded. I will build a thread here soon to support this system and will post such information in it as each of the parts is released. If you aren’t familiar with the way we develop our engine swap parts, it will be useful for you to understand that they are designed from a full system approach and not as stand-alone parts. There is no “kit” to buy, you rather combine the components you need based on your transmission and the type of exhaust system you want to run on your truck (i.e. cast iron manifolds or headers, 2.5” or 3” exhaust system, rear exit or side exit tips etc...). Edit: for a ballpark idea on pricing, you can look up the components of the Hooker Blackheart 73-87 C10 LS swap system on the Holley website as the prices listed for them will be close to what you can expect for this system.
Posted via Mobile Device

[rennat_2006]

Perfect i will check that out.

One more question, what oil pan is this based on and how much does it hang down past the crossmember?

[toddoky]

The system is based around the use of the Holley 302-2, or 302-3 oil pans, or pans with similar fitment geometry (there is no stock GM pan with geometry that meets that requirement and I'm not aware of any specific aftermarket pan that does either). Neither of the Holley pans hangs down past the bottom of the crossmember, which is a nice feature considering how low the Hooker Blackheart engine mounts position the engine in the frame.

[KMC3420]

Not to take away from what toddoky is adding to your thread as I always appreciate new parts for these trucks being made. One option I have been following along on is HPI Customs motor mounts. Based on what I have read the engine perches allow the use of a low hump in your cab, however I have not been able to verify this. The mounts are to be available on summitracing.com in the near future. Pricing is listed at $159.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bs9Ld9FHChx/?hl=en

[toddoky]

Having more choices is certainly a benefit to the users here. Remember that the ability to install a particular transmission under a low-hump floor is a result of the combined inclination geometry produced by the specific engine mounting brackets and transmission crossmember used. Almost all the available engine mounting brackets by themselves will allow such an installation by merely increasing the amount of engine inclination angle needed to allow that to happen.
Posted via Mobile Device

[KMC3420]

Originally Posted by toddoky

Having more choices is certainly a benefit to the users here. Remember that the ability to install a particular transmission under a low-hump floor is a result of the combined inclination geometry produced by the specific engine mounting brackets and transmission crossmember used. Almost all the available engine mounting brackets by themselves will allow such an installation by merely increasing the amount of engine inclination angle needed to allow that to happen.
Posted via Mobile Device

Excellent point! The HPI mounts say that you can fit a 4L80 with a low hump, but to your point, if the angle is too far down than it’s not gaining anything.

[rennat_2006]

Yeah being able to fit but driveline angles being way off and undriveable is no good.

Im not afraid of a little trans tunnel modification if necessary to have the perfect angle. The picture below is my 71 nova with a t56 in it.

[Tork?]

Looks like the proposed Holley mounts are in the rear 2 holes

[toddoky]

Originally Posted by Tork?

Looks like the proposed Holley mounts are in the rear 2 holes

They are technically a Hooker Blackheart product, but yes, that is correct.
Posted via Mobile Device