Brake lines too close to Ram Air manifolds???
 

Just dropped my new engine in today and, as you can see from the photos, the brake lines are a little close to the manifold on to left side of the car. If I mess with the line a little more, I can probably get it about 1/4" to 3/8" away from the manifold. Is this still too close? When I took my old lines off, I noticed they were wrapped in some type of asbestos shield. I'm guessing this is to help keep the heat off. Would something like this help, or am I better off plumbing new brake lines somewhere else? Unfortunately, there aren't many options. Those RA manifolds are in there pretty tight.



http://imageshack.us/a/img22/1120/bt67.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://imageshack.us/a/img22/9840/t81v.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Would something like this help?


http://www.summitracing.com/parts/hsp-204008

Brake lines? Looks to me those things are too close to the frame. What chassis is that?

.

'67 Lemans. The left manifold is only about 1/8" away from the frame. I have about 1/2" of clearance on the right side. The 326 fit in there better, but it had the log manifolds. Would changing the motor mounts help that? I used the same ones that were on the 326 since they looked to be in good condition.

Come to think of it, when I striped the front end down, I remember that my motor mount plates (part that bolts to the frame) were different sizes. The plate on the driver's side was only about 1 1/2" tall. The plate on the passenger side was about 2 1/2" tall. I just figured that this is how they did it, and didn't think much of it, but could this be why I don't have any clearance on the driver's side? Are the mounting plates supposed to be like this??? They look stock, but I don't get why one would be taller than the other -- especially since the motor mounts themselves bolt up to the engine at the same height on the block. :confused:

Do the valve covers seem to be at the same height? Like is the engine level in the bay? I'm not that familiar with 66-67s, so I can't say for sure on the frame mounts. Someone else will chime in though, I'm sure.

I probably would have replaced the rubber mounts regardless if they looked good or not. Figure might as well if you're in there.

Also, aren't the f-body and the a-body manifolds different? That might make the difference you're seeing. You have part numbers for the manifolds you have in there?

.

Yeah, the engine sits about perfect other than that left manifold being too close to the frame. You're correct, there are different RA exhaust manifolds for Firebirds and GTOs. Mine are the correct part though. Appreciate all the help!

The mount is taller on the drivers side.

too close???
 

If Tempest's photo shows a correct setup, it appears that the taller plate goes on the driver side and by your description, you have the driver side being the shorter plate. Did you reverse the plates when you mounted them?

Do these type motor mounts allow for any adjustment for "shifting" the motor side to side?

Is the engine "square" to the car? Check the tranny/crossmember to see if there is any side-to-side adjustment possibility. Is the crossmember mount proper thickness/worn?

I suspect that new motor mounts would help some. Also, spacing up the tranny rear on the crossmember will help some.

As to your basic question, my opinion is that the brake line is too close in any case and I would just go ahead and re-route it for ample clearance.

Another thing I would check out is what happens when the engine torques up and rises on the driver side? Will that cause the manifold to hit the frame?

In my opinion the brake line is too close because the engine is mounted incorrectly. I would take care of the mounts before moving factory lines. If they are correctly located the engine should be moved........'67 GTO had factory installed RA manifolds, if the LeMans has the same brake line routing, and I suspect it does, RA Manifolds should not be a problem.

Karl

:usflag:

There is no way to mix up the driver and passenger side frame mounts, and yes one is taller than the other. The bolt patterns that mount them to the front crossmember are different, I'm sure the factory made them that way on purpose to prevent assembly line workers from mixing up their locations.

You might consider spacing both mounts upward by 1/4" using spacer plates under the frame mounts, commonly done to compensate for the offshore replacement rubber engine mounts that have been known to mount the engine a bit too low.

My bad, b-man is correct. There is no way to screw them up. I spoke too soon. The driver's side is indeed higher than the passenger side.

The brake lines are brand new from Right Stuff. The engine is a fresh 455 that is replacing the old 326. If I had the old log manifolds in, I'm sure there wouldn't be any clearance issues. I was able to mess with it a bit more today and was able to get the driver's side brake line about 3/8" away from the RA manifold. After bolting up the tranny, things shifted around a bit, but I still have only about 1/8" of clearance between the driver's side frame and exhaust manifold. I think spacers may be the way to go.

'67 GTO's with factory installed 400 HO's & RA engines had a differently routed front brake line. Something I used to look for when examining '67 project GTO's with non original engines & '67's that were purported by longtime owners as original "360 horse HO" cars. This line has been avail for years from various companys: Fine Lines, Inline Tube, etc, replace that center line & you should be OK.

Another factory '67 GTO HO engine telltale... When the RA manifolds were factory installed on '67 GTO's, they also used a different steering column, one with a cast iron flange that bolted onto the splined end of the straight (non tilt) '67 columns shaft. '67 Pontiac A-bodys with factory straight columns & log manifolds used the standard steering column with the integral rag join flange which was welded to the base of the shaft. When a tilt column was ordered in a '67 Pontiac A-body, it too had a lower shaft that was splined & the same cast iron flange as used on the "HO manifold" usage column..

Yeah, I'm coming to the sad conclusion that I may just have to fab up a new brake line. I knew that I had a flare tool for a reason. I'll probably pick up some new motor mounts too. What's another $30? Haha...

Pinion Head, if the HO brake line routing is anything like what is pictured in Tempest's post, I can see why the factory did it that way. I'll probably also get a set of 1/4" spacers as well.

Well then, there's the answer. Thanks for the education......

Karl

:usflag:

I had to reroute my Brake lines when I installed the 67 RA GTO manifolds. I also copied the Positive Battery Cable routing for that car vs the 64 set-up.

Tom Vaught

On my '64 I took the junction block out of the frame and bent the tubing until the clearance was adequate. I don't have any pictures as I took the HO manifolds off in the mid 70's. Before I did that I ran them as yours shows. I ended up burning a hole in the brake line at the drags.

Karl, I'll try calling In Line in the morning to see if they have a better option, but because I have a 'custom' master cylinder/ 8" dual booster/ prop valve; I think I'll have to bend my own line.

Good to know, Taylor. Glad it happened to you at the track, and not on the street!

Is it possible that the engine is mounted too far ahead? I recall seeing mounting brackets that had to be bolted to the engine in order to mount a 70's block to the 60's frame mounts...........and these brackets were adjustable. And, this is a 455 replacing the 326. Possible?

After about three or four more engine removals later, I think I fixed the problem. Same line, just added a couple more bends to get it in front of the crossmember. I have about 1/2" of clearance on the passenger side between the exhaust manifold and the brake line. Should be good enough, but I'm going to put some type of thermal wrap around the line anyways.


http://imageshack.us/scaled/medium/163/xs2t.jpg
http://imageshack.us/scaled/medium/191/e3tp.jpg
http://imageshack.us/scaled/medium/18/ffvj.jpg