Question on engine mounting angle
Thread Starter
Race Director
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 12,470
Likes: 1,548
From: Camp Verde AZ
C1 of Year Finalist (performance mods) 2019
2017 C1 of Year Finalist
Question on engine mounting angle
As you know, the intake manifold has a rake to it such that the carb base at the rear is higher than at the front of the intake manifold.
I would assume that the downward angle of the engine, when in the car, is such that the carb base is perfectly level, or parallel to the ground, ideally. Correct?
Now,was any extra angle allows for to accommodate additional rear end squat due to passengers in a rear seat, and stuff in the trunk?
In other words, when an unloaded car is parked, does the front of the carb sit just slightly lower than the rear of the carb to account for vehicle loading? if so, how much? What is the specified mounting angle?
Thanks,
Doug
I would assume that the downward angle of the engine, when in the car, is such that the carb base is perfectly level, or parallel to the ground, ideally. Correct?
Now,was any extra angle allows for to accommodate additional rear end squat due to passengers in a rear seat, and stuff in the trunk?
In other words, when an unloaded car is parked, does the front of the carb sit just slightly lower than the rear of the carb to account for vehicle loading? if so, how much? What is the specified mounting angle?
Thanks,
Doug
Race Director
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 13,860
Likes: 1,870
From: Birmingham Mi
Doug,
I would think that the engine wouldn't change as it is attached to the frame and any additional weight would lower the frame not the engine.
But I have been wrong on so many things in the past, I'm inclined not to think.
Rick
I would think that the engine wouldn't change as it is attached to the frame and any additional weight would lower the frame not the engine.
But I have been wrong on so many things in the past, I'm inclined not to think.
Rick
Team Owner
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 26,118
Likes: 1,874
From: Greenville, Indiana
I believe intake manifolds picked up that forward rake to compensate for lowered driveshaft tunnels (lowered transmissions) starting sometime in the '50's. Older designs didn't have the angle on the carb pad until driveshaft tunnels started to get lowered when car chassis got lower to the ground. The chassis designs wouldn't allow the engine/transmission to drop straight down so they just dropped the rear of the transmission to get the driveshaft down and that allowed the tunnel to be lowered.
Engine swapping books recommended to place a level on the carb pad to level any new engine, front/rear based on the pad when installing a new engine in an old chassis.
I'd guess a level carb pad would be a good place to start but not absolutely necssary because as you point out, that angle changes when you start loading the car.
Engine swapping books recommended to place a level on the carb pad to level any new engine, front/rear based on the pad when installing a new engine in an old chassis.
I'd guess a level carb pad would be a good place to start but not absolutely necssary because as you point out, that angle changes when you start loading the car.
Last edited by MikeM; Jun 13, 2010 at 06:09 PM.
Race Director
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 11,039
Likes: 2,592
From: Del Boca Vista FL
As you know, the intake manifold has a rake to it such that the carb base at the rear is higher than at the front of the intake manifold.
I would assume that the downward angle of the engine, when in the car, is such that the carb base is perfectly level, or parallel to the ground, ideally. Correct?
Now,was any extra angle allows for to accommodate additional rear end squat due to passengers in a rear seat, and stuff in the trunk?
In other words, when an unloaded car is parked, does the front of the carb sit just slightly lower than the rear of the carb to account for vehicle loading? if so, how much? What is the specified mounting angle?
Thanks,
Doug
I would assume that the downward angle of the engine, when in the car, is such that the carb base is perfectly level, or parallel to the ground, ideally. Correct?
Now,was any extra angle allows for to accommodate additional rear end squat due to passengers in a rear seat, and stuff in the trunk?
In other words, when an unloaded car is parked, does the front of the carb sit just slightly lower than the rear of the carb to account for vehicle loading? if so, how much? What is the specified mounting angle?
Thanks,
Doug
On a quick read I thought you said a stiff in the trunk. Growing up in central NJ I never paid attention to trunk loads. Of course when I was in the Border Patrol in Chula Vista, CA I paid a LOT of attention to trunk loads.
Back to your original observation on engine angle. In my experience a level carb pad has always been the starting point. Now with EFI and dry sumps it doesn't matter so much. For a non EFI engine I would go with the level pad and pay attention to the oil sump being in proper attitude as well.
Rich
Team Owner
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 38,897
Likes: 1,926
From: Washington Michigan
The design engine installation angle on midyears is 3*; on solid-axle cars, it's less than 1*, close to zero (horizontal) due to the close clearance between the bottom of the transmission tailhousing and the center "X"-member and reinforcing plate on the frame (which results in the terrible U-joint operating angles). 
Thread Starter
Race Director
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 12,470
Likes: 1,548
From: Camp Verde AZ
C1 of Year Finalist (performance mods) 2019
2017 C1 of Year Finalist
I was thinking that I should allow for an inch of settling at the rear for normal fuel and payload lowering, over dry, unloaded stance, for carb base attitude.
It sounds like it isn't that critical to carb operation, if midyears got 3* down angle and C1's got only 1* down angle of the motor.
Yeah, Tennessee for moonshine runners, I-5 for illegals in the trunk with bumper dragging.
I had to go through a grease trap on I-10 just west of Las Cruces last month, the BP agent started looking in the rear windows of my pickup, and the bed shell, and then when I told him I was on my way back from BORTAC, he immediate waved me through with a get outta here comment.
Doug
Thread Starter
Race Director
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 12,470
Likes: 1,548
From: Camp Verde AZ
C1 of Year Finalist (performance mods) 2019
2017 C1 of Year Finalist
Actually, this is for the 327 going in the '37 Ford P'up project. I could stick a 6-71 blower or tunnel rum under that hood and still have room. I just picked up the 200-4R yesterday.
I think I will buy some 100 pound bags of sand or ready mix, and place them strategically on the frame to simulate body, bed,and fuel/passenger loads when welding in the trans mount bracket.
Doug
I think I will buy some 100 pound bags of sand or ready mix, and place them strategically on the frame to simulate body, bed,and fuel/passenger loads when welding in the trans mount bracket.
Doug
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Expensive Corvettes Ever Sold on Bring A Trailer
Brett Foote
10 Things Every Corvette Owner Needs (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
8 Most "Only Corvette Owners Understand" Quirks and Problems
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Reasons the C6 Z06 is Still A Performance Benchmark After 20 Years
Joe Kucinski
How Much Horsepower Every Corvette Engine "LOST" in 1972
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 DOs and DON'Ts for Protecting Your Convertible Top!
Michael S. Palmer
Top 10 Most Explosive Corvettes Ever Made: Power-to-Weight Ratio Ranked!
Joe Kucinski
150 hp to 1,250 hp: Every Corvette Generation Compared by the Specs That Matter
Joe Kucinski
8 Coolest Corvette Pace Cars (and Replicas) of All Time
Verdad Gallardo
Melting Slicks
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 523
From: Willowbrook IL
St. Jude Donor '13-'14-'15-'16
ALL of the engines we test are set at level in two planes. The dyno is also level. The connecting drive shaft has a 2* angle at the engine and dyno. This is done so the u-joint bearings rotate and prevents them from cupping and spauling.
These are usually 550+ hp engines, but have gone to 1200+ HP for special clients.
These are usually 550+ hp engines, but have gone to 1200+ HP for special clients.
Safety Car
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,182
Likes: 94
From: going faster miles an hour...with the radio on in browns mills new jersey
For a mid-year, the carb base should be 1* down towards the front when installed.
Intake at 4* down towards the front.
Engine installed at 3* down towards the back.
Intake at 4* down towards the front.
Engine installed at 3* down towards the back.
Safety Car
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,797
Likes: 239
From: Ocean Township NJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by 65tripleblack
Hood clearance issues.
Doug,
I made the comment because there was speculation about the reason for the carb-nose-down-angle in the midyear Corvette................not your application. The reason was solely because of hood clearance limitations on the midyears with small block hoods. They finally had the right idea for smallblocks in 1966, when they began using a drop base air cleaner. They used the gained clearance to finally put on a decent, 3" tall open element air filter. They finally were able to go to a decent intake manifold (with an additional 5/8" of rise) by further increasing under hood clearance with the C3 and the LT1 hood/intake manifold.
Originally Posted by 65tripleblack
Hood clearance issues.
Actually, this is for the 327 going in the '37 Ford P'up project. I could stick a 6-71 blower or tunnel rum under that hood and still have room. I just picked up the 200-4R yesterday.
I think I will buy some 100 pound bags of sand or ready mix, and place them strategically on the frame to simulate body, bed,and fuel/passenger loads when welding in the trans mount bracket.
Doug
I think I will buy some 100 pound bags of sand or ready mix, and place them strategically on the frame to simulate body, bed,and fuel/passenger loads when welding in the trans mount bracket.
Doug
I made the comment because there was speculation about the reason for the carb-nose-down-angle in the midyear Corvette................not your application. The reason was solely because of hood clearance limitations on the midyears with small block hoods. They finally had the right idea for smallblocks in 1966, when they began using a drop base air cleaner. They used the gained clearance to finally put on a decent, 3" tall open element air filter. They finally were able to go to a decent intake manifold (with an additional 5/8" of rise) by further increasing under hood clearance with the C3 and the LT1 hood/intake manifold.
