When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Option 2: Just to help Leigh spend money, buy the Stan's tri-y's, mount the borgesson, muont the headers, and report back.
Yeah, I like that option and that's what this is really going to come down to. Someone is going to have to buy a set and see if they'll fit. I may be doing just that depending on how my conversation with Stan goes. I didn't get a chance to call him this week but hopefully early next week I'll make that call. But, this has been an interesting exercise and down the road it may help folks that are interested in headers other than Stan's.
Originally Posted by leigh1322
Hah! I am coaching in a huge 64 team robotics competition tomorrow! Yikes!
Yes I shot the pics free-hand not with a tripod, or a green-screen, or mounted, or while standing on my head, although that would all be cool.
However You will have to muddle through as best you can without me this weekend.
I am coaching in a huge 64 team robotics competition tomorrow! Yikes!
Battlebots by any chance? - my 5 year old grandson is a huge Huge fan.
OK here's a couple more. Sorry I had to take some time off for the Flu. I needed some Vette therapy today, that perked me up!
Thanks Leigh. Sorry about the flu. Glad you're back in the saddle. Here's an overlay of these two photos. I didn't try to scale them, just lined them up and rotated a bit as necessary.
Your dimensions confirm the info I found earlier that the Borgeson box is about 3/8" closer to the engine when compared to the center line of the rag joint shaft. But the mounting plate is offset a bit and so reduces some of that distance.
I haven't called Stan's yet. I'm waiting on my new engine to arrive first. I ended up going with a larger capacity oil pan that has the "wings" on the side. I want to take some measurements of it to confirm I won't have clearance issues with the headers. I should receive the engine by the first part of next week if not later this week.
I see three possible areas of interference with headers. And the overlay points it out very clearly.
Once I get the third view measurements done, I'll work on figuring out or getting someone to help me with a correctly scaled & centered overlay. But for spotting obvious interference points the scaled part is not even needed.
Progress is a good thing!
Last edited by leigh1322; Mar 4, 2020 at 03:52 PM.
Ok after some more C3 therapy and getting some help with GIMP, I came up with these two.
Nice! You figured GIMP out better than I did. The scale between the two looks much better.
Based on measurements above and considering everything, I'm thinking the Borgeson box is not quite as close to the engine when compared to the stock box as your top view shows. But, it definitely shows that there could be possible interference with Borgeson box near the two outside bolts on the top. It would be cool if someone with a stock box had their headers off and could replicate the photo I took in post #20 with the 3.5" board.
The measurements say those two bolts are 0.36" closer to the engine with the borgeson box. Thats 9mm. Definately an area to worry about.
Does that account for the difference you showed between the box centerline and the mounting plate centerline. You showed that distance to be 1.30" for the Borgeson and 1.10" for the C3 box. Wasn't sure if that difference meant the Borgeson box was offset a little more away from the engine. I know it didn't seem like the Borgeson shaft lined up as well with the steering column as did the old box when I did my swap.
Ok now that NJ Schools are closed for 5 weeks I finally had time to get back to this!
I realized I had some measurement issues, some of the numbers just were not adding up.
So I went back and remeasured a few things. Realized the parallax issue is really bad when doing 3D objects and had to do a lot of remeasuring with 90 degree squares.
Finally got consistent measurements. The Main Box shaft to the mounting bolt centerline turned out to be exactly the same for both boxes at 1.25"
Since the mounting plate is rotated 3 degrees that made measuring tricky The steering column shaft centerline vs mounting bolts is different on each box. The steering shaft centerline of the borgeson box hangs over the vette frame rail away from the engine by an extra 0.35", plus that box is fatter.
Anyway enough about my measuring issues, here are the corrected pix. With shaft C/L added. The two silhouettes were done before, I am working on the third one now.
Nice work Leigh! This is getting close to being definitive. I think that based on your superimposed pics, the main area of concern are the two corners of the Borgeson box that I labeled "A" & "C" in post #19. I'm really starting to believe the Stan's headers will work. Still haven't touched base with them but I need to do that within the next couple of weeks at least.
Finally had a chance to measure the Interference Points on the two superimposed pictures;
Wound up correcting a typo above.
Also had to account for the rag joint.
I waited on talking to Stan about his headers until I got the new engine mounted in my '73 and took some more measurements. I was able to confirm that nothing really changed on the measurement side from the old engine to the new engine. If anything, I may have gained a hair more clearance due to new motor mounts. After reviewing all of the good info in this thread, I became reasonably confident the headers will fit.
I talked to Stan today about his Tri-Y headers and ended up ordering a raw (un-coated) set which were in stock. Now we'll know for sure if they fit with the Borgeson power steering system.
After talking with Stan, I decided to order the headers un-coated for test fit purposes. He is very interested in knowing if his headers will fit with the Borgeson system. After describing the problem to him, he said the headers might be able to be modified if they don't fit so that's why I ordered them un-coated. Hopefully they'll fit right out of the box but if not I'll get with Stan and have them modified. If they fit fine, I'll send them back for coating after I get the O2 bung welded in.
They promised to ship the headers today so I should have them fairly soon. I'll report back after I test fit them.
Got the Stan's Tri-Y headers today and promptly spent the rest of the afternoon bolting them up and checking them out. Bottom line is they fit but the #3 tube contacts the Borgeson box at the rear top corner of the box. This was one of the spots we identified as being a potential issue. That same tube only has about 1/16" of clearance further down. There are no issues with any of the other tubes. Passenger side fits fine. For future reference, the headers fit well with a Moroso 21811 extra capacity oil pan. This one: https://www.jegs.com/i/Moroso/710/21811/10002/-1
I sent Stan some photos a few minutes ago and will call him tomorrow to follow up.
It looks like the #3 tube just needs a dimple up top. I'm a little concerned about the 1/16" of clearance down below. Wondering if 1/16" is enough given that the engine moves a bit under load. I think once the header is dimpled up top, it will have enough room to move around that point without further contact. I also think there is enough extra material on the gearbox to grind a bit of it away to gain some clearance at that top corner. Not sure I can do the same down below.
How thick are the ceramic coatings? That might be another factor as I want mine coated for sure to minimize heat issues.
A dimple is not going to affect the flow at all.
You can dimple it now and get it coated after.
Any chance the one tube could get shortened or heat & bent a little closer to the engine?
Engine is going to lift on the drivers side when torqued...
Ceramic thickness is usually .015" or less, typically less than .010"
M
Thanks. Good to know. Ceramic thickness shouldn't be an issue. Just kind of playing with the fit and imagining the engine lift, it looks like the 1/16" clearance will be maintained or even increased a bit. Worst case might involve a dimple in that area but I'd want to do that before coating. Heat might be another issue although the coating should help with that.
Originally Posted by leigh1322
A dimple is not going to affect the flow at all.
You can dimple it now and get it coated after.
Any chance the one tube could get shortened or heat & bent a little closer to the engine?
These header tubes seem thicker than others I've been around. Wondering how much effort will be required to dimple them? I'd hate to go too far.
I'm going to talk to Stan today to find out what he thinks. Originally he said I could send the headers back for modification and since I need to return them anyway for the coating, it might be best to let him make the modifications. Would be nice if he would redesign the #3 tube. It wouldn't take much to turn it back toward the firewall and there is plenty of room to move it closer to the engine as well. A permanent design modification would likely mean no issues with either Borgeson or stock steering.
Thanks. Good to know. Ceramic thickness shouldn't be an issue. Just kind of playing with the fit and imagining the engine lift, it looks like the 1/16" clearance will be maintained or even increased a bit. Worst case might involve a dimple in that area but I'd want to do that before coating. Heat might be another issue although the coating should help with that.
DC
Hmm, I was briefly thinking it would tip the bottom part of the header INTO the steering box, the pivot will be sort of on the opposite mount and this one will lift
But I'm not looking at it
M
I needed some Vette therapy today, that perked me up!
Yikes!
