1952 Chevy Vette Farm Truck Build

[FarmerSid]

Spent some time later last night just staring at the frame and wondering about things. Looks like I now need an engine and trans in order to move forward. Kinda need them to locate the engine and trans mounts and drive shaft loop. With that, all the mounts and cross members would be complete and everything could be finished welded. All that would be left would be to get a gas tank and make the mounts for it. Other than that, the frame would be complete. Hope I'm not forgetting something.

Cheers!

[oldman3]

Sid, the frame looks super, it will be a shame to have to cover it with cab and bed...Jim

[Advanced Design]

Sid, some of the design details from Art Morrisons Tri Five chassis center section would look right at home on your frame.

You are doing an outstanding job with it!

[JJorgensen52]

Originally Posted by FarmerSid

Good idea. Not too sure the round tubing would look right. Maybe....something to think about for sure.

You could do it with square tubing, also, now that you mention it

[FarmerSid]

Well........I picked up a 2006 aluminum L33 5.3L and 2005 2WD 4L60E yesterday. No turning back now. Gonna have to change the thread title now!


I got the VIN numbers from the vehicles they came out of. Ran the VIN's and they are indeed out of what I was told. The engine came out of a 06 Chevy ext cab 4X4 and the trany came out of an 05 2WD 5.3 Chevy crew cab.

Now this is where I need some clarification. The trany has an extra bolt hole where there is no threaded hole on the engine block. Is this an issue or did I get the wrong trany?

Does the PCM control the trany or did I forget to get a controller that goes with the trany?

Here's a few pictures.

[FarmerSid]

Another quick question. What type of engine mounts should I be going with? Biscuit or tube style?

[ricott]

As to the Tranny question, it looks right and if the "extra" hole is on the bellhousing on the passenger side engine bank, it is not used. This engine /tranny combo uses a Powertrain Conttrol Module only (controls both the engine and tranny.

On a side note, if you got a complete engine harness and you get the under hood fuse block for this year (from a truck), there are only five wires out of that fuseblock you need to use to make the engine run (if the Theft is turned off). Good luck with your "update" you will love it when it runs.

Ricky

[JJorgensen52]

As far as the trans goes, I think it's because they were still using the 4.3L V6 in some trucks with that trans, and it has a different bolt pattern than the LS motors do.

I'm using plain old SBC style mounts on my LS with setback plates, but that's because it will drop right into the G-body stub that way. Otherwise, I'd probably use something like this:

https://liquidironindustries.com/GM-...or-Mounts.html

[aknovaman]

DONT drill the engine block for the bolt at the 1'oclock position. You will hit water and ruin the block.

[FarmerSid]

Thanks for the info and advice. Ben looking for motor mount idea's and a lot are offset to the front and also come with tabs that you weld onto the frame. I thought that the off set mounting plates were only for using the stock mount in the vehicle. If you can weld on the tabs anywhere on the frame, what's with the off set? Manifold or header clearance?

What's everyone's opinion on biscuit vs poly tube type mount?

[Advanced Design]

Sid, I used the poly tube type attached to a plate on the block. Then I fabricated tabs welded to the frame for the tube to mount too. And in looking it over, I believe the biscuit type would possibly provide more surface area to weld to the frame.

The offset, or possibly adjustable, mount can help with steering clearance to the rack on the left side. With your skills you can fab up what you need and where you needed it to provide the clearance.

[FarmerSid]

Thanks AD! I think I will go with the poly tube type as I have a few left over poly bushings from the C4 bushing kit and can fabricate something to utilize them. Is your engine centered or off set to the passenger side? If off set why?

Looks like a set of headers may be needed now too.

[Advanced Design]

Sid, when you mentioned off set I was thinking fore and aft, not left and right.

I centered my engine and transmission in the frame. If it helps, my build thread has pics of the mounts near the end of the current posts. Apologies there is so much in there.

[FarmerSid]

AD. I meant both. I will re read your thread. Been reading so much that stuff is starting to get confusing. I did some rough measuring last night and will get some rough mounts made to see how things look.

[JJorgensen52]

Originally Posted by FarmerSid

Looks like a set of headers may be needed now too.

Sid, take a look at the 5th gen Camaro manifolds, they tuck in much tighter than the truck ones do (I'm running them on my truck):
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...5&postcount=16

Or, Hooker also makes a cast header which tucks even a little closer than that and uses the same flanges / gaskets:
https://www.holley.com/products/exha...arts/8501-3HKR

The 5th Gen Camaro ones show up on ebay for cheap pretty regularly, or you can buy them new from GM for less than the Hookers, and they're very similar.

[68 Four on the Floor]

I used f body headers on my 68. Tucked in real close. With that year of engine you'll need to run drive by wire unless you change to the older intake and throttle body. Lemme know if you want your ecm flashed for cheap. And good score on the l33. High output and aluminum block is pretty sweet.

[FarmerSid]

Thanks guy's! JJ, picked up a set of 2010 Camaro manifolds with cats and resonators. Too wide by about 1/2". They do tuck in more but not enough.

I may get in touch with you with the ECM programming. Could you supply an ECM too?

Got the L33 5.3 sitting between the frame rails. It sits a little higher as the Corvette rack is mounted higher. Had to clock the rack so the lines would clear the front pulley.

Can someone explain how I should level the engine front to back. What surface should I go by? The truck intake is still on it.

Cheers!

[JJorgensen52]

Originally Posted by FarmerSid

Thanks guy's! JJ, picked up a set of 2010 Camaro manifolds with cats and resonators. Too wide by about 1/2". They do tuck in more but not enough.

I may get in touch with you with the ECM programming. Could you supply an ECM too?

Got the L33 5.3 sitting between the frame rails. It sits a little higher as the Corvette rack is mounted higher. Had to clock the rack so the lines would clear the front pulley.

Can someone explain how I should level the engine front to back. What surface should I go by? The truck intake is still on it.

Cheers!

The Hooker manifolds are about 1" narrower from what I understand so they might work for you - or headers. I just have bad luck with leaky, rusty headers

As far as leveling the engine, use the rear face where the bell housing bolts (the machined potion), or I'm 99% sure the back of the heads on an LS motor are squared up as well. You could also use the waterpump pulley front snout, but it's so narrow it'd be hard to get a good read on.

Also, don't forget to check the angle on your rear diff - they need to match! I'm in the middle of getting that set up, myself. Took a break to eat!

[99 to Life]

sid, are the manifolds hitting the frame? can you notch the frame. I'v seen that happen.

[Advanced Design]

Originally Posted by 99 to Life

sid, are the manifolds hitting the frame? can you notch the frame. I'v seen that happen.

Thinking the same...half inch too wide is 1/4 per side?

[FarmerSid]

I've seen the hooker cast manifolds. Nice but much more $$$$. May have to go that route. Hard finding examples of other builds that are using a C4 front cross member like mine in a 47-54 chevy truck and a LS engine. With the rack being higher on the cross member compared to other IFS setups using T bird racks, the engine looks like it has to sit a bit higher.

The flange on the manifolds sit about 3/4" above the frame rail. They are about 1/2" too wide on each side. The Camaro manifolds came with the cats and resonator still bolted to the manifold. There is a flex type coupling between the flange and the cat. That may be handy.

I would have to notch the frame to use these manifolds but would rather not if i can help it.

Will know better by end of day today after I do some more fiddling and farting around with engine placement. Gotta figure out what surface on the engine I should go by to set the 3 degree downward angle. The rear is already set.

Cheers!

[BIGglaSS]

Originally Posted by FarmerSid

Will know better by end of day today after I do some more fiddling and farting around with engine placement. Gotta figure out what surface on the engine I should go by to set the 3 degree downward angle. The rear is already set.

Cheers!

Did you set your pinion level or 3 degrees up? I'm still studying installs, I'm going to be doing mine over the next few weeks (57 pickup). I'm still undecided if I need to angle the engine or not. I asked the engine angle question in Nerd Rods thread at LS1tech. He said there is no need to tilt the engine down unless you need floor tunnel clearance.

Studying pictures of other C4 rear installs, the batwing mounts are square to the frame. Pictures from Newman's and Nerd Rods have their LS engines level and batwing mounts square to the frame. I guess I need to figure out engine placement and angle first before I weld the batwing mounts. Unless there is still enough flex in the batwing mounts to shim the pinion later if needed.

Is there a reason you want to angle the engine down? For clearance? Here is the thread where I asked about engine angle. Start at post #101:
http://ls1tech.com/forums/conversion...-design-6.html

[FarmerSid]

Thanks for the link BiGglass. My rear is set to 2 degrees right now. I can change it to 0 degrees by making a new carrier bracket that bolts to the diff. Russell did a good job of explaining things. It is common knowledge that U joints don't like to rotate perfectly aligned. I guess Russell is confirming that and saying that the 2-3 degree angle is only needed either left to right or up and down but not both. It's important to match the angles so vibrations will cancel out. Gotta remember our drive shaft will not have any travel with suspension travel. Have to make sure any info that is taken is in regards to a C4 IRS. Solid axle stuff would be different.

In regards to your comments about the batwing being square to the frame, if the final ride height is set level and the rear pinion is set to 0 degrees, the batwing would be square to the frame. I have a 1.5" rake and the pinion set to 2 degrees so that would make my batwing not square. I think I have somewhat of a understanding of this now. Correct me if I'm wrong. Hopefully a bunch of us can get this hammered out.

[FarmerSid]

Just went and checked a few measurements. The yoke on the rear carrier is offset 1" or so to the passenger side. With where I have my engine sitting in the frame, I have 1.85 degrees of down ward angle measured from the crank pulley and 2.2 degrees measured from the raised mounting studs with brass inserts on the top of the stock truck intake.

Going to see with the engine/trans and rear level if they line up. The engine/tranny may have to go up or down to match up with a level horizontal plane with the rear. If they do, then 1" offset of the rear will coincide with what Russell says.

[JJorgensen52]

Originally Posted by FarmerSid

Just went and checked a few measurements. The yoke on the rear carrier is offset 1" or so to the passenger side. With where I have my engine sitting in the frame, I have 1.85 degrees of down ward angle measured from the crank pulley and 2.2 degrees measured from the raised mounting studs with brass inserts on the top of the stock truck intake.

Your trans output will be inline with the crank pulley, so that's the measurement to use here. You can get away with the trans being higher/lower and offset, but it becomes more difficult to measure that way, because the plane in which you are measuring your driveline angle is no longer vertical.