Team Chevelle banner

Doug's headers hang low!.........

30K views 61 replies 25 participants last post by  NWShovel 
#1 ·
I recently purchased a set of the Doug's (D316) headers for my '69. The fitment around the engine is great, BUT they hang way to low. Has anyone ever had this issue with these headers? I used standard BB motor mounts and have the Brodix race rite heads. I had another '69 a few years ago and used the headman 66002's and they tucked up close to the floor board (did'nt fit as well around the engine area, but with some tweaking was made to work ok). I have never seen or heard of this complaint for the Doug's brand, any feedback would be appreciated.

*I'll try and get some pics on later today
 
#2 ·
Define "low" because I wouldn't say mine hang low. 496 with AFR 290s & standard mounts.

Here are a few pictures (some better than others) of the headers installed on my car. I don't know if I would want to lower the front too much because they do hang down lower than the cross member, but not bad or "low" in my opinion.

How do yours compare?







Shot from the rear, can't see much but that is kind of the point. The headers are pretty close to the floor pans on my car.
 
#3 ·
I'm thinking lower than that..... How do yours fit in relation to the stock crossmember? I ask because mine hang well below the stock crossmember. I'm use to the header flange either just clearing the crossmember or actually hitting it with headmans used in the past.
 
#4 ·
I wouldn't say they hang well below but the rest of the exhaust is not touching the trans cross-member either. That being said, the exhaust pipes (before the x pipe) were custom fit to the headers so any clearance I have would be different than someone else. The best photos I have are the 1st & 2nd one that shows the bottom of the header flange just about level with the bottom of my deep 200-4R trans pan.

Maybe you can get some photos of your issues and post them up. As you mentioned in your first post, not many people complain about Doug's hanging low but Hedman are definitely noted to tuck up very tight so maybe it is just being accustom to the Hedman's fit?
 
#5 ·
Mine fit like Eric's....have them on both the '67 and the '72...they do not hang low compared to others...;)
 
#6 ·
Yeah, that's why I bought them this time.....no previous complaints that I found. All I know is they ain't gonna work like they are. My buddy and I took a ride and the flanges would drag on turns and the slightest slopes in pavement. I'll get some pics up this evening when I get home.
 
#10 ·
They are listed to fit 68-72 Chevelles...

http://www.pertronix.com/prod/new/details.aspx?ID=130

I have the D316, and agree they hang low, but not quite as low as the Hooker Super Comps I had. If you can deal with a 1 3/4" primary header, Hedman 68198 are the absolute best fitting header I have seen on a Chevelle. Those things are even with the cross-member when installed.
 
#29 ·
If you can deal with a 1 3/4" primary header, Hedman 68198 are the absolute best fitting header I have seen on a Chevelle. Those things are even with the cross-member when installed.
Absolutely correct. These are 68198s on a '65 with 3" pipes. These don't even hang lower than the bellhousing.

 
#11 ·
Went out a snapped a quick pic of how low mine are and measured ground clearance. I must admit, I've been one of the members recommending these headers for how nice they fit, but they are just as low as my Hookers were. :( I have 4" of ground clearance, but my car is lowered a couple inches up front. They would be fine on a stock ride height car, but you might run into problems on a lowered car.


 
#12 ·
My thoughts exactly.......my 496 probably makes 575 to 600 flywheel HP. I've read where that may be about the limit for a 1 3/4" header tube size with that HP range. The car has 2" lowering springs front and back. The hedman 66002 or 68198 maybe the ticket. This is an expensive lesson.
 
#14 ·
I have exactly the same problem with my hooker supercomp on my 427 chevelle ss 1968
with the bumpy competition enginnering drag schock I hurt the road all the time
so I want to change my headers....I see lot of people here are really happy with the headman 68198 so I think that I take this one
 
#16 ·
hedman 68198 do fit well and sit higher overall. With raised exh ports, 3" pipe was right against the crossmember. D316 is an equal length primary which causes couple tubes to sit lower. My car is lower than stock in front, about 1". Any lower and I'd look at a different header. 2" Hedman also fits nice as long as you don't have factory AC.
 
#21 ·
that's not normal....something is way off....do the headers have the correct part number stamped in the flange? I can't even figure how your car could be that far off...even if it has dropped spindles the headers would still have the correct relationship to the body/frame....I would say they are the wrong headers or grossly mis-manufactured....
 
#19 ·
Not really that low...2'' drop springs. Look at the space between the exhaust pipe and cross member, there's 2 inches + that the header and exhaust pipe could come up. Like I said, I had another 69 a few years back with 2" drop springs an hedman 66002 headers and they tucked up nicely next to the floor board with no dragging issues. These are the best fitting/ worst ground clearance headers I've ever owned. And yes, that includes Hookers too.
 
#25 · (Edited)
I don't know, his pics aren't too far off from mine and Eric's. Here's a pic Eric posted in another post (hope you don't mind Eric)...



He has a pretty good gap between the trans crossmember and exhaust.


My header collectors are below the frame when looking from the side of the car. Another confession... I put a floor jack under the collectors and bent them up some before hooking up the exhaust. My exhaust would have been even lower if I didn't do that.

I also don't have my hood and front bumper on the car. I might lose more ground clearance.
 
#28 ·
I don't know, his pics aren't too far off from mine and Eric's. Here's a pic Eric posted in another post (hope you don't mind Eric)...

He has a pretty good gap between the trans crossmember and exhaust.


My header collectors are below the frame when looking from the side of the car. Another confession... I put a floor jack under the collectors and bent them up some before hooking up the exhaust. My exhaust would have been even lower if I didn't do that.

I also don't have my hood and front bumper on the car. I might lose more ground clearance.
No problem, I think I excluded the picture because my cross-member was moved back to accommodate the 200-4r Transmission & the exhaust pipes were just laying in place, but yes there is about the same amount of room. I know it wouldn't change much but I think the headers would be much closer to the cross-member if it was in the front set of holes on the frame (the headers seem to angle up a bit toward the collector.)

Either way, on a lowered car these will be iffy. As someone mentioned, the equal length primary tubes create a bit more pipe that creates a little less clearance. That being said, I don't believe these hang any lower (and in fact are probably tucked up tighter) than the Hooker Super Comps I had when the car had a 350.
 
#27 · (Edited)
The engine stands and mounts are the same as I have always had. Oil pan clearance at crossmember is fine and these headers seem to fit very well around steering box, frame, starter etc. etc. It's like there just too long in the downward tube lengths. I think I'm going to get the hedman 68198 (1 3/4" tubes) and get this problem solved. Dougs will be hearing from me.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top