Header fitment rant, Doug's

[BigBlockMopar]

When I installed Dougs on my '73 Dart, I also had a Summit X-pipe kit to install behind it. But before mocking this all up and welding it into a one-piece X, I pulled the collectors of both headers together with a ratchet strap about an inch, mocked up the X-pipe and welded everything.

But this, even with this extra clearance, I had to reposition the engine about 5-6 times on its mounts before I got just enough clearance to where I thought it wouldn't touch.
I even used one-size thinner bolts for the spoolmounts so I got some more room to play.
Of course after a week of driving around, one of the headers started rattling on a torsion bar....

 

[famous bob]

When I installed Dougs on my '73 Dart, I also had a Summit X-pipe kit to install behind it. But before mocking this all up and welding it into a one-piece X, I pulled the collectors of both headers together with a ratchet strap about an inch, mocked up the X-pipe and welded everything.

But this, even with this extra clearance, I had to reposition the engine about 5-6 times on its mounts before I got just enough clearance to where I thought it wouldn't touch.
I even used one-size thinner bolts for the spoolmounts so I got some more room to play.
Of course after a week of driving around, one of the headers started rattling on a torsion bar....

Sounds like the stress would get to something before its over with -------------

 

[missing linc]

Just my .02, but the manufacturers make these parts to fit more than one body style. TTI's are the same part # for A,B,E,F,M and J as I recall, as I expect Doug's are too. This is quite likely part of the reason that there are some fitment issues, along with the variations in tolerances in individual vehicles. I saw/heard, and experienced a small part of the frustration when I volunteered to help a friend install a set of Doug's on his '73 Dart. That car was born as a/6 with a 904. K member was swapped for a V8 unit from a '75 Dart, and a 360/727 was installed. The header install was a 3 or 4 day battle filled with profanity, several tools becoming airborne, a more than a few beers and bloodied knuckles. By the time the install was "done", the amount of restriction created by massaging the tubes IMO negated the whole point of putting the headers on in the first place. My preference for TTI's is based on experience, I refused to buy headers for my Dart before I found them, never had any problems with them in some 10 years of hard use, no leaks, and only moderate discoloring. Have not gotten to the point of installing them on the 75 Dart Sport yet, won't until next year now, but I expect little to no grief when the time comes.
Having said all that, it is unfortunate that the OP had so much trouble with his installation, I have a great deal of patience, but I don't know if I could have tolerated that much aggravation.

 

[missing linc]

All I know is the trouble I had removing the ones that came with my car convinced me that I was not going to be putting them back on. I had the heads off, still had to pull the steering linkage, mounts completely free, and still had to shift the block from one side to the other just to get them out of the chassis. I don't know what brand they are, but they ain't getting put back on.

 

[72bluNblu]

It seems strange, of the multiple sets I've put on, NONE required that type of hacking to install. I still think there is a engine location issue

Exactly. I barely touched the Doug's that are in my Duster, even with the 1.12" torsion bars. The TTI shorty's were about the same, the headpipes would have taken the small dimples instead.

Maybe?

It it's sitting in there petty Damn close to where it should be, off by about 1/8th, little less.

I can't see myself buying another set of pre fabbed headers, I'll just buy the pieces, fit and weld it up myself.

I wouldn't buy TTI either.


What a waste of time and money this was!

I could have tossed them, sold them, whatever but that still leaves me building my own. Haven't sourced material and don't want to get all side tracked on one thing.

I had to dent the drivers side in 4 places, I expect to have to dent the other side too. Having said that it will probably go in just fine on p side.

All of the dents are significant, they're not small dents.

Who gives a ****, I'm over it, on to the next thing I can get done.

I think you decided right off the bat the headers were the problem and stopped looking for other problems. I've never seen biscuit mounts as large as the ones you're using. Typically they're half that size.

It's not the headers. You've got something else going on there, and it will probably come up with other parts too.

 

[mopowers]

I think you decided right off the bat the headers were the problem and stopped looking for other problems. I've never seen biscuit mounts as large as the ones you're using. Typically they're half that size.

It's not the headers. You've got something else going on there, and it will probably come up with other parts too.

But it's much easier to blame the headers that thousands have used without an issue (me included) and ***** about it on an internet rant thread.

 

[MOA]

After having to take the engine out one more time, I decided to pay for another driver side header, 230 shipped.

The reason I decided to get another shipped is the collector is too far outboard on the drivers side, another indicator that the header is wrong. I guessed that the flange must of been put on at the wrong angle, maybe a BB under the flange when it went into the jig. Haven't tried putting it on yet, doing that today.

Angle is off on the old beat up one.
Last pic is the new one.

1/8th of an inch. Difference in 2.75"

 

[mopowers]

Goodluck MOA. That could very well be the problem. Hope it works out for ya.

 

[daddio4048]

After having to take the engine out one more time, I decided to pay for another driver side header, 230 shipped.

The reason I decided to get another shipped is the collector is too far outboard on the drivers side, another indicator that the header is wrong. I guessed that the flange must of been put on at the wrong angle, maybe a BB under the flange when it went into the jig. Haven't tried putting it on yet, doing that today.

View attachment 1715399318 View attachment 1715399319 View attachment 1715399320

Angle is off on the old beat up one.
Last pic is the new one.

1/8th of an inch. Difference in 2.75"

Came that way from Doug's ?

 

[MOA]

Came that way from Doug's ?

Not sure what you're asking?

 

[MOA]

This is not resolved. Doug's, pertronix, is doing what they can. The second, new header, has its problems too.

I'll talk to them again tomorrow.

Probably going to order a driver's side from TTI. I don't know what else to do..

I'll work with pertronix, I have no problem with that.

 

[72bluNblu]

After having to take the engine out one more time, I decided to pay for another driver side header, 230 shipped.

The reason I decided to get another shipped is the collector is too far outboard on the drivers side, another indicator that the header is wrong. I guessed that the flange must of been put on at the wrong angle, maybe a BB under the flange when it went into the jig. Haven't tried putting it on yet, doing that today.

View attachment 1715399318 View attachment 1715399319 View attachment 1715399320

Angle is off on the old beat up one.
Last pic is the new one.

1/8th of an inch. Difference in 2.75"

So, you hammered on your original header. Then hammered it some more. Then HEATED it and hammered the ever living crap out of it again.

And now you're surprised it's different from the new one by an 1/8"? Uh, MAP gas. Bet it wasn't before. I'd have been surprised if it still sat on the table the same as a new one. The tubes are setting that height you're measuring, and you beat the stuffing out of the tubes.

This is not resolved. Doug's, pertronix, is doing what they can. The second, new header, has its problems too.

I'll talk to them again tomorrow.

Probably going to order a driver's side from TTI. I don't know what else to do..

I'll work with pertronix, I have no problem with that.

The problem is your engine mounts are like twice the size of the originals. Seriously. These are yours...

This is a set of originals...

The originals are 1" thick or less. And they're rubber, so they'll compress even further with the engine weight. Your poly mounts appear twice as thick, and they won't compress with the weight of the engine. All of the mounts all angled too, so they're not just lifting the engine, they may be shifting it from one side to the other as well.

You need to do something else with your engine mounts. Not only will they mess up where the headers sit, they're going to raise the front of the engine. That will also change the angle on your transmission, u-joints, and driveshaft. I really don't think the header is the issue here. It's a symptom of the larger problem, which is the engine being in the wrong spot.

 

[yellow rose]

So, you hammered on your original header. Then hammered it some more. Then HEATED it and hammered the ever living crap out of it again.

And now you're surprised it's different from the new one by an 1/8"? Uh, MAP gas. Bet it wasn't before. I'd have been surprised if it still sat on the table the same as a new one. The tubes are setting that height you're measuring, and you beat the stuffing out of the tubes.



The problem is your engine mounts are like twice the size of the originals. Seriously. These are yours...

View attachment 1715399665
View attachment 1715399666

This is a set of originals...

View attachment 1715399662
View attachment 1715399663

The originals are 1" thick or less. And they're rubber, so they'll compress even further with the engine weight. Your poly mounts appear twice as thick, and they won't compress with the weight of the engine. All of the mounts all angled too, so they're not just lifting the engine, they may be shifting it from one side to the other as well.

You need to do something else with your engine mounts. Not only will they mess up where the headers sit, they're going to raise the front of the engine. That will also change the angle on your transmission, u-joints, and driveshaft. I really don't think the header is the issue here. It's a symptom of the larger problem, which is the engine being in the wrong spot.

The mounts the OP has look like truck mounts. I'd get a set of moroso solid mounts and never look back.

 

[72bluNblu]

The mounts the OP has look like truck mounts. I'd get a set of moroso solid mounts and never look back.

The part number on the box he posted earlier is correct for a set of A-body poly-locs...

But even if you look at the pictures on Schumacher's web site you can see the difference in the thickness of the mounts between the original style and the poly loc's

And the one's the OP has look even thicker than the one's shown Schumacher's site. Maybe that's just the picture, I don't know. Or maybe they tossed the wrong part in the box.

What I DO know is that everything else mounted to the engine depends on it being in a certain spot. That's especially true for headers. So the problem that has to be addressed here is the engine mounts. We know they're not the same as the originals, and we know it's causing interference issues.

The solid Moroso mounts look thinner

1971 DODGE DART Moroso Solid Steel Motor Mounts 62540

So do the plain old TransDapt original reproductions...

1971 DODGE DART Trans-Dapt Performance Motor Mounts 4221

I know I would try a different set of mounts before I beat up another header

 

[MOA]

Stay tuned, don't plan on beating the crap out of another header. Already have one of those.

I really don't want to say any more for the time being.

Letting the insults roll off my back.

 

[famous bob]

Stay tuned, don't plan on beating the crap out of another header. Already have one of those.

I really don't want to say any more for the time being.

Letting the insults roll off my back.

These guys have shown u ur problem , and u can only talk about insults ?!

 

[yellow rose]

Stay tuned, don't plan on beating the crap out of another header. Already have one of those.

I really don't want to say any more for the time being.

Letting the insults roll off my back.

No one insulted you. There are guys on here who've been doing this a long, long time. I've never seen an engine mount that thick on a passenger car. Ever.

You're beating the crap out of your headers. You're getting new headers and have the same issue.

It's time to step back, take a breath and consider you have other issues.

Again, I wouldn't use any other mount than the moroso solid mount. Ever. As I say that,I'm kicking myself right square in the arse. You see, I have a 73 A body, which means I have the crappy 73 K member with the crappy 73 style engine mount.

When I rebuilt the engine and the entire front end, I looked and looked and looked and looked and couldn't find a 67-72 K member within a 10 hour drive or I would have went and picked it up.

Any rubber/poly mount, any of them is a giant compromise. Get rid of them. The moroso mounts are cheap. The car will drive better with the floppy rubber/poly mounts. And your headers will probably fit.

I'll find a 67-72 K member one of these days. When I do, I'll snatch that up, order some moroso mounts and finally be happy.

So no one is insulting you. We are trying to help, and you are trying not to listen.

 

[MOA]

YR, Fair enough. I've read everything and looked at everything suggested, the motor being centered probably most important. The height of the motor mounts, I don't think that's it but it's possible, at this point anything is possible.
For those that had no problems, how close to the oil pan is the #3 header tube?

 

[Inertia]

I read thru the whole thing, then scanned looking for a couple things.
You've been asked time and again about engine location, you always deflect saying it near perfect and later state it's 1/8 in from center.
Do you realize these motors are set 1 1/4 in. to the passenger side (see attached).
That's almost the depth of the disfigurement you did to the tubes, dontcha think ?
Also, mentioned several times is the driver mount being odd !
If you look at all other mounts shown thru out the thread, all drivers side mounts appear to use to top hole of the mount bracket.
That hole is the one needing a modification spacer to convert the 273/318 mount to 340/360 use.
Your mounts don't use that hole at all.

I believe the initial not finding the bolts, indicates something.

So if your motor crank is in fact 1/8 inch from center, as one post states, and the mounts are from a van or pick up, - NOT an A body, - then the rant should be about great headers, shitty installer.
jmo

Footnote #39

Like many others here, I have installed dozens and dozens of headers thru the decades,
4 sets of TTI, and about to install 7th set of Doug's in the last 10 yrs, and never experienced the grief you are having.
Interference occasionally, - sure, mods needed that are well documented, mods needed not documented, lol , and experience..
It is to be expected that novice installers have difficulty, but reading intruction can help.

Put the engine where it's supposed to be with proper mount brackets, and proper rubber mounts.

Good luck !!

PS. You do know the whole steering column can be moved at the firewall by loosening 3 bolts on the floor ?
Mosta of the previous advice given is absolutely right on.

 

[yellow rose]

I read thru the whole thing, then scanned looking for a couple things.
You've been asked time and again about engine location, you always deflect saying it near perfect and later state it's 1/8 in from center.
Do you realize these motors are set 1 1/4 in. to the passenger side (see attached).
That's almost the depth of the disfigurement you did to the tubes, dontcha think ?
Also, mentioned several times is the driver mount being odd !
If you look at all other mounts shown thru out the thread, all drivers side mounts appear to use to top hole at of the mount bracket.
That hole is the one needing modification spacer to convert the 273/318 mount to 340/360 use.
Your mounts don't use that hole at all.

I believe the initial not finding the bolts, indicates something.

So if your motor crank is in fact 1/8 inch from center, as one post states, and the mounts are from a van or pick up, NOT an A body, then the rant should be about great headers, shitty installer.
JMO

Footnote #39

Like many others here, I have installed dozens and dozens of headers thru the decades,
4 sets of TTI, and about to install 7th set of Doug's in the last 10 yrs, and never experienced the grief you are having.
Interference occasionally, - sure, mods needed that are well documented, mods needed not documented, lol , and experience..
It is to be expected that novice installers have difficulty, but reading intruction can help.

Put the engine where it's supposed to be with proper mount brackets, and insulators,

Good luck !!

PS. You do know the whole column can be moved at the firewall by loosening up 3 bolts on the floor.
Mosta of the previous advice given is absolutely right on.

Damn. You may be onto something. Reading this thread and reading where the OP said the engine is centered within .125 I was thinking he was using the 1.250 offset. Meaning the engine was centered in the car by Chrysler's 1.250 offset.

Yeah, if the OP has the engine centered in the car that's a big issue.



I figured everyone knew by now all these old mopars didn't have the engine centered in the chassis.

 

[72bluNblu]

No one insulted you. There are guys on here who've been doing this a long, long time. I've never seen an engine mount that thick on a passenger car. Ever.

You're beating the crap out of your headers. You're getting new headers and have the same issue.

It's time to step back, take a breath and consider you have other issues.

Again, I wouldn't use any other mount than the moroso solid mount. Ever. As I say that,I'm kicking myself right square in the arse. You see, I have a 73 A body, which means I have the crappy 73 K member with the crappy 73 style engine mount.

When I rebuilt the engine and the entire front end, I looked and looked and looked and looked and couldn't find a 67-72 K member within a 10 hour drive or I would have went and picked it up.

Any rubber/poly mount, any of them is a giant compromise. Get rid of them. The moroso mounts are cheap. The car will drive better with the floppy rubber/poly mounts. And your headers will probably fit.

I'll find a 67-72 K member one of these days. When I do, I'll snatch that up, order some moroso mounts and finally be happy.

So no one is insulting you. We are trying to help, and you are trying not to listen.

The 73+ spool mounts are a much better design than the biscuit mounts. Which is why they replaced the biscuit mount design. There are ways around the failures you get with the biscuit style mounts separating, like solid mounts, but they’re band aids. Solid mounts on a street car can get annoying with the additional vibration they transmit.

I run poly inserts in the spool mount K I have in my ‘74, they work great. What compromise is there? They fit well and locate the engine properly, and if the mount wears out you just replace the insert. And the engine can’t walk out of the mount like with a failed rubber biscuit mount. Plus you get the better design of the 73+ sway bar as well. Improved ground and tire clearance compared to the 67-72 design.

YR, Fair enough. I've read everything and looked at everything suggested, the motor being centered probably most important. The height of the motor mounts, I don't think that's it but it's possible, at this point anything is possible.
For those that had no problems, how close to the oil pan is the #3 header tube?

I run a Milodon road race pan with a large kick out and I still have room to #3.

The engine mounts you have are not putting the engine in it’s original location. That 100% changes the header clearance.

 

[MOA]

The engine is per the factory dimensions. Close anyways.

I don't think my #3 goes close enough to the pan, it's about 3/4"gap.

 

[MOA]

This is the first header.

This is the replacement.

The replacement is 3/8th inboard compared to the original. The first one left very little room for the starter, wire on the bottom of starter would melt in a short time. Second header is better for clearance.

If one of you could take a look to see how close to the pan #3 tube is, I would really appreciate it.

This is what I don't like about the new one.

It's about .035 difference, that difference is much more at the collector, so, what I gained by the flange being correct angle, I lost half of that to the flange not being cut flat. It's near impossible to get a good pic of grinding on the flange, but if had to guess, somebody took a 7" grinder to it.

The head and the pan are hard points, they don't care about the motor mounts or k frame. The heads and block have been machined, bringing the head down and inboard, it's not much, but it's something to consider. If anything, the machining would bring the header more inboard, which is what I want.

Knowing how far from the pan #3 is on a car that had no problems would be very helpful! Power steering car, all original from the factory.

 

[72bluNblu]

This is the first header.View attachment 1715400882

This is the replacement.
View attachment 1715400883

The replacement is 3/8th inboard compared to the original. The first one left very little room for the starter, wire on the bottom of starter would melt in a short time. Second header is better for clearance.

If one of you could take a look to see how close to the pan #3 tube is, I would really appreciate it.

This is what I don't like about the new one.

View attachment 1715400898 View attachment 1715400899

It's about .035 difference, that difference is much more at the collector, so, what I gained by the flange being correct angle, I lost half of that to the flange not being cut flat. It's near impossible to get a good pic of grinding on the flange, but if had to guess, somebody took a 7" grinder to it.

The head and the pan are hard points, they don't care about the motor mounts or k frame. The heads and block have been machined, bringing the head down and inboard, it's not much, but it's something to consider. If anything, the machining would bring the header more inboard, which is what I want.

Knowing how far from the pan #3 is on a car that had no problems would be very helpful! Power steering car, all original from the factory.

Right off the bat, you're not measuring the same way in both of those pictures. Your tape is at an angle in one picture, but not in the other. Can't even tell if you're measuring to the same spot. So, yeah, that makes a difference. Just slapping a tape measure on there can give you 1/4" differences in the measurements by itself using the same parts. Sure there's probably a difference in the headers too, this is a part for mass production and the nature of headers means they're not all identical. That's just not how production works.

.035" on the flange is hardly going to make any difference at all. It'll be taken up by a thick header gasket like the one's that come with the headers. Hell even mounted on the car with everything tight I can flex the header a 1/4" in each direction just by moving the exhaust pipes around further downstream.

The starter wire is a problem with the starter or your wire routing. Chrysler mini-starters come with the terminal blocks in several different locations, some do not work well with headers. On my starter the terminal block is on top of the starter, so there's literally no wire on the bottom. It makes a difference. If you have the wrong model year starter it will cause problems.

The engine mounts control the clearance to the torsion bars and the steering box. The steering box and the torsion bars are what caused your interference issue last time. This is not rocket science, your engine mounts aren't even close to the same as originals.

You seem perfectly happy nit-picking a .035" difference in the flange welding, but you're ignoring what appears to be a 1/2" or more difference in your mounts. Several people in this thread have pointed out that huge and obvious difference in your engine mounts, yet you continue to completely ignore the fact that your clearance issues depend on the mounts too. If it were my car, I'd already be test fitting a different set of mounts. They're cheap in comparison to the headers, and it's much easier to swap a set of mounts than beat the headers to clear.

You've already tried modifying the header to fit, you saw how that went the first time. Maybe listen to the half a dozen people on this thread alone that have installed these same exact headers in their own cars without any of the issues you're experiencing?

 

[MOA]

Blu, how far away from the pan is your number 3 header tube?