Enter your username:
Do you want to login or register?
  • Forgot your password?

    Login / Register



    Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
    Results 21 to 38 of 38
    1. #21
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Posts
      372
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by JustJohn View Post
      I'd be happy to measure or test fit a set. Two sets of headers in and I'm still not happy.

      Ground clearance issues on the Hooker competition header, btw.
      I understand how important ground clearance is these days, which is the reason why I posted photos of the ground clearance for these particular headers in the first post of this thread. The ground clearance of the Hooker Comp headers not meeting your needs doesn't surprise me, I would guess they were designed 30 years or so ago when the guys at the original Hooker company weren't absolutely focused on maximizing that fitment characteristic.

    2. #22
      Join Date
      Oct 2004
      Location
      NJ
      Posts
      765
      Country Flag: United States
      Anything on the second gen yet?

    3. #23
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Posts
      372
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by TBART70 View Post
      Anything on the second gen yet?
      Nothing new to report and I don't see anything related to new 2nd gen headers on the development schedule at this time.

    4. #24
      Join Date
      Feb 2015
      Posts
      91
      Country Flag: United States
      Iím struggling with this issue with a small block 400 in a 69 Chevy Nova power steering box and full ridetech suspension with Tru Turn package. Is there a part number that would provide clearance like the pictures shown? I have test fitted 3 different headers now and the best solution Iíve come up with is to try to modify the ones I have. The latest headers I test fitted were Dynatech and they said they would provide great ground clearance but they did not. Passenger side sat below the frame rail. Not sure of the brand that I currently have but they have excellent clearance on the passenger side and suck up under the frame rail, while the drivers side hangs way below the frame rail. Any help would be greatly appreciated. It gets expensive returning headers.
      Eze_1978 1968 Chevy Nova

      My build link:
      https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/...ova?highlight=


    5. #25
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Posts
      372
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by eze_1978 View Post
      Iím struggling with this issue with a small block 400 in a 69 Chevy Nova power steering box and full ridetech suspension with Tru Turn package. Is there a part number that would provide clearance like the pictures shown? I have test fitted 3 different headers now and the best solution Iíve come up with is to try to modify the ones I have. The latest headers I test fitted were Dynatech and they said they would provide great ground clearance but they did not. Passenger side sat below the frame rail. Not sure of the brand that I currently have but they have excellent clearance on the passenger side and suck up under the frame rail, while the drivers side hangs way below the frame rail. Any help would be greatly appreciated. It gets expensive returning headers.
      Is your Tru Turn system one of the newer versions that includes a new center link that replaces your factory center link, or is it the original version that uses a center link adapter that attaches to your stock center link?

    6. #26
      Join Date
      Feb 2015
      Posts
      91
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by Toddoky View Post
      Is your Tru Turn system one of the newer versions that includes a new center link that replaces your factory center link, or is it the original version that uses a center link adapter that attaches to your stock center link?
      Should the new version. I purchased the suspension less than 2 years ago.
      Eze_1978 1968 Chevy Nova

      My build link:
      https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/...ova?highlight=


    7. #27
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Posts
      372
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by eze_1978 View Post
      Should the new version. I purchased the suspension less than 2 years ago.
      You'll need to crawl under your car and verify which one it is in order to get an absolute answer to your compatibility question regarding the Tru Turn system and the Hooker Blackheart headers. Similar to the Hooker Blackheart 1st-gen F-body LS swap header, the SB Chevy headers were prototyped to clear the components of the original configuration of the Tru Turn system, which is all that existed at the time the headers were designed. Since the LS swap headers were no longer compatible with the Tru Turn system following ridetech's redesign of the center link components, I expect the SB Chevy headers to also be non-compatible with it. As far as the other questions you asked, I recommend going through this thread...https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/...-systems/page6

    8. #28
      Join Date
      Jul 2018
      Posts
      394
      I just ordered the BH13181 for my 68 w/454, PS, Manual trans.. I hope they fit as good as you say they do.

    9. #29
      Join Date
      Jul 2018
      Posts
      394
      I am curious, Why natural stainless steel and not ceramic coated or some other coating?

    10. #30
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Posts
      372
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by Just 1 More View Post
      I am curious, Why natural stainless steel and not ceramic coated or some other coating?
      Raw 304SS has an inherent coefficient of thermal conductivity that is on par with mild steel that has been ceramic coated.

      It is also more corrosion resistant as the passivity layer of stainless steel is imparted to 100% of the surface of the tubes (i.e. inside and outside the tubes and in between the tubes at the collector junction), so the main contribution of adding ceramic coating to a set of stainless steel headers would merely be to drive up the cost and selling price to the user.

      There are some users who don't find the heat coloration of stainless tubes appealing, and I would say that group would benefit from having their stainless steel headers ceramic coated.

    11. #31
      Join Date
      Jul 2018
      Posts
      394
      Quote Originally Posted by Toddoky View Post
      Raw 304SS has an inherent coefficient of thermal conductivity that is on par with mild steel that has been ceramic coated.

      It is also more corrosion resistant as the passivity layer of stainless steel is imparted to 100% of the surface of the tubes (i.e. inside and outside the tubes and in between the tubes at the collector junction), so the main contribution of adding ceramic coating to a set of stainless steel headers would merely be to drive up the cost and selling price to the user.

      There are some users who don't find the heat coloration of stainless tubes appealing, and I would say that group would benefit from having their stainless steel headers ceramic coated.
      Thank you Sir, i'll report back once I get them installed

    12. #32
      Join Date
      Jul 2018
      Posts
      394
      UPDATE: I am very impressed with the fitment of these headers... Thank you Hooker

      Resized_20200824_213220 by F G, on Flickr

    13. #33
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Posts
      372
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by Just 1 More View Post
      UPDATE: I am very impressed with the fitment of these headers... Thank you Hooker

      Resized_20200824_213220 by F G, on Flickr
      I'm glad to hear of your positive experience. Feel free to post as many images of your install as you want for the benefit of others who may come across this thread.

    14. #34
      Join Date
      Jul 2018
      Posts
      394
      20200825_122704 by F G, on Flickr

      20200825_122845 by F G, on Flickr

    15. #35
      Join Date
      Jul 2018
      Posts
      394
      SO far so good.. The Hooker 3" clamps are badass, I've got them on the collectors to 3" mandrel "S" bend pipe. I had to buy the Flowmaster "S" bend kit PART# 15927 with the 4", 6" & 8" offset "S" bend pipes. Got it from my local Autozone for $156. Ended up using the 6" offset.
      Used the cheap std 3" band clamp at the slip joint section to the old 3" pipe near the muffler. With a good amount of bolt tightening, The cheap band clamps conformed to the step in the slip joint real nice and so far no leaks that I can tell.
      The whole system seems quieter now, maybe it's the long tube headers, maybe it's the better mandrel bends, maybe it's my perception.

    16. #36
      Join Date
      Nov 2007
      Posts
      466
      I've had a set of these headers on order for 8 weeks, ETA came and went. Now ETA is 16 more weeks. I'm sure Holley blames covid, even though they continue to produce new hooker blackheart products. Wish their centralized ordering was linked to actually production... buyer beware...

      Ron
      69 Camaro Redfire, thanks to
      Marquez Design | Ring Brothers


    17. #37
      Join Date
      Nov 2007
      Posts
      466
      I still have the 1 7/8 on back order, but since I saw the 2 inch in stock I took a chance and order them (BH13182). They showed up in three days, I thought great. To be clear, Iím installing on a 69 Camaro, standard deck BBC, correct frame stands, engine mounts, and TH400 cross member that move engine to the passenger side per the installation guide. Had to drop the PS box even though the guide says just feed header from under car. Headers do not have the claimed clearance from those in this thread. Heavy contact with the steering box. Heavy contact with drop link on passenger side and light contact with edge of GM mini starter already clocked (does clear solenoid). I am not happy to have the exact setup touted as working out the box and have to take the BFH to a set of 1500 headers.

      Anyone wanting to run the 2 inch be warned.
      Ron
      69 Camaro Redfire, thanks to
      Marquez Design | Ring Brothers

    18. #38
      Join Date
      Jul 2018
      Posts
      394
      Quote Originally Posted by redfire69 View Post
      I still have the 1 7/8 on back order, but since I saw the 2 inch in stock I took a chance and order them (BH13182). They showed up in three days, I thought great. To be clear, Iím installing on a 69 Camaro, standard deck BBC, correct frame stands, engine mounts, and TH400 cross member that move engine to the passenger side per the installation guide. Had to drop the PS box even though the guide says just feed header from under car. Headers do not have the claimed clearance from those in this thread. Heavy contact with the steering box. Heavy contact with drop link on passenger side and light contact with edge of GM mini starter already clocked (does clear solenoid). I am not happy to have the exact setup touted as working out the box and have to take the BFH to a set of 1500 headers.

      Anyone wanting to run the 2 inch be warned.
      Well crap, Sorry to hear the 2" didn't work out as good as they should

    Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2