Understandably the information on these is scarce and maybe I’m just wasting time typing this but I thought maybe, just maybe someone would see this or members add to this to help guide Holley’s design if these headers ever see production...

If you (Hooker) are designing just another long tube for our cars I see no benefit since there isn’t a long tube header out there that will fit a T5 or T56 equipped third gen. You’ve developed a midlength LS swap header which seems silly considering they don’t suffer the same interference from their clutch slave cylinder and clutch fork (absent) that SBC guys do. I’ve looked under my car with it’s T56 and realistically see no good way to run a long tube header between the subframe, floorboard and external slave cylinder without cooking anything in that space by its proximity to the primaries. It does seem perfectly feasible though to develop a midlength header for the SBC/manual trans cars with 1 3/4” primaries, 3” collector and pass a 3” tube through that space. I have the DD 1 3/4” headers and ppl all say they’re great and maybe they are for a TPI engine but there seem to be too many compromises from overall runner length, unequal runner length, collector sizing, y-pipe routing, and y-pipe size for guys like me running larger cube SBC’s with more rpm potential than the TPI and similar induction setups have. It seems anything designed for these cars only has stock or LS swapped cars in mind with very little for anyone following any other path like my car, for example: 383 cid, AFR 195’s, Edelbrock VicJr intake manifold and Holley Sniper Stealth TB.

Maybe it isnt really possible when all all the details are considered like equal length tubes that still allow spark plug clearance AND access while also clearing steering shafts and brake lines. No matter what trans a car may have one common problem for thirdgens as every one knows is ground clearance with LT’s. A midlength header would solve this while also not compromising floor pan clearance. One last little reason for desiring something like this is oil pan clearance. We’re stuck with 2 choices of oil pans with stock y-pipe routing which all shorty setups have which is the only choice for manual trans cars... the stock oil pan or the Canton 244T.

These are details to consider that would cover a wider range third gen enthusiasts IMO than just another set of auto-only LT’s that connect to the Blackheart exhaust system already on the market.

 

I dont know if it helps or not. Im runnin Doug's long tubes, same as 2210 hookers. No issues with a t5, ive since swapped to a t56, but an aftermarket version that uses the t5 bell and clutch. Im in the process of redoing the y-pipe now. Ground clearance could be better if the slave wasnt in the way. I guess a mid length could work around it better. Only time I've ever hit was before I had an apron on my garage door opening. Was like bumpin up over a small curb. Never hit otherwise. And thats on sweet NY roads

 

I’ve considered those but they look like they’re pretty low in your pictures. I’m lowered but not drastically.

 

I saw this thread yesterday and thought I could give some input. I can say that the headers will indeed be getting released. The timeline for that happening was pushed backed due to the Coronavirus situation, but I think it won't be much longer. Due to them not being released yet, I am not permitted to reference any part numbers for them, or show images of their total specific geometry, but I can post these two that give a general idea as to their fitment. The provide the same ground clearance as the Hooker Blackheart 3rd-gen F-body LS swap headers.

 

What kind of clearance around the slave?

 

My guess from looking at the undercar photo I attached would be more than an inch away where the inlet leg of the exhaust system passes under it.

 

Some additional information regarding the headers that is not evident in the images I posted...the engine in the development vehicle was equipped with AFR angle plug heads and the headers with be available in 1-5/8" and 1-3/4" versions with stock port flanges and also an 1-3/4" version with D-port flanges to fit the AFR heads and those with similar port dimensions.

 

They look pretty nice in those pictures. What do we know of or can be released about their construction materials? Ceramic coated mild steel and/or stainless? I can see where it passes by the slave cylinder, the collector being the only reason there is any clearance there at all lol. They may eventually have to join my list of future parts if I can indeed prove to myself that there is a benefit to them over my dyno dons.

It it may sound like a strange thing to say and not everyone may agree, but btw my ‘96 SS with long tubes and my ‘86 Firebird running DD shorties and y-pipe the SS has a much cleaner sound to it. I have a cutout on the ’Bird to overcome the 3” catback restriction when needed but I’ve only uncapped it once. Had that “farm truck” sound, not a sexy performance sound even remotely. I figure it’s largely due to the extreme difference in runner and y-pipe lengths before they merge under the passenger’s feet. Happy to see the aftermarket rising up to meet the newest generations of classic performance cars even if slowly so.

 

The initial releases of the headers will be 304SS only, which is usually the way all of our headers are released. Mild steel versions usually follow them about a year later, if at all. As you noted, collector placement is critical for providing clearance for the T56 slave cylinder and is even more so for clearing a 4L80E transmission case.

 

The new product release for these headers came through my email this morning, which means all versions of them are on the shelf and available on the Holley website. It usually takes a few weeks to find them on one or more of our resellers' websites as they need to load them into their systems. There are three different part numbers available, which are as follows:

BH13201 1-3/4" primaries with stock port shape flanges
BH13202 1-5/8" primaries with stock port shape flanges
BH13203 1-3/4" primaries with D-port shaped flanges

 

Here's a few more images of the D-port set on an engine with AFR heads.

 

Well, I know what I'm buying! Thanks for that toddoky.
Seeing as I have to redesign my current y-pipe configuration because of the bastardized transmission I have and have purchased the Hooker crossmember to make it fit (long story) this seems like a no-brainer. Go for the full dual setup and there's the added benefit of two mufflers as opposed to the single cork I have now.
It's going to get spendy over the next year or two (as a new shortblock is in the works too)!

 

Nice to hear these new headers are suitable for your application skinny Z. We've got some new SB headers for GM squarebody trucks coming out soon also that I'm looking forward to using on my 79. It seems the SB applications have been left by the wayside by many other companies, but I'm glad to see us making the investment in new SB header designs for some of the popular GM vehicle applications.

 

Anything for Monte SS/G body?

 

I reported earlier that we didn't have new SB headers for the G-body application, but then found out I was mistaken after talking to the designer who has been working on the new Hooker Blackheart SB headers. New SB headers for the G-body have indeed been developed and should become available within the next couple of months.

 

That was sooner than expected. Hmmm, now to weigh the benefits over my Dyno Dons.

 

I've entered into this discussion before and sometimes it gets a little passionate by those that like their shorty headers. The socal guys swear by them. Then again, look where they live and the constraints they have to deal with. The Dyno Dons get them through smog. Or so that's my understanding anyway. That they install with zero fabrication is another plus (I believe).
To me, it comes down to application. If it's a full exhaust from header to tailpipe, and the sizing and mufflers are equal, then I'd say it's a wash. Both 3" singles or both dual but both with the same general architecture. As an example, take my coupe. The LT header into a single 3" and over the axle to a single muffler is what I've got. It's terrible from a pure performance perspective. The short header would be equally so. The con against the LT variety is that some part of the system has to be built. That limits it for some. If it's more competitive than that, and exhaust cutouts are suitably placed for race days, then the long tube header wins out. The evidence is obvious. I like that the new Hookers come in two sizes as that helps refine the overall package as well.

 

I'm in agreement with you skinny z, the greatest advantage to using these new Hooker Blackheart SB headers would be to those that optimize their system the rest of the way out to the rear of the car or with cut-outs. These headers are designed and intended for use in race-only applications, so it is assumed those using them for such purposes are willing and prepared to couple them to the Hooker Blackheart 3rd-gen dual exhaust system, or one of similar or greater flow capability.

 

It’d be interesting to know how much I’m leaving on the table in my current configuration. Like skinny I’ve got a 3” over axle exhaust, but unlike him I have shorties. I don’t know how even with an optimal exhaust after the y the 2.5” collectors and y pipe wouldn’t be leaving a chunk of power untapped. Not to mention even with a reflective heat barrier and exhaust wrap an exhaust pipe under the oil pan has to be cooking the crap out of my oil. I’m not opposed to fabrication, exhaust building isn’t that hard; you just need the tools to do it if you want it done right. Most exhaust shops won’t do it right. I can see the future, if things don’t seriously tank I will probably have these. Even when the car is good I can’t seem to stop messing with it.

 

A little experimenting I did a few years back regarding my restrictive exhaust.
First I added this cutout at the turn just before the muffler.



Then opened it at the track (sadly only an 1/8th mile that day) and recorded results.
8.124 @ 83.82 1.81 60’ (3.73 gear)
8.070 @ 85.14 1.81 60’ (muffler uncapped)
This was back to back. Both passes within an hour.
I think the most telling part is the improvement in trap speed. With just an 1/8 track to work with, it was worth ~ a second and a half.
The great online calculator says:
Corked:
Your HP computed from your vehicle ET is 340.83 flywheel HP and 306.75 rear wheel HP.
Your HP computed from your vehicle MPH is 338.61 flywheel HP and 304.75 rear wheel HP.
Uncorked:
Your HP computed from your vehicle ET is 347.72 flywheel HP and 312.94 rear wheel HP.
Your HP computed from your vehicle MPH is 354.87 flywheel HP and 319.38 rear wheel HP.
For the first time out with that particular engine combination, no real tune and certainly nothing to compensate for the better exhaust, gaining 14 RWHP has some real relevance.
For the record that package eventually went 12.489 @ 109.264 MPH (corrected) through the muffler. I'll wager that with the headers opened into properly sized collector extensions it would have put it in the bottom 12's. And that's with no drag slick goodness left in the ET Streets. 60' times never recovered to better than 1.85 when the previous best was 1.71. Although that last bit has little to do with a better exhaust.
But I think my point has been made.
I think the next step is to go this route.



Or something similar.

 

Ugh this makes me just wanna drop it all on the full exhaust system!!! Covid cost me my job but it also got me a temporary one helping the state of Texas fight it. Once we’re done come July or August I hope I can find a replacement quickly because y’all make me feel all spendy inside.

 

Is the rest of the system pictured here the black heart system for LS swap headers? When I ordered my BH13203 headers the reply from Holley was unsure if that system fit seemlessly.

 

I have a T56 and 2210LTs with a custom y-pipe. It all fits great and doesn’t hang low at all. I have the hawks Double hump x-member.

the collectors scrape sometimes but the y-pipe never does.

 

Yes, the headers will connect to the Hooker Blackheart exhaust system as long as you are running a T56 transmission and are supporting it with the Hooker Blackheart transmission crossmember. If you are using a different transmission and/or crossmember, some amount of adaptation of the exhaust system inlet tubes should be expecked.

 

Any sound clips? Curious with a significant design difference are the runners different in length from the 2210 will they sound different?

 

No sound clips were taken. There were no attempts made to care the primary tube lengths to those or the Hooker 2210 headers. The biggest difference between them will be the fitment, build, and component design details; the Hooker Blackheart headers fit the chassis better, have better spark plug clearance, can be used with D-port or Vortec heads, have flat finished TIG welded 3/8” flanges and use merge-like collectors with a choke point in them. The Hooker 2210 headers don’t have any of these attributes.

 

Thanks just my curiosity getting the better of me waiting for mine to arrive!

 

I know these are new, but does anyone have an underbody picture of these with the the hooker exhaust. I have a UMI k-frame so I doubt clearance there will be a problem, the issue I have is my vehicle has welded in frame connectors that cut right through where the cats would go on a factory system. I need something that comes together in the tunnel and runs back. I was thinking about the super-comps and mufflex 4" Y-pipe but i much rather have a stainless steel exhaust system.

 

My 1st set went back next set ships out on the 24th so as soon as they arrive I can put them in and take some pictures, not sure what brand but I have a tubular k-member. I won’t be using the hooker exhaust though.

 

Sweet, I'd really be interested in seeing how they fit with a tubular K-Frame. I just noticed the third post has a picture of them with the corresponding exhaust and that is exactly the fit I was looking for. Guess that's what I get for browsing 99% of the time on mobile.