1970 K-member in Early B

[Detroit Iron]

I haven't been on the forum lately. I'm very slow at my car project... family, motorcycles, skateboards, bicycles....

Holy crap DVW! I should have done what you did, but.... I like many others, backed out. Well sorta. I ended up keeping the later K-member, but moving the perches forward. So, the engine sits in it's stock location, but I get the added benefits of better idler bracket and sway bar setup.

 

[moparmarkk]

wow why?now you are stuck using 65 oil pans and headers?mark

 

[triggerfish]

I was considering doing the same thing to my 64 Belvedere, but think is a lot more hassle with
a 4 speed from what others have told me. I do have a 67 K frame, but think I'll have to modify
the shifter & clutch linkage.

 

[383man]

I have seen alot of guys put the later K member to move the eng back but I am glad I still use the stock K member in my 63. I mean it hooks fine and has normal weight dist and everything fits right. And I have plenty of room at the back of the eng. Ron

 

[Detroit Iron]

wow why?now you are stuck using 65 oil pans and headers?mark

Yeah stock oil pan. I put a windage tray in it, but not a real big deal. I use this car to drive the kids to school in! Haha... no racing. I run HP big block manifolds. Maybe I'll do TTI headers later.

 

[johndart]

I am thinking of doing this same later BB K frame (70)in early B body (64)and wondering if the later headers (70) will fit or have interference with firewall or floor due to the set back. Anyone done this? any problems?

 

[moparmarkk]

hi,yes i have,run hooker 5209's any oil pan from 66-72 works,disk brakes are at napa,if you need some pics?pm me,mark

 

[malex]

I have a 69 K frame in my 64. I run a Milodon pan and there is excellent clearance at the right front corner.

Keep in mind about the park brake cable if your running one. I believe it runs through the trans cross member (without looking).

The cross member is easy to modify so this isn't a big deal.

For headers the TTI 440-178 or 440-200 both work. I called TTI and confirmed this not to long ago.

The K-frame change to the newer style is noticeable! Worth the effort.

 

[johndart]

Thanks for the input guys. It is appreciated.

 

[malex]

This is a clip that I took out of another post awhile back regarding K frame swaps. Read on:
I have done it on quite a few 63-65 B-bodies....moving the entire engine&trans inch and a half rearward changes the weight transfer,with SS springs&a snubber.....the launch is awesome!the best shocks you can buy are a must....when you launch and the front end comes up and does that little shimmy dance when you shift....it settles down and hauls the mail!yes you will need to modify the trans mount, i made a simple flat plate extension that bolted in....with an automatic trans i used a reverse manual valve body and elimanated the kickdown linkage.

 

[383man]

As I said I am glad myself to have this extra working room with the stock 63 K-frame in my 63. Plenty of room for a crossram as it wont be slammed right up to the firewall. Since my 63 hooks good and has good weight distribution I will stay with my stock K-frame. Now if it was a race car only and did not hook good then I would think about the newer K-frame that moves the eng back about 1-1/2". But thats just me as my street car works good with the original K-frrame. Ron