Author Topic: "Inexpensive" fabbed valvecovers  (Read 1474 times)

Offline drag-n-cuda

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
"Inexpensive" fabbed valvecovers
« on: May 20, 2007 - 07:05:17 PM »
Guys,
Who bought some of the $120-$150ish sheetmetal valvecovers and would you recommend them or not and why? Like these: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Small-Block-Mopar-Fabricated-Aluminum-Valve-Covers_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ107063QQihZ004QQitemZ140119114934

Thanks,
drag-n




Offline go-fish

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 2391
Re: "Inexpensive" fabbed valvecovers
« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2007 - 07:43:03 PM »
I bought some from Mancini Racing for a pretty good price. Cheaper than anywhere else really. I would recommend the MR ones because they were cheaper and look better IMO. I do not like the fastners they sent, they are a pan head screw and I would prefer a hex or 12 point. I am shopping for fastners now.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2007 - 07:46:21 PM by go-fish »

Offline go-fish

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 2391
Re: "Inexpensive" fabbed valvecovers
« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2007 - 08:10:08 PM »
I just took a look at your link and it looks as though they are the same but mine weren't polished like the ones on the bay. I had mine powder coated because they were unpolished, I didn't want to take the time to do it, and I didn't feel like having to maintain polished v-covers. Oh, and I get powdercoating done for free by a guy in my MC. :)
I tink mine were $128

Offline drag-n-cuda

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
Re: "Inexpensive" fabbed valvecovers
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2007 - 05:16:31 PM »
go-fish,
   What's the length of the shank below the head?  ARP might have some that length in 12 point stainless.  That'd be my choice.

catfish

Offline go-fish

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 2391
Re: "Inexpensive" fabbed valvecovers
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2007 - 06:52:14 PM »
The total length of the bolt shank is 5" and below the valve cover is 1.5". I figured the bolt hole in the head would be shallower than that. The gasket thickness is marginal so.....
Yeah, I'm going to look for some nicer fastners anyway.
Do the E bay ones come with bolts?

Offline drag-n-cuda

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
Re: "Inexpensive" fabbed valvecovers
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2007 - 10:17:53 AM »
go-fish,
    From what I can tell, they're the exact same bolts headwise.  Don't know about the length.

catfish

Offline IMNCARN82

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 3547
  • LeDZeP
Re: "Inexpensive" fabbed valvecovers
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2007 - 11:04:08 AM »
I just saw those in the sales section yesterday :bigsmile:  Your pic is better,they look good.
'73 340 5 speed,RMS,BAER,... "Supercuda" (O[   ]||||[   ]O)  
'69 Dodge Charger 383,Auto                  (OiiiiiiiiiiIiiiiiiiiiiO)
13' Challenger R/T BlacktoP  6spd. (OO________OO)
71' Demon
75' Duster
87' Conquest TSI
56' Plaza
Boulder CO
Robert    "cuda bob"

Offline go-fish

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 2391
Re: "Inexpensive" fabbed valvecovers
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2007 - 11:07:57 AM »
Thanks. I'm sure that cRaZy expensive breather adds to the look.

Offline IMNCARN82

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 3547
  • LeDZeP
Re: "Inexpensive" fabbed valvecovers
« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2007 - 01:43:06 PM »
Yeah I like those too,but real pricey :money:   
'73 340 5 speed,RMS,BAER,... "Supercuda" (O[   ]||||[   ]O)  
'69 Dodge Charger 383,Auto                  (OiiiiiiiiiiIiiiiiiiiiiO)
13' Challenger R/T BlacktoP  6spd. (OO________OO)
71' Demon
75' Duster
87' Conquest TSI
56' Plaza
Boulder CO
Robert    "cuda bob"

Offline ntstlgl1970

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
  • T a c o c a t
70 Cuda, 7.0L Gen-III Hemi, Viper T56 w/9310 gearset, 3.91's, Megasquirt MS3x v3.57, Innovate wideband, Firm Feel upper arms, torsion bars, springs and strut rods, QA1 DA shocks. I did everything on this car except the fancy paint stuff and I drive it...and I can't seem to stop messing with it....

Offline go-fish

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 2391
Re: "Inexpensive" fabbed valvecovers
« Reply #10 on: May 23, 2007 - 02:23:04 PM »
Nice, but more than Mancini.