Here's a part note we have in our Summit system in reference to the 69890 header:
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.
Hedman Elite Header Review
- Thread starter Cricket
- Start date
And here's another note regarding the 69830 headers:
NEK5
3/4 ton status
They`re listed for up to 81, but will work up to 91. I got them for my 90. The 69890s are the ones that will hit the headers. The 69830s are the ones you need. They are designed so that they don`t hit the shackle.
NEK5
3/4 ton status
More than likely, thats the reason why the 69830s aren`t listed for 82+. But if your emissions exempt, it don`t matter
They ARE the headers. Clarification please.
NEK5
3/4 ton status
They ARE the headers. Clarification please.
Little tired today. I meant to say shackles 
Thats very interesting... Someone posted that they had those and had no clutch interferance problems.
NEK5
3/4 ton status
They also list them for 76-81, yet they work on my 90.Thats very interesting... Someone posted that they had those and had no clutch interferance problems.
88k5blazin
1/2 ton status
i have the 465 trans with the hydaulic clutch would the cylinder bolted to the bell housing have an interferance. if not, is there any way you can hook a brother up.... possibly get me an exchange for the 69830's. no damage was done to the headers
PM sent.
Craig, does this mean I can send my now rusty Hedman's back and get the 69830's? 
Especially after Hedman blamed me for the problem. 
As far as I can tell from these posts, emissions is not an issue, since neither header design has any AIR or O2 ports, so neither would be emissions legal for most any 1/2 ton in the 80's. Sounds like the 465 up to 1984 is the problem people may run into.
Where does the slave cylinder sit in relation to the front leaf spring rear shackle? If it's at or behind the shackle, then the 69830's will maybe fit. I can't look at this threads photos here, that might tell us. The problem with the 465 I see, is if the header collector dumps too close to the slave cylinder to bend a pipe around it, or maybe the hose.
Those that have the 69890's know that the collector "flange" is very close to the shackle. If the 830's are shorter by 6 inches or so, and there is more room to the slave cylinder, then I don't see why they wouldn't fit. Now that I've got a truck with a 700, I'm going to have to look, but I can't believe the shift mechanism for the 700 isn't in about the same location as the slave cylinder on the 465.
Especially after Hedman blamed me for the problem. As far as I can tell from these posts, emissions is not an issue, since neither header design has any AIR or O2 ports, so neither would be emissions legal for most any 1/2 ton in the 80's. Sounds like the 465 up to 1984 is the problem people may run into.
Where does the slave cylinder sit in relation to the front leaf spring rear shackle? If it's at or behind the shackle, then the 69830's will maybe fit. I can't look at this threads photos here, that might tell us. The problem with the 465 I see, is if the header collector dumps too close to the slave cylinder to bend a pipe around it, or maybe the hose.
Those that have the 69890's know that the collector "flange" is very close to the shackle. If the 830's are shorter by 6 inches or so, and there is more room to the slave cylinder, then I don't see why they wouldn't fit. Now that I've got a truck with a 700, I'm going to have to look, but I can't believe the shift mechanism for the 700 isn't in about the same location as the slave cylinder on the 465.
Craig, does this mean I can send my now rusty Hedman's back and get the 69830's?
As far as I can tell from these posts, emissions is not an issue, since neither header design has any AIR or O2 ports, so neither would be emissions legal for most any 1/2 ton in the 80's. Sounds like the 465 up to 1984 is the problem people may run into.
Where does the slave cylinder sit in relation to the front leaf spring rear shackle? If it's at or behind the shackle, then the 69830's will maybe fit. I can't look at this threads photos here, that might tell us. The problem with the 465 I see, is if the header collector dumps too close to the slave cylinder to bend a pipe around it, or maybe the hose.
Those that have the 69890's know that the collector "flange" is very close to the shackle. If the 830's are shorter by 6 inches or so, and there is more room to the slave cylinder, then I don't see why they wouldn't fit. Now that I've got a truck with a 700, I'm going to have to look, but I can't believe the shift mechanism for the 700 isn't in about the same location as the slave cylinder on the 465.
I don't think the 69830 should have trouble clearing the Z-bar for the clutch. Look at the original post of the driverside header:
as you can see it has a nice bend on the driver side rear primary and it seems like it could easily clear the z-bar. The collector should terminate below and after the z-bar.
Slapperbar
Retired Navy NDT Examiner
Is there a pic. of the pass. side?
88k5blazin
1/2 ton status
I don't think the 69830 should have trouble clearing the Z-bar for the clutch. Look at the original post of the driverside header:
as you can see it has a nice bend on the driver side rear primary and it seems like it could easily clear the z-bar. The collector should terminate below and after the z-bar.
what about for the hydraulic components i did away will all the mechanical stuff
You need to somehow reference the photos of the 69830's with where the hydraulic components are located.
I think we really need a photo shot from directly underneath a truck with the 69830's, around the bellhousing area drivers side, (or roughly where the collector ends in relation to the bellhousing) whether manual or automatic, then probably a photo from the drivers side engine bay looking at the collector, to see where they end up compared to the clutch line.
Without knowing how much different the height and length is compared to the 69890's, I can't compare to my truck.
I think we really need a photo shot from directly underneath a truck with the 69830's, around the bellhousing area drivers side, (or roughly where the collector ends in relation to the bellhousing) whether manual or automatic, then probably a photo from the drivers side engine bay looking at the collector, to see where they end up compared to the clutch line.
Without knowing how much different the height and length is compared to the 69890's, I can't compare to my truck.
blowedupmotor87
1/2 ton status
Resurrection time! Was it ever determined if the 69830's will fit an original 4spd hydro clutch 87? Thanks!
cheyennek20
1/2 ton status
After just seeing this I just got a set of 69820's for my k20. According to hedman these list for a motorhome, C or K 20 or 30 and the 4-speed with the linkage style clutch. Can anyone verify?
88k5blazin
1/2 ton status
i got them on my 88 k5 with the hydro and tbi and they are great. they tuck in beautiful i even saw a little power gain which was even better. i'll get some pics up as soon as i get a chanceResurrection time! Was it ever determined if the 69830's will fit an original 4spd hydro clutch 87? Thanks!
Any chance you can get some from the side (for ground clearance), directly underneath (good luck) and perhaps from the drivers side engine bay down towards the collector?
