'32 rear transmission mount

PeteVS

PeteVS

Well-known member
When putting together a '32, does the torque tube have to be pulled up to the rear of the transmission or does the transmission have to be pulled up to the K member or does everything just seem to fit together. Reason I'm asking is because I'm working on an AV8 project and with the rear in place, the transmission winds up with a gap between the trans mount and the K member. I made up some spacers to fill the gap but I'm still wondering where I went wrong.
Thanks!
 
The trans mount should bolt up to the K member with no gaps. Sounds like either your TT is too long or the rear X member is not in the right place. Did you install an A rear X member? 32 3 and 4 used a curved rear spring. What rear spring are you using? Lots of variables here especially if you modified the 32 frame. Is the K member in its original spot? What rear end housings are you using and where does the spring mount to them or radius rods? Good luck finding and fixing the issue.
If you space the trans forward your shifter lever and engine will be moved that same amount. How big is this "gap"?
 
I'd add one more question, namely what is the frame that you're using, modified A, original '32 or reproduction '32?
 
DavidG said:
I'd add one more question, namely what is the frame that you're using, modified A, original '32 or reproduction '32?
Click to expand...

The frame is a Model A, stock front and rear crossmember but the rear has a 2" "Z" to lower it. The K member is home made but carefully copied from an original K member that I have. (I couldn't bring myself to chop up the original to fit the A frame. I also incorporated a mount for a master cylinder which gives a good pedal to piston leverage ratio.)

When I was laying it out on paper, I noticed that the A wheel base is 3" shorter than the '32. I also noticed that the A torque tube is 3" shorter than the EARLY '32 torque tube. Therefore, I mounted the K member at the same position from the front crossmember as the '32. Everything worked well during early mockup but for a rear spring, I was only using the main leaf of an A rear spring and I didn't have any bushings in the rear shackles.

Currently, I have an "A" rear in it but I have a '40 rear that I have to rebuild and shorten the torque tube. I'll address the torque tube length at that time and make everything nice again.
 
Last edited:
Ah, the problem would seem to be with your evident retention of the straight A rear cross member and straight rear spring as both those components in an original B chassis are curved as deuce roadster indicates. I'm largely ignorant of the details of Model A chassis, but according to Google, the wheelbase difference is 2.5", not 3".
 
When everything is in place, you do need to pull the front "bell" of the torque tube in a bit in order to seat properly within the clamshell.

Without picts, it's hard to visualize where the gap or what the issue may be.
 
Last edited:
Most folks mock up the AV8 to get the best engine to firewall/radiator clearance plus the front mounts and rear K-member mount locations. This will set the engine and transmission in the most logical location. The rear drive should be set up with the one you want to end up with so that all the work doesn't have to be done twice. The model A rear drive may be close but it would be more difficult to change the length of drive shaft due to the way the drive shaft is made. The torque tube shortening would be similar in either case but the model A radius rods are weak. The whole rear axle on a model A is weak too.
 
If you have Vern Tardels book, "How to Build a Traditional Ford Hot Rod", he covers most of the variables in that setup. If not, it's grade guide. I used it for reference all the time when building mine.
 
DavidG said:
\But according to Google, the wheelbase difference is 2.5", not 3".
Click to expand...

OK. There in lies the problem.

I have the Bishop Tardel book and it has been my bible for the project. I have committed a heresy though which has made things a bit more complicated.

Thanks for all the responses!
 
PeteVS said:
OK. There in lies the problem.

I have the Bishop Tardel book and it has been my bible for the project. I have committed a heresy though which has made things a bit more complicated.

Thanks for all the responses!
Click to expand...

The first edition of the Tardel book has some incorrect measurements in it. The 2nd edition corrects them I think.
 
The Bishop-Tardel book did have dimensional issues that were explained on the HAMB some time ago by Mr Bishop. My copy is the early edition but I knew going in that the 8BA was going to be more problematic to install than the earlier engines with the integral half bell on the block. My project being of 1929 origin didn't help either. Mike warned folks that despite any measurements given that it would still be prudent to mock things up for best fit. The 1932 front radius wish bone is what they used but the 1933/34 bone as was listed in the book can be used if they are lengthened. Mike had an excellent piece on the HAMB about lengthening them as well. This stuff may not be easy to find on there now since it has been some time ago and the site has been upgraded since. I haven't seen the newer updated edition of the book yet so I don't know the differences.
 
PeteVS said:
Reason I'm asking is because I'm working on an AV8 project and with the rear in place, the transmission winds up with a gap between the trans mount and the K member.
Click to expand...

The most obvious answer is that you installed your transmission cross-member (your custom K-member) - or the front cross-member in the wrong location. There is nothing rear of the transmission that has anything to do with the fact that your transmission mount isn't flush with your K-member.

That will create a real problem when using all the normal 32 stuff (the transmission mount itself, the various clamshell pieces (inner and outer), etc..

I hate to say it, but you need to get the engine/trans in the right position - such that the rear transmission mount is flush with the cross-member face - before you do anything else.

With this said and the fact that you're using an A rear also makes it important that the location of the rear of the trans is in the right place - given your rear end, rear cross and spring location.

Personally, I'd not be running a Model A rear . . . I'd start with a late 32 (hard to find) or a 33/34 or later and modify the torque-tube and driveshaft to fit your setup.
 
Bored%Stroked,

With respect, aren't the second sentence in your first paragraph and your last sentence contradictory? If I accept that second sentence then there would be no need to shorten a '33-'34 rear axle to fit, which, of course, is in fact required.
 
As soon as you stray from what Ford produced you have to take on the role of development engineer. What you are producing, in effect is a prototype. There isn't one the same anywhere.
You need to build the car once, in a mocked up, tack welded form then once everything is verified as good, tear it down and build it properly, finishing all the welding etc.
My 32 isn't far from stock configuration but still needed a lot of figuring in various areas.
At least in a 32 the K member is in the right place and can be used to build things off.
Mart.
 
DavidG said:
Bored%Stroked,

With respect, aren't the second sentence in your first paragraph and your last sentence contradictory? If I accept that second sentence then there would be no need to shorten a '33-'34 rear axle to fit, which, of course, is in fact required.
Click to expand...

Thanks DavidG . . . no issue with respect at all! :D

Contradictory? Not really . . . regardless of the rear end of choice, the K-member and fitment of the transmission mount to the K-member is a problem. Unless he fixes that problem, it really doesn't matter which rear end he selects. And once he fixes that, he still has to deal with the rear-end location, mounting and fitment issues (regardless of which rear).

IMHO, he'd surely be better off with a stronger rear end than a Model A or early 32. It doesn't take long to hurt a Model A rear with some V8 abuse! And, if he has to start thinking about shortening torque-tubes and driveshafts - might as well do it with a rear end that stands a better chance of remaining intact.

Hopefully I didn't contradict myself again . . . LOL
B&S
 
Here's a picture showing one of the two spacers I made to get things straight. As I stated in post #4, I have a '40 rear end waiting to be rebuilt and shortened to replace the "A" rear I have in currently. The "new" rear will be made to fit without the spacers. As soon as I have the car together, that rear will be #! priority.
Thanks for insights and comments!
 

Attachments

  • A trans mt spacer sm.jpeg
    A trans mt spacer sm.jpeg
    214.5 KB · Views: 75
Pete, if you intend to make the new rear fit without spacers, will you have clearance at the firewall to move the engine back the thickness of the spacer? Will your engine mounts still work?
 
I’m with Mart. You need to modify the motor mounts to allow the engine & trans to slide back the correct amount
 
Agreed, but we don't know what front cross member he is using and whether or not it was already finalized in terms of the motor mounts with the spacers in place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top