1932 Transmission mount- should this be flush?

[Duke]

Should the metal inner be flush to the rubber side that goes against the transmission? This is an original rubber, maybe it has swelled up? It seems like it needs to be so that the rear bearing is held in place.
Thanks

 

[petehoovie]

Should the metal inner be flush to the rubber side that goes against the transmission? This is an original rubber, maybe it has swelled up? It seems like it needs to be so that the rear bearing is held in place.
Thanks

 

[DavidG]

Judging from your photos, the impressions in the rubber insulator suggest that it has been used directly against the back of the transmission case in error. There is a large flat steel plate that was used originally between the insulator, gasket, and the back of transmission case. The six semi-circular holes in the inner circumference of that plate line up with the six holes in the machined casting inserted into the rubber insulator. The rubber will compress when all the correct parts are used.


The part you are evidently missing is B-5099 in the illustration below (it is for a '33-'34 rear transmission mount, but the part in question is the same for the '32 rear transmission mount as well).

 

[Duke]

I have the correct flat plate. I tried to install the whole assembly and it does not want to compress enough to allow the bearing to be held in place. I bolted everything together.
Thanks

 

[32phil]

David is correct.
If the rubber is reasonably pliable, try assembling the mount off the trans case.
Line up the holes in the plate with the inner casting, use long enough full thread bolts to be able to use flat washers on the plate side, tighten the bolts until the plate contacts the casting and the rubber is squished in between the two.
If the rubber is too hard to compress, you may need a new trans mount.
The new repros are excellent and work well with the original plate and casting.
Make sure you keep and use the original hardware.

 

[Duke]

I wonder if the mount is damaged from being installed without the plate? There was a bit of a lip on the inner piece of the rubber where the metal piece seems to stop. I sanded off the lip to try to help it through.

 

[Tim Ayers]

I wonder if the mount is damaged from being installed without the plate? There was a bit of a lip on the inner piece of the rubber where the metal piece seems to stop. I sanded off the lip to try to help it through.

Judging by the one pict were you can slightly see the side of the rubber mount, is it still firm or is expanded and contaminated with grease/oil?

You may need to get a new one if the rubber is no good. Grease/oil cause the rubber to swell.

 

[Kube]

Considering the amount of work involved and the reasonable price of a new one, my gosh, is there really a question here???

 

[petehoovie]

Judging from your photos, the impressions in the rubber insulator suggest that it has been used directly against the back of the transmission case in error. There is a large flat steel plate that was used originally between the insulator, gasket, and the back of transmission case. The six semi-circular holes in the inner circumference of that plate line up with the six holes in the machined casting inserted into the rubber insulator. The rubber will compress when all the correct parts are used.


The part you are evidently missing is B-5099 in the illustration below (it is for a '33-'34 rear transmission mount, but the part in question is the same for the '32 rear transmission mount as well).

 

[Tim Ayers]

For those that have to have an original mount, All Ford Parts in Campbell, CA will vulcanize a new rubber ring to your original plate. I believe they charge $75.

Kind of neat to have a Ford script part even though no one will ever see it once installed.

 

[Duke]

I ordered a new mount from Vanpelt’s. Thank you