1959 F100 motor mount

[Cool Hand Lurker]

I acquired a 1959 Ford F100 pickup without engine or transmission. I am putting in a Ford 302V8 with C6 transmission. Will the 1959 stock motor mount plate mate up to the front of the 302V8 engine?

 

[KULTULZ]

Will the 1959 stock motor mount plate mate up to the front of the 302V8 engine?

In short, no.

The front and rear mount(s) are of a completely different design. You will have to find a conversion kit or fabricate mounts.

 

[KULTULZ]

This will give you an idea -

https://www.speedwaymotors.com/Small-Block-Ford-to-1953-1964-Ford-Pickup-Motor-Mounts,1175.html

 

[Cool Hand Lurker]

Thanks. Just looking at the front mount and the bolt pattern on the 302 cam cover it looked like there might be a chance it would match up.
I was also wondering if the mounts in the Speedway link would have enough torque on the mount casting to create a problem, because the "T" part of the mount goes out from the block at a right angle.
There are other choices to consider, like the full cross member version. I have the front sump 302 engine from a 1973 pickup and those new cross members may not loop down far enough to clear the pan.

 

[KULTULZ]

I was also wondering if the mounts in the Speedway link would have enough torque on the mount casting to create a problem, because the "T" part of the mount goes out from the block at a right angle.

It does look a little cheesy ...

If it were me ... (and I am hi-bucks and CDO ), I would go with the cross-member style along with the car style trans mount.

Let me check a few things ...

 

[56sedandelivery]

https://www.outcastautoworks.com/co...polyurethane-motor-mounts-289-302-351-engines




https://www.performanceonline.com/1...ion-crossmember-kit-for-mustang-2-suspension/

 

[5851a]

Those front timing cover bolts are only 1/4 inch. Not sure what company it was but the used to sell a tubular crossmember. I see speedway, summit, jegs, mid fifties. Has them they all look the same. Have to look at axle oil pan clearance.

 

[Cool Hand Lurker]

The guy who swapped the engine made up mounts from flat stock and boxed in one side of the mounts. When the motor was revved the torque of the motor made the block twist, which made the mounts raise and lower a little which in turn caused the frame rails to also twist. Definitely not acceptable. Either the rails need to be boxed or a common cross member must go from one side to the other, from one mount to the other. That will absorb the torque and keep the mounts from moving up or down at the engine end.

 

[KULTULZ]

The problem is that the original frame was designed for the Y-BLOCK install wheres the front mount was not that strong as actual strength was maintained by the double trans rear mount. Basically the same as the 55/57 BIRD but it used stabilizers on either side of the engine.

There has to be an cross-member involved to tie the frame rails together. The mounts I showed at first will not give that stability as shown in your diagrams.

Your heart is set on a SBF?

 

[dmsfrr]

The guy who swapped the engine made up mounts from flat stock and boxed in one side of the mounts. When the motor was revved the torque of the motor made the block twist, which made the mounts raise and lower a little which in turn caused the frame rails to also twist. Definitely not acceptable. Either the rails need to be boxed or a common cross member must go from one side to the other, from one mount to the other. That will absorb the torque and keep the mounts from moving up or down at the engine end.

The problem is that the original frame was designed for the Y-BLOCK install wheres the front mount was not that strong as actual strength was maintained by the double trans rear mount. ...
There has to be an cross-member involved to tie the frame rails together. The mounts I showed at first will not give that stability as shown in your diagrams.
...

Cool Hand Lurker
Here's how the original Y-block bellhousing in a pickup transferred rotational torque to the frame, large mounts on both sides, in addition to a solid crossmember under the crank pulley.
.

 

[KULTULZ]

Cool Hand Lurker

Here's how the original Y-block bellhousing in a pickup transferred rotational torque to the frame, large mounts on both sides, in addition to a solid crossmember under the crank pulley.

There 'ya go -

With a C6, there is only one insulator on the trans mount so the engine is going to have a mount on each side (or a engine swap front member).

 

[Cool Hand Lurker]

The problem is that the original frame was designed for the Y-BLOCK install wheres the front mount was not that strong as actual strength was maintained by the double trans rear mount. Basically the same as the 55/57 BIRD but it used stabilizers on either side of the engine.

There has to be an cross-member involved to tie the frame rails together. The mounts I showed at first will not give that stability as shown in your diagrams.

Your heart is set on a SBF?

I have the 302, it is from a 73 F100, it runs nice.
Ford, Ford, Ford.... $ $ $

I have learned a lot about this truck in the last few days. Now I know why the frame twisted under a torque load.The prior owner had a Ford big block in the truck but sold the engine. The modifications that he made to the frame really weakened it. And when they took out the engine they just cut out the cross member back by the ******. They had also cut out the motor mounts on the front cross member and weakened that cross member.

I need to put in a couple of strong cross members to replace what is gone. That should solve the torque problem.
The first photo is of the stock frame. The pieces removed are circled. That did not leave much strength in the front half of the frame.
The second photo shows an engine swap cross member kit that might do the job for strengthing the frame and mounting the engine. I hope.

This has been a very good discussion. Thank you everybody.

 

[miker98038]

Since you’re going to under there with a welder, don’t discount boxing the frame in that area. It adds a ton of strength and is fairly easy if everything is out of the way. If you’ve any questions on doing that just google “boxing a 32 ford frame”. Lots of examples and different ways. Also look at how they do the crossmember. I’m sure the frame on your truck is at least as stiff as 32 rails, and there’s lots of 32’s out there with fat tires and a Hemi.

 

[KULTULZ]

Didn't know the frame had been cut/modified. That explains a lot.

The kit you found is perfect.

 

[KULTULZ]

The kit you found is perfect.

I am assuming he left the straight front axle. Be sure the kit will work with it as most seem to go with IFS with a swap.

 

[Cool Hand Lurker]

I think that boxing the frame will almost be necessary to use that cross member kit. The ends are designed to bolt to the side of the frame. I won't be surprised if I also have to modify the lower loop to clear the pan or axle.
Good point on the front axle/IFS situation. It does have the original axle and it was converted to disk brakes already. That I like!
Thanks again.

I should mention that I am going to drive it every day like an 80 year-old man. Oh, wait a minute. I am an 80 year-old man!
But then at 75 my son and I went through the Performance Driving Course at Brainerd International Raceway so maybe my driving will be ...... ????

 

[Cool Hand Lurker]

Here is why the frame was so weak. When the prior owner modified the front cross member it created BIG problems with the strength of the frame. So big that I will not try to drive it without some serious repairs to that front cross member. I will put in the after market motor mount kit I showed eariier also, which will help, but I have to try to reconstruct or replace the original cross member. Not an easy job.

Here is a photo of how the original cross member looked in another similar pickup, then another photo showing the before and after modifying by cutting the whole cross member in HALF. The back half was removed and the remaining cross member was left open at the cut. The cross section of the remaining half is only the front side and the top side, nothing across the back.
Gee, I wonder why the side rails flexed so much.... ?

 

[KULTULZ]

... unbelievable ...

 

[Cool Hand Lurker]

... Unbelievable ...

ditto !

 

[blucar]

I have a 59 F100 292 v8 4 spd T-98 trans, 4x4 that I wanted to re-power with a 351 Windsor.. I checked with every engine guru I could find, the answer was always the same, impossible. The swap would require a different trans and frame mounts.

I purchased an after market front cross member that would accommodate the 351 W motor mounts, the trans proved to be a problem because nobody could come up with a bell housing that would fit the T98. I was told that I would have to convert the truck to a T18 New Process.. Big problem, nobody could come up with a bell housing to fit a T18 to a 351 W.
From a past experience I knew that a 352-390 FE engine would fit up to a T98 trans because Ford offered that option in '64. I owned a '64 F350 at the time that came with a 292 V8 that had cratered, I had bought a low mileage 76 390 from a guy that had removed it from his RV vehicle to put a 428 in it's place. I went to Ford and ordered the bellhousing and front engine mount plate. We bolted the 390 into the '64 and drove it for many years.
I finally gave up on the idea to re-power the '59 with the 351W, I had the 292 rebuilt and put the truck to work.
About five years later a friend of mine game me a '71 F100 w/240 six and a T18 4 spd. As we were parting the truck out I discovered that the 240 six had the same bolt pattern on the bell-housing as the 351 W, the housing also had the two motor mount pads.
I kept the bell-housing and T18 combo just in case I needed it to repower another early truck.