Motor clearance issue with T 5

B

britman

Member
I am putting rebuilt flathead with a t-5 transmission in my 39 tudor. I am having problems with motor to firewall clearance with new front motor mounts. The angle of the engine consistent with required pinion angle on an open drive leaves too little clearance from the firewall especially on the passenger side. Anyone else had this problem? Advice?
thanks
bd​
 
I had a similar problem with my '34 roadster. The builder did an excellent job of modifying the firewall - looks like it's always been that way.
 

Attachments

  • image-2.jpg
    image-2.jpg
    62.5 KB · Views: 35
  • image-3.jpg
    image-3.jpg
    24.3 KB · Views: 32
  • image-4.jpg
    image-4.jpg
    26.1 KB · Views: 31
  • image-5.jpg
    image-5.jpg
    58.8 KB · Views: 33
  • image-9.jpg
    image-9.jpg
    42.8 KB · Views: 38
  • image-10.jpg
    image-10.jpg
    65.4 KB · Views: 45
  • image-14.jpeg
    image-14.jpeg
    101.3 KB · Views: 38
Hope these pictures help.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    56.9 KB · Views: 34
  • IMG_0163.jpg
    IMG_0163.jpg
    28.2 KB · Views: 38
  • IMG_5468.jpg
    IMG_5468.jpg
    92.8 KB · Views: 61
Why change from the original mounts? Makes no sense to me. Changes are generally made after the engine?
 
If the front motor mounts are stock, the angle the engine sits at should be reasonable. It may be that you would need to set the angle of the engine first, then set the pinion angle to match, then check that the u-joint angles are not excessive.

Match the axle to the engine is what I am trying to say.

That said, as it isn't a stocker why not "massage" the firewall to clear the engine?

Are you sure the front motor mount setup is correct?

Mart.
 
These are stock mounts but are about 1/4-3/8'' "taller than the worn mounts that came out of it. the pinion angle is about 3* (negative at end of transmission and + at the face of the banjo so I think that is ok but I may have to change it to get the back of the engine down. I may have to modify the firewall on the passenger side but I have not seen any discussion of this problem here or on the HAMB for those making these changes. Thanks for the pics and the advice. I will keep you "posted" on future developments.
bd
 
Would a different style water pump be any help? I had no problem with a 1946 59 motor, T5 and a 9" rear. As Mart said, shouldn't the motor angle be set first?
 
Last edited:
Is the problem that you are putting the trans above the x-member and the rear of the motor is too high? Does the back of the motor need to go up or down to clear. With the front mounts low relative to the engine, raising the rear of the motor will increase clearance, unless the tight spot is between the half bell and the firewall transition into the tunnel.

A picture of the whole setup and the problem would help a lot.

It's like playing a guessing game here.

Mart.
 
britman said:
These are stock mounts but are about 1/4-3/8'' "taller than the worn mounts that came out of it. the pinion angle is about 3* (negative at end of transmission and + at the face of the banjo so I think that is ok but I may have to change it to get the back of the engine down. I may have to modify the firewall on the passenger side but I have not seen any discussion of this problem here or on the HAMB for those making these changes. Thanks for the pics and the advice. I will keep you "posted" on future developments.
bd
Click to expand...

You did not mention what type of flathead motor you are using.37-48 or 49-53? I put a '46 model 59 in my old '36 coupe with a T5(speedway adapter) and it was an easy installation w/no firewall mods at all.
 
it looks like the motor sits back 2" from the stock location with those mounts. if the stock front crossmember had been used the motor would not have been so far back. i did the same conversion in a 41 pick up and had plenty of room at the rear of the motor with front mounts on teh stock front crossmember....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top