motor mounts

[KULTULZ]

If that doesn't work then the Anchor 2725 and 2726 for fitment analysis only and replace them with the Prothane mounts if the Anchor pieces fit. Have mechanical clutch linkage so can't have the motor flopping around...

That reference was meant for you and the 351C. Read all of it as the actual frame mounts may have to be massaged to have the mounts sit correctly.

I still owe you the 55/59 steering box photos and need more info on those FE EXH MAN.

What do you have up there, a complete FOMOCO salvage yard?

 

[Brushwolf]

I have lots of 50's to early 60's Fords and parts, but some other brands too. Was collecting project cars and parts for 20+ years on my weekends, but have sold off some of it the last few years. Literally still have tons of it though.

Yes I read the whole thread and the reason I decided to try the LTD crossbolted mounts first is that stud placement and I don't really want to cut or weld the car frame itself. No problem welding or cutting parts you can unbolt again..

But the Prothane versions shown in that link could be unbolted on the bottom, the stud removed and the bottom part modified to a dual bolt mount that matched the 57 frame mount. Same end result, just a different part modified. Those could end up being too tall too though, so don't want to spend the $156 for the Prothane unless I first know they are not too tall by trying the Anchor pieces in mockup.

 

[KULTULZ]

Do you know if Merc did the same as Ford and changed to a different steering box in mid-1956? And if so you can tell the difference by whether there are 3 or 4 bolts on the top cover? Or was that strictly an internal mechanical improvement and did not change the box profile in 1956?

It seems MERC got fancy one model year ahead of FORD. I have photos of both boxes - will have to dig them out. More to follow.

UPDATE -

It seems MERC jumped FORD again. MERC used a recirculating ball design box in late 1956 (FORD in 1958). So there are actually three choices for the 55/56 MERC.

I am still looking for the 55/56 FORD box info. There was a big discussion a while back here and all the information is in that post. I rarely have success with the SEARCH FEATURE here.

 

[KULTULZ]

63-64 Galaxie too short and have to twist the engine on the mounts to make it sit straight. That would probably unduly stress them in actual use. And the engine is still just a tad further forward than I want it...

I think the way it has been done to allow the insulators to sit correctly on the frame mounts is shown below. The mod is a little sloppy (IMO) but you can do a cleaner job. I am also of the DO NO HARM crowd.

 

[Brushwolf]

Yes those are the 84-93 Mustang motor mounts I believe. The concerns for my particular application with 351c motor and 400M manifolds is those mounts may sit the motor too high, though apparently with the 5.0 motors users are satisfied. And the Prothane version was recommended due to failing rubber in the 2725 and 2726 pieces.

The lower side single stud in either version locates between the frame holes so the simplest correction to the stud is cutting the slot, but which I am not crazy about doing on this car. Some of my other cars I would not hesitate to cut the slot if it was the only drawback.

I think being the Prothane versions are bolted together rather than riveted and molded like stock units would make them easier to disassemble and relocate the studs, but if the engine height issue is still there then I am right back where I started with Butch's mounts.

The last 2 pics are Butch's mounts which would be the perfect height with the insulators removed.

 

[Brushwolf]

The 63-64 Galaxie mounts and 70's pickup mounts (perhaps Bronco mounts as well), utilize the single stud as well, but all sit in the lower existing frame hole and sit too low instead of too high. It does occur to me that the slight twist I mentioned before with the Galaxie mounts could be eliminated by a slight enlargement of the bottom frame hole though.

These mounts seem to all require between a half inch and full inch spacer between the engine and mount to raise the engine height. But this has also worked satisfactorily for other hobbiests apparently.

 

[Brushwolf]

Then we get to the 77-78 LTD and other 70's pickup SBF mounts which do not have a stud and utilize ears and a crossbolt instead. So no frame mount modification required, IF there is enough vertical space to place an adapter on top of the frame mount.

They appear to have a low profile like the Galaxie mounts and so there is that 1/2" to 1" additional height that probably would need to be added somewhere. And unlike with metal fabrication, it is easier to add material than subtract it putting mounts together.

Some people have reported success doing exactly that as well. Using a short SBF mount and making up an adapter to bolt between the stock mount and an off the shelf mount with the ears on the ends. That mount could probably be utilized with no ears or shortened ears too, but it would take some finesse welding on it and not burning up the rubber. But, I think I could manage that.

The adapter plate could begin with the bottom of an old Y block 54-58 mount and go from there. That is where I am now, but if it does not work out I will try the Mustang repro mount for fitment and if it does not sit too high I will get the Prothane Mustang mount and modify it to use 2 studs on the bottom plate that match the original frame mounts as well.

 

[KULTULZ]

Brushwolf, I need a favor. On POST #7, you showed photos of the 1958 FE manifolds.

I have a lot of FE manifolds, but being dark out I can't check any still in cars. I do have a couple hanging on the wall, one of which I believe came off a 58 332 with the machined chamber heads (5750731 E 08). The other came off a 58 Ford convertible IIRC (EDC9431A 70 backwards C)

The profiles of both left side manifolds is almost the same. But one has a tapped fitting for heat riser tube or something and the other does not. Otherwise they appear identical with the recessed top profile on the top at the rear to clear the steering box.

In the sequence of the photos you posted, can you show PHOTO #3 without the markings? Can you also show that fitting on the one by itself to show more clarity and which ENG NO. it has?

On photo #4, can you ID which manifolds is which by listing the CAST ID NOS.?

The backwards C (with F encircled) indicates CLEVELAND FOUNDRY.

THANX!

 

[Brushwolf]

Ok, I got these 20 and 10 years ago so who knows what could have been swapped by then, so don't bet the farm on it.

But the machine chambered head manifolds had the number starting with 5 and did not have the heat tube fitting. I was told it came from a retractable that had sat for years even back then. Engine had adjustable rockers too IIRC.

I have an unknown FE engine that I think was a 60 engine (yellow original paint valve covers) that has that same narrowed rear profile again and has the heat tube provision. All 3 were 4v engines, so idk why one didn't have that heat tube unless that came later on. But my 58 4 door 4v and that 59 332 2v don't have the heat tube provision either, so that can't be it.. Different carbs maybe?

BTW, I found 3 more manual MC (57 & two 58's). All 3 have the same exact casting number as ArtDeco's and the one on Ebay and the core I have laying here and every one also has the one inch bore designation cast on it. That is 6 out of 6. So, if it has that casting number it is definitely 57-58 manual brakes with 1" bore and common as grass.

All my power brake MC I looked at too and are all Wagner MC and Wagner part numbers. So, it looks like Ford farmed out the PB 1 1/8" 57-58 MC judging from my hoard.

 

[Brushwolf]

Pics disappeared..

 

[KULTULZ]

THANX!

Photos are perfect.

Ok, I got these 20 and 10 years ago so who knows what could have been swapped by then, so don't bet the farm on it.

But the machine chambered head manifolds had the number starting with 5 and did not have the heat tube fitting. I was told it came from a retractable that had sat for years even back then. Engine had adjustable rockers too IIRC.

I have an unknown FE engine that I think was a 60 engine (yellow original paint valve covers) that has that same narrowed rear profile again and has the heat tube provision. All 3 were 4v engines, so idk why one didn't have that heat tube unless that came later on. But my 58 4 door 4v and that 59 332 2v don't have the heat tube provision either, so that can't be it.. Different carbs maybe?

The early production (1958) 332-352 FE had machined combustion chambers and a solid cam. That explains the adjustable valve-train. Later production went to cast heads and hydraulic valve-train.

Most anything you have hiding up there can be ID'd by CASING ID and DATE CODE.

BTW, I found 3 more manual MC (57 & two 58's). All 3 have the same exact casting number as ArtDeco's and the one on Ebay and the core I have laying here and every one also has the one inch bore designation cast on it. That is 6 out of 6. So, if it has that casting number it is definitely 57-58 manual brakes with 1" bore and common as grass.

All my power brake MC I looked at too and are all Wagner MC and Wagner part numbers. So, it looks like Ford farmed out the PB 1 1/8" 57-58 MC judging from my hoard.

WAGNER was a vendor to FOMOCO during that period. Can you post photos of the PB MC when you have a chance?

Again THANX, one could probably spend a whole summer up there going through your yard ...

OH! Forgot to ad ...

The PN SEQUENCE you see with SEVEN NUMERICAL CHARACTERS was a FORD attempt to modify its' PARTS NUMBERING SYSTEM in 1958/59. Must not have worked as they went to the now familiar P&A SYSTEM most are more familiar with. You see it now mostly on period castings.

The sequence reading as EDC (example) was another part numbering system that was replaced by P&A. It was used to ID engine series.

 

[Brushwolf]

Here is the rebuilt Wagner/Kantor 1 1/8" rebuilt 57-58 PB MC. Casting says FE 23237, but Kantor tag says MC 23236. Dimensionally identical exteriorwise to the Ford 1" manual 57-58 brake MC, so either would bolt to either a manual or power brake car 57-58 firewall and pedal assembly. Bore diameter appears stamped on the Wagner 1 1/8" MC instead of raised cast characters on the Ford 1" unit casting.

When I get back to organizing stuff, if I find any more of either unit I will check them too. But, back to the motor mount fiasco for now..

 

[35ply351ford]

thanks for answering, But the Question was how to put a TRUE 351 cleveland into a 1956 ford fairlane the exhaust hits the steering box. Does anyone know if the make a lower steering box or a set of headers to fix this?

 

[Brushwolf]

It should fit with stock 351c manifolds. My 55 has stock steering box with a 72 351c 2v manifolds. If you have 4v manifolds it may be hard to find info on that.

Another thing that could possibly be done to create more exhaust space on the driver side is switch to a 56 Merc steering box which has a narrower top profile 3 bolt top like a 58 Ford steering gear.

Have not ever seen anyone mention that, but I have a 56 Merc and the steering gear is narrower at the 3 bolt top than a 55 or 57 Ford 4 bolt top steering gear.

So I would check out that possibility if you have steering box clearance issues that would be resolved with just a little more clearance. Probably an inch difference at the top of the sector where exhaust is most likely to be close.