Well, it is nice out again now in MN, so need to get back to where I left off before Florida trip.
Those paying attention may recall I had mechanically stripped the entire underside of the car, fixed some butchery to the uprights in rear portion of X member that a PO had done for exhaust/tailpipe clearance, and had repainted the underside so I would not get surface rust returning while I was in Florida.
Plan on undercoating it all underneath, except for the suspension components, the X frame and perimeter frame ahead of firewall. Also plan on putting Eastwood rust preventative inside frame rails before running any new brake/fuel lines. A messy job however it is done.
I have gravel roads coming to and from my house, so don't care to listen to rocks bouncing off the underside of my re-furbished fenderwells and other underside metal. Will put some sound deadener inside as well, but not there yet.
Thinking I may spray the undercoating on the rear (including rear wheel wells) of the car right now, before installing the refurbished axle and new springs back in the car with the garage door open and plastic on the garage floor. That way I don't have to mask those parts. Then roll it outside, blow out the frame rails some more, put in the frame rust preventative, then spray the rest of underside outside the garage too. Less vapors to breathe.
But, I also have to install the vintage traction bars that require welding mounting tabs to the frame. And I also have the TBird Southwest rear sway bar to mount and IIRC, that may require some welding too.
Am I better off installing the rear axle, springs, traction and sway bars now and get the required welding done before spraying on the undercoating? If I do so, then I will have to mask all those additional components, but does the risk of fire on the fresh undercoating make that the better approach?
Any pointers or opinions you have on traction bar or sway bar mount positioning for welding appreciated as well. Should the car be sitting on jack stands under axles in rear with maybe a few hundred pounds of weight added in trunk to compensate for missing trunk lid, bumper, spare tire, etc, to get approximate ride height before welding those on?
Or does the fact that motor transmission, front clip, interior, dash and glass are not installed make that a futile effort? Front suspension and steering are on and front is sitting on tires on top of car ramps..
I believe I had cut a coil out of both front springs, figuring I have about five more spare sets if I need to change that later anyway. The 351c with aluminum intake and water pump is roughly 100 lbs less than the Y block as well. Too many variables...
Thanks
I sprayed tintable bed liner on the bottom side. It dries up, no fire issue, gets hard and is very durable.
If your traction devises are not adjustable, welding at ride height would be very, very important.
Looks like sway bar angle is adjustable to some extent, but traction bars are not. These traction bars were antiques when I bought them in original packaging, so no adjustable ends like modern versions.
Maybe I will have to bolt them on and leave the welding of their mounting brackets till later when undercoating is fully dried and more parts have been put back on car. Suppose I could modify them to one adjustable end, but would rather not. Both weld on brackets for sway bar and the traction bars are on outside of frame ahead of axle, it appears.
The rear bar is better set at ride height. My brackets to the frame had holes for a bolt on application but I tack welded also. There is some interference at the brake line T that has to be modified a little.
Yes, my frame brackets for traction bars do have a bolt hole too, so that is good enough for now if it matches a frame hole. Will weld eventually though.. But, that does make me wonder if some people just bolted them on a pivot back in the day so suspension could still move more freely, though a limited amount.
Don't think the sway bar end brackets have a hole but I can just tie the ends up for the time being. Have not run new fuel or brake lines yet, cuz did not want to get overspray on them. So, figure to just route around any brackets in the way.
Quote from: gasman826 on 2021-03-22 16:30
I sprayed tintable bed liner on the bottom side. It dries up, no fire issue, gets hard and is very durable.
If your traction devises are not adjustable, welding at ride height would be very, very important.
Yeah I sprayed each wheel well overnight to see how bedliner vs undercoating comes out. Like the flatter finish appearance of the bedliner, but the softer thicker rubberized feel of the undercoating. Undercoat is glossy black. Don't care for that look underneath for a driver. Think I will overspray the undercoating side with bedliner tonight and see if they are incompatible or not.
Yep, I know.. Don't mix potentially incompatible coatings. But, not being a chemist I will just do a real world test.
HHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...might be that we have the same brain stem...guilty of the same thing on stuff like that. LOL!!! Would that make us "back yard chemists?" LOL!!!
Well, here goes nothin... Will overspray that undercoated side wheel well with bedliner and then get out of this garage to minimize fume inhalation...
Anyone know a source for these leaf spring snubbers? Found new axle snubbers and the pinion snubber appears to be just another axle snubber, but spent hours online and cannot find these. I had just cut all my surviving snubbers off figuring on new ones anyway.
After wasting a lot of time online looking for them (Steele, Dennis Carpenter, Macs, EBay, etc.), I finally went out back and carefully removed these from a 57 Custom frame and stuck them on for now. Figure worst-case basis that if they do not hold up I will have to whittle down some new axle snubbers to fit there instead..
Well, I will take that as a "nope, no longer available"... IDT with traction bars that those original spring snubbers off a Custom will ever be put under any stress anyway...
Axle is back in place, ancient NOS traction bars bolted on, but front bracket hole attaches to front leaf spring mount bolt. So, good enough for now, but will have to hunt down longer bolts being the threads are 1/4" short of the nut going all the way on. Will wait to run a weld bead along that traction bar front bracket to leaf spring bracket until the car is substantially re-assembled and at new ride height and longer bolts installed.
The Southwest rear sway bar is loosely clamped to axle. There is only a drawing for install instructions on that, but it appears to me that the U brackets on axle tube probably need to be welded in position on the axle as well as clamped or they will just spread and loosen.
The frame attachment brackets for the sway bar are apparently welded to inside of the car frame, rather than outside. I guess I cou,d wait to weld those too, but my new (expensive) plastic-sheathed E brake cables run directly underneath those, plus the E brake cables on convertible and retractable also look to potentially interfere with replacing the front spring bolt with a longer one.
So, IDK... Thinking the best assembly sequence may be:
Get new spring eye bolts sourced and installed first.
Then weld the sway bar frame brackets on.
Then install the new E brake rear cables.
Anyone know off hand the dimensions of the original front spring eye bolts and if any other years used longer ones?
In the meantime, I will make new rear brake hard lines and start figuring out a new fuel line. I have multiple coils of the copper-nickel lines in multiple sizes and Eastwood flaring tool so that should keep me occupied while I wait for new spring bolts.
Will the original 5/16" fuel line be adequate for 1970 351c single Edelbrock 600 CFM 4v, or should I use 3/8" for the fuel line instead? I have a bigger cam in that engine under advice of the engine machinist to bleed off a little dynamic compression cuz that was allegedly a 10:1 compression year motor for 2v heads in 1970 only.
Here is how sway bar is sitting now. Did not realize 4 attachments is the limit...
The 5/16th" will be more then adequate. Have that size in my 36 (since 1976) and the Ranchero. Both 351C with a SC cam, cast iron manifolds and 2 1/4" exhaust pipes into Corvair Turbo mufflers.
I bought my Traction Masters bars from the guy who designed them in the day. Mine have a bracket that welds to the frame and the instructions were very specific about welding them on with the car at ride height. Nevertheless they do bind occasionally, especially when the axle is tilted to one side or another. I haven't seen a set up like yours where the bar bolts to a bracket on the spring perch. I think the longer length makes them less likely to bind.
Though idt geometry is really my strong suit, I would think that the closer the pivot point axis is vertically on the front of the spring and the traction bar, the greater the up and down movement range of those two relatively horizontal components should be before either component can restrict the movement of the other.
Though the spring becomes longer as it flattens and shorter again as it rebounds or is under torque tension, those dimensional changes should still be taken up by the shackles moving forward and backward anyway. IDK, but the nice thing about that is I can bolt it on and leave it to weld until the car is together and I am satisfied with ride height.
Found an online bolt supplier that has good prices and a very intuitive website allowing any quantity of any item (yes you can order one 3/8" washer if you want). Shipping is pretty cheap too. Ordered some grade 8 hardware to get longer front spring eye bolts. https://www.boltdepot.com/about/Default.aspx
Looks like the original bolts are 4" long, so ordered 4 1/2" long which should leave me with 1/4" exposed threads even with the bracket on there. While waiting for those I started putting fuel and brake lines together.
Don't know what I did with the brass brake line tee off the axle in 1994 when I took it off while still living in the city either. Have to go scavenge one off some other axle out back. I must have some more parts boxes for this car somewhere cuz went thru lots of boxes and cans, yet noticed I also can't find my convertible top tacking strips for under the rear curtain either. There is a 58 convertible parts car out back that still has those, on a worst case basis though.
If you step back and squint at Traction Masters, they will form a four-link. The main leaf is the top link and the Traction Master as the lower bar. Making the distance between the main leaf and the rear TM bolt center the same as the front of the leaf to the front TM bolt the same measurement will for a more parallel four-link with the least binding. I made TM clones because I wanted adjustment. Even with the initial install at curb height, a violent, second gear shift would result in a side kick from the rear end. A couple of twists on the adjustable bars and the side kick was resolved.
Yes, that occurred to me. Somewhat like a 4 link. Which way did you have to adjust yours after the initial issue? Longer or shorter? Thinking I could introduce that bias before welding the bracket on and then if I still have issues I could take them off and put an adjustable end on it...
Those replacement springs? I believe all 3 Customs I stripped and my convertible all had 4 leafs instead of 6. The only 6 leaf units I have run across have been retractable springs, though I suppose wagons and Rancheros probably had them too..
My thought is that by design, i.e., the length of the spring in front of the compared to the rear and the shackle design is intended to allow the axle to move up and down perpendicular to the ground. the longer the traction bar is the less it conflicts with that motion since it doesn't bend and it moves in an arch. Just guessin'.
Me too, but I get the impression looking at it that if the traction bar front pivot is very far from the vertical plane of the leaf spring eye bolt that it has to produce some bind whether the bar pivot point is ahead (longer) or behind (shorter) that vertical plane.
And the further ahead or behind the leaf pivot the less suspension movement will be before any binding should occur. All assuming the rear of traction bar pivot point is directly below axle center, which these bars are. As has been mentioned, keeping both distances close to equal is probably the main thing.
But when power is applied the distance between the upper pivot points of the leaf springs move apart a little at least due to spring arch declining. Probably what led to the development of slapper bars and adjustable rather than fixed traction bars.
Every part is putting up a battle (when I can even find the part). Lost brass axle brake T fitting is different than retractable, different than 63 Ford, different than 76 Torino, different than 58 Custom, different than 65 Fairlane, can't find the empty 57 housing which may have one or not. Finally modified a 65 Fairlane T fitting that should work reversed. Fairlane line from the front was on left frame rail rather than center like convertible.
New expensive retractable E brake lines have return springs inside the drum much longer than originals and have to cut little coil by little coil to shorten both of them to fit in there. Very time-consuming. They cannot be swapped with original return springs I have cuz of the lead slug on the end prevents removal. Retractable and convertible are supposed to be the same cuz X frame...
Now that I have shocks on and shackles in stock position I could not get tire off w/o letting out air, even with bottle jack between spring and frame. Once I got the tire off the brake drum fought coming off. Tried backing off adjuster. Stuck solid. Forced drum off and it still looks like it did when turned. Wheel cylinder stuck also, but swapping for retractable 15/16" ones anyway.
Otherwise all the new hardware and brake shoes in there look like they did the day I put them in 20 odd years ago.
One step forward and two steps back...
Longer or shorter...too long ago to remember. My guess would be to shorten the right side, but just a little.
I have never added a traction device without a tradeoff...ride height, noise, ride quality, bind...
Four link...parallel with panhard bar or triangular are the best. A lot of work and money but great weight transfer, no binding, no noise, weight reduction and great ride.
If memory serves me correctly, the bolt that holds the brass Tee fitting to the rear axel also serves as a breather.
Yep, threaded hollow bolt with a loose metal cap for a breather on the end. The 65 Fairlane axle had the same diameter hollow bolt, but had a nipple on the top end to attach a hose up to the frame.
I think I will be OK with using the original capped bolt which was still on the axle unless I have over a foot of water.. I must have put the brass fitting from the 57 in a really good place after I removed it and cleaned it up.
Probably need to take a couple days and inventory the semi trailer and put the tons of stuff on pole building floor away on their assigned shelving sections. Been putting that off since I hauled half dozen trailer loads from the farm sold last year and the mess is disorienting. Chances are I will find more 57 parts that I forgot I had.
Finally got the rear passenger side brakes back together with new E brake cable and new wheel cylinder. Started on driver side rear and since I lost track of my good valve stem remover, I used a plastic one and it sheared the top off. Cannot get the remains out so now I will have to cut the stem off and put a new one in. And I am out of that size valve stem, of course...
Should have the back brakes re-done by the 4th of July at this rate.
Well I got my new longer spring eye bolts and installed them. I was wrong about length of the original bolts. They are 3 1/2" ? 5/16", rather than 4" x 5/16". Luckily I ordered extra grade 8 bolts while I was ordering so got it done anyway.
It was fun trying to keep the eye bolt hole in frame and spring aligned with the axle fully installed (less welding of sway bar and traction bar mounts, waiting til ride height established). Spring eye wanted to go up, down and forward while bolt was out. I even cut the threads off an overly-long 5/16" bolt and put a small 45 degree bevel on the end to use knocking out the original length replacements so it would remain in position.
But, even with weight off the axle the leaf eye still wanted to go off one way or another. Ended up having to simultaneously attach a comealong to center of convertible X frame, loosen shocks and put a small crowbar above leaf eye to get it close enough to get the replacement bolts started and knock my modified locating bolts back out again. Fortunately did not screw up any threads getting the new bolts tapped in.
Brakes on the driver side came apart easier too, for installing the E brake cable and new wheel cylinder. Made new lines from the copper nickel alloy stuff to connect axle T fitting to wheel cylinders. So, rear brakes are essentially done up to and including new rubber hose up to frame.
So, before continuing to run the rear line to the front I figured I might as well install MC and valve assembly in order to end up in the right place with the front to rear line.
Dragged out my clutch and brake hanger, took it apart and cleaned it up again. Two of the bolts for the front of the pedal hanger bracket were now too short also, so had to find some replacements. Found some more hardened bolts in my collection that all matched each other and worked. Got it all including stock KH booster) hung on the firewall along with MC.
Before I continue running new lines, it occurred to me I had not bench-bled the MC. Not sure I should bother taking it off again to do that. The logic escapes me as to how bleeding it horizontally gripped in my vise differs from doing it on the car? On the car it mounts horizontal, is securely fastened and I can just push the brake pedal. On the vise I can screw up the MC finish and diddle around with some kind of makeshift pushrod. How is that a better approach?
My MC rod is also a tad short. Since the Swift Sure pedal sits real close to the floor as it is, when I devise a way around that am I on the right track thinking I need a rod that has very close to zero play before the MC begins compressing?
I thought the stock MC pushrod was a fixed length and it is, but there is an eccentric mount bolt that attaches on the Swift Sure pedal arm that looks to provide about an inch of adjustability to how far the pushrod extends into MC. Mine was still too long though and profile of the end was reverse from the MC piston contact point. Spent yesterday working that all out.
My front disk brakes were rebuilt 1971 Lincoln Mark 3 (spindles and all). They fit right on to the tapers and thickness of the 57 ball joints and tie rods. I have the new Lincoln hoses on and they have integrated frame brackets now attached to the 57 frame. The hoses go to the front just as most including Granada swaps do.
Would be interested in seeing how those of you with front disk brakes have routed your hard lines for the front brakes. Looks like I can route it around lower inside of frame upper A arm mount to get from behind the driver side wheel to ahead of it and probably utilize the original routing on the engine crossmember to get across the engine bay and do the same thing over on the passenger side. Other ideas?
I had lightly painted the rotor surfaces being I knew it was gonna sit for a while and paint is a lot easier to remove than rust. So, will have to pull the rotors anyway to clean the paint off. Probably also have to disassemble the rebuilt calipers too though, being both rebuilt rear wheel cylinders had become stuck while the car has been sitting inside all these years.
For now I can run my hard line from the back to the front anyway and both the clutch and brake pedals are finally remounted in the car and functioning like they should. Though I am not fond of the clutch pedal sitting quite a bit further off the floor than the Swift Sure brake pedal does...
My sense of symmetry is offended by that. I may have to consider hydraulic clutch linkage instead to lower the clutch pedal, or some way to raise the power brake pedal. Or both... Ideas?
Great to hear about that sort of progress.
As to "leveling" the pedals, myself, I would heat and bend one pedal's arm. It's low carbon steel, no big deal. The usual precautions of course.
But, would there be enough clutch travel if it's lowered?
Would the brake pedal still be fast and easy to hit if it's raised?
The clutch pedal arm is probably just mild steel, but the Swift Sure power brake pedal assembly arms look forged or cast to me. All the manual brake 57-58 brake pedal arms I have look like they are mild steel too, but look like they won't work with the KH booster.
So, the clutch pedal would seem easier to modify, but then as you say it likely would not have enough travel for the stock mechanical linkage. Maybe have to leave that until the engine and transmission are in to see what might work.
On cars I have driven with hydraulic clutch linkage though, they don't seem to require as much travel and certainly less effort. But maybe that is partially in the clutch release arm and distance in the pivot points on that. My 73 Mustang Mach clone does have a higher clutch pedal than brake pedal height that appears to be designed in though. But it looks more out of place in a 57 I think.
Been reading with puzzlement on old swap motor mount threads. I have the Butch's Rod Shop triangular swap mounts left over from another project.
351c sits too high, about 2 1/2" oil pan clearance, lots of manifold to 58 steering box clearance (400M manifolds). Firewall is about 1/2" clearance on driver side, an inch on the passenger side. So, it seems OK as to firewall clearance but everything else seem like it should be lower in the chassis by at least an jnch, maybe more..
In summary per old threads, the early 63-64 Galaxie mounts reputedly sit too low and require shimming to correct, the Mustang mounts tend to sit high, the 70's pickup mount might work with frame holes opened up and Butch's mounts sit high.
Currently looking around for the set of Galaxie mounts I know I have somewhere, though they look kind of weak. Or find a thinner polyurethane bushing to shorten the Butch's mounts and see how that looks.
Find it odd to read so many threads about inadequate clearances and except for the firewall I appear to have too much clearance.
More pics..
Switched to the Galaxie mounts. Lower, but worse overall. 400 manifolds now hit engine mounts both sides to the extent where they would both need spacers in them to just barely clear the manifold. And engine moved forward about an inch. Pan is also sitting on crossmember. Those are a lost cause for my install.
Will have to figure out how to modify Butch's mounts to sit lower...
I used the Galaxie mounts with 3/4" spacer between the mount and the block. Engine sets perfect, pan has a good solid 1/2" clearance and the stock 351C 2bbl manifolds clear the 64 Galaxie box and the stock frame brackets.
Well I might try that if I can't figure out a way to make Butch's mounts work. 3/4" spacers at to top of those Galaxie mounts would probably leave just enough clearance for my 400M manifolds. These manifolds are larger dimensionally and internally compared to the 351c manifolds. Less restrictive basically.
I have a 58 steering box and plenty of clearance on driver side no matter engine height in chassis.
How much room do you have between the front crossmember and front pulley on the crank?
As you can maybe see in the last 2 pics of previous post, I removed the rubber cushion on the Butch's mounts and now the engine sits pretty darn good heightwise... Still plenty of exhaust manifold clearance to mounts, steering box, oil pan clearance more than enough. Firewall clearance actually increases the lower the engine goes.
I am concerned the repro import Galaxie mounts might turn mushy in short order, so would rather have the sturdier Butch's mounts in there. I would be content with the way the engine sits by just welding the 2 halves of the Butch's mounts together.
However, IDT I want solid mounts either.
Suggestions on how I can modify the Butch's mounts to allow some sort of cushioning without changing the location of the engine as it sits currently, but with at least some cushioning in place as opposed to it sitting solid like it is now?
I really don't want to cut or modify the car's frame mount itself, just in case I ever decide to put a 312 back in it... (I have 2 rebuilt 312's and a peppy 292 bored .040 sitting here too).
I really like the place the engine is sitting right now, but IDT I can make the Butch's mounts work. Also tried a set of 73 Mustang 351c mounts. Those sit even higher than the Butch's mounts sit in as-delivered configuration.
Decided I wasted enough time reading engine swap mount threads on multiple forums and ordered a pair of 77-78 LTD mounts that are very similar to the Galaxie mounts, but have the ears for a horizontal thru-bolt instead of the stud on the frame side of mount.
Since they are similar profile, I expect the motor will sit too low again, but I will make up an intermediary plate or rectangular tubing to sit between the motor and frame mounts, perhaps with a round tube inside to put the horizontal bolt through.
Crossing my fingers that there is enough room to do that and still keep the engine where it is, or lower cuz I still have some room to go down and a tad I can go back. This will mess up my clutch linkage shaft alignment further, but the engine has to be way further forward for those to align anyway, so will change the frame side bracket position to align once the motor and transmission mounts are finished.
Best pictures I have of the pulley to cross member fit and engine "fit". It is an after market pulley. The carburetor is level with the car at ride height.
That picture of the cross member also shows the 58 Edsel front sway bar.
Has an Anchor 2726 type mount been considered?
Not saying it's the solution.
One thing to look at on the idea of using the horizontal bolt and tube is accessibility once the car is assembled. I'm using a totally different family of engine in mine, so can't compare, and I know mine has waaaay less space width-wise to work, but I know at least with my engine that horizontal bolt just wouldn't be able to access.
One other train of thought to consider.........I know the early 00s Mustang has the same angle engine mount as our '57s. Bear with me for a minute, but I used an Anchor motor mount for '01(?) Mustang GT/Cobra 4.6 for my '95 Lincoln 4.6 that had the same angle mounting plate and stud, so I'm thinking maybe there might be an engine family that is in the same family as what you're using that is made for the Mustangs. All I had to do was add a slot in the '57 mounting plate to accommodate Mustang's stud location.
Some of our members are into Mustangs, so they may be able to answer that.
I wondered about folding the horizontal mount's "ears" over a flat plate, with stud. The bit of welding heat needed at the folded ears would be quite removed from rubber.
Edit - Or "clip" the ears, leaving just enough ear to "catch" a flat plate?
But now it's an oddball custom mount, rather than shelf stock.
It looks like we have roughly the same fan and firewall clearance, which is to be expected with the same 351c motor. Wasn't sure I remembered where exactly the radiator sat over the front crossmember in stock position. But, looks like plenty of room even if I used a fan clutch.
And same as me you have more than enough clearance from the steering gear, though our manifolds are slightly different. I can't really set engine angle yet cuz so much has changed on suspension and the car is still a foot off the floor on blocks. Probably do a temporary transmission mount til it is back one the ground so I can fiddle with driveline angle after more parts are on.
Still have all door glasses, frames and mechanisms, entire front clip, battery, radiator, dash, heater, seats, trunklid, bumpers, exhaust and many other parts to reinstall. So guessing it is probably 800- 1000 lbs of additional stuff that is on different parts of the car and will change ride height somewhat on both ends. So, neither front or rear suspension is torqued down yet.
Wondering if I made a mistake cutting too much off coils in front too, as it appears it may sit too low in front and not even the clip is on it yet. May have to put a different set of coils in once the car is back on the ground. I have a quite a few uncut 57-58 front spring pairs still around here somewhere.
Don't really want to use lowering blocks to get the rear further down and hoping the as-yet-uninstalled parts will drop it a couple inches in the rear from where it looks like it wants to be now. I don't even have new springs in the rear, just reconditioned originals. So, I thought if anything it might sit lower in the rear than stock. But it looks higher than stock. Maybe the big tires? Happen to know how tall the original tires were?
I do have a rear sway bar and traction bars on it, but those are not securely fastened yet (cuz of the uncertainty of eventual ride height), so they should not be holding the rear up at all. I have blocks between the axle and garage floor so the rear weight is sitting on the axle and I even have a bunch of junk in the trunk that should substitute the weight of some of the missing parts.
Too much of a guessing game though, so will just carry on trying to get parts back on.
My heater stuff was all reconditioned 10+ years ago, but I still have not decided what dash to use. I think the dash frames are the same from 57-58 and I have a couple bare dashes and a couple dashes that still have everything in them including wiring. Will stick with the black faced 57 instruments and knobs. Still have the original radio from my 57 convertible I had in the early 70's and that is in nice shape, a nice clock and a bunch of reconditioned speedometer parts I have yet to reassemble.
And I still need to install some inside insulation. I suppose I could do the firewall insulation first since dash would get in the way of doing that. Think I have a repro piece for that. So much stuff yet to do... 90 degrees out and it is deer fly month here in Central MN, so mostly staying in the garage with the AC.
Quote from: Rancher on 2021-07-05 12:31
Has an Anchor 2726 type mount been considered?
Not saying it's the solution.
Yes, I have saved pics of the Anchor 2725 and 2726. I know they have been used with some pre-57 swaps and some prefer them cuz they don't require spacers the way the Galaxie mount does. Not sure about them for the "lower and wider" 57 chassis, but may pick up a set of those to try if I don't like the LTD mounts..
Potential downsides might be too much height again (though they look pretty close to what I need), and I am not crazy about the stud type mount unless a crossbolt will not fit.
Quote from: RICH MUISE on 2021-07-05 12:32
One thing to look at on the idea of using the horizontal bolt and tube is accessibility once the car is assembled. I'm using a totally different family of engine in mine, so can't compare, and I know mine has waaaay less space width-wise to work, but I know at least with my engine that horizontal bolt just wouldn't be able to access.
One other train of thought to consider.........I know the early 00s Mustang has the same angle engine mount as our '57s. Bear with me for a minute, but I used an Anchor motor mount for '01(?) Mustang GT/Cobra 4.6 for my '95 Lincoln 4.6 that had the same angle mounting plate and stud, so I'm thinking maybe there might be an engine family that is in the same family as what you're using that is made for the Mustangs. All I had to do was add a slot in the '57 mounting plate to accommodate Mustang's stud location.
Some of our members are into Mustangs, so they may be able to answer that.
Yes, I have a 4.6 in my Sport Trac. Looking under the hood makes me yearn for simpler times. They are very wide, but I think I have plenty of room for install and removal of a cross-bolt. The only question is whether there is enough space between the LTD mount and the frame mount for an adapter piece to fit between them without getting the engine too high again.
The 5.0 Mustang mounts looked interesting to me since they bolt to the engine the same as a Cleveland, but some people say they are too high also (in what year chassis, I forget, I read too many swap threads..). My 351c 73 Mustang mounts are really high, but the later 5.0 Mustang mounts do appear shorter. Unlike metal fabrication though, it seems easier to add material than to subtract material with this engine mount business.
So still keeping an open mind, just hoping I don't accumulate a dozen sets of different motor mounts before I find one that makes me happy. I have a couple other back-burner 5.0 projects though and my son has a 3rd one also, so maybe I can use the extras on those (5.0 & T5 into Datsun 280ZX, 5.0 & T5 into MGB, etc..)
Quote from: Rancher on 2021-07-05 12:39
I wondered about folding the horizontal mount's "ears" over a flat plate, with stud. The bit of welding heat needed at the folded ears would be quite removed from rubber.
Edit - Or "clip" the ears, leaving just enough ear to "catch" a flat plate?
But now it's an oddball custom mount, rather than shelf stock.
Well, it would be nice to have a shelf stock mount, but would rather cut and weld some bolt on parts than the car frame. Clipping the ears and welding to a plate (tapered plate if the angles do not match) with studs that match the existing frame holes would be an idea if there is not sufficient space to put an adapter for a cross-bolt in between the frame and engine mount.
I think I could weld that plate on the mount a 1/4" at a time and then immediately dunking it in a bucket of water to keep from burning up the rubber. Pair of the mounts is less than $30, so it wouldn't be the end of the world if I screwed them up trying it.
Or, an even simpler way to correct any angle differences would be to install the mounts, see if we have some angle difference, mark the ears, remove mounts and cut the ears off at a very slight angle to match the frame mount angle, reinstall on motor and tack weld the plate with the 2 studs in it with optimized engine location. Remove again to finish weld and reinforce if necessary...
The plate with 2 studs I could just cut off some old 54-58 mounts with studs already in them to get those started.. I used some of those same pieces before making mounts for a SBC into a Toyota Mark IV... Or those same old engine mount pieces could be the basis for a cross-bolt adapter too... I like that idea...
Think that will be my option 2 on the 3rd set of mounts once they arrive, with option 1 still being a cross-bolted adapter if space allows for it...
Quote from: Rancher on 2021-07-05 12:31
Has an Anchor 2726 type mount been considered?
Not saying it's the solution.
Given the failures of repro imported mounts, I think if I tried those Anchor 2725 and 2726 it would just be to see if they fit and if they did then order these prothane mounts. The bottom plate appears to unbolt which means you could relocate the stud and even install 2 studs that matched the frame mount holes (still may have an angle differential to address though). You could take the plate off a stock repro mount too by removing the rivets, but if the rubber is failing then that is a pretty big downside..
In fact even if the LTD mounts work, I may see if Prothane has one like that to use instead. Just use the cheapie mounts to make sure it fits like you want and then get a Prothane or similar aftermarket mount to put in its place.
I also wonder about whether using these mounts in non-stock applications whether the rubber is being twisted a bit to get the motor where it is desired and these things were never meant to take torsional stresses like that. When I tried the Galaxie mounts it appeared to me that I had to twist just a bit or the engine was not straight in the chassis. Maybe not all the fault is in the rubber quality and some of it is in forcing them where we need them.
https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/1957-ford-fairlane-engine-swap.964715/
Suggestion in Brushwolf's reply #43 sounds like a great way to get exact fit-up.
Here is another version of what I currently want to do once the LTD mounts arrive. Not sure if these are pickup mounts or LTD, but the idea is the same.
But I will use the old Y block mount bottom section with the 2 studs in it and perhaps build it wider with an enclosed top cuz the studs in the original mount are not going anyplace or turning. Put a tube in it for the crossbolt similar to that one.
Cleaned up one old Y block lower mount section and put another aside in case it works. Will start putting insulation on the firewall and/or start getting the dash or heater together while waiting for parts.... And I could probably install the gas tank now too..
If you'll excuse a quick jump back to "pedal leveling" around reply #25, while smuggling a hacksaw into project jail, I stumbled into a pedal assy, in the junk drawer.
Seems to be from AT car with "concertina" booster.
I sort of (but apparently not exactly) recall the parts car that I removed it from decades ago, by the nearby spotlight. I would've sworn it was an OD car.
The "mousetrap" linkage is a lot different than I had recalled.
Anyway, maybe this pic sheds some light on the pedal leveling project.
Guess I could drag it out of solitary confinement and get a better glamour shot. Lol
Hard to tell from a single angle pic, but that looks basically the same as all mine. Doubtful it came from a stick car unless you changed it to the wide pedal sometime after that.
Appreciate you checking it out anyway.
Right, I agree.
I'm sure I was mistaken on recalling the car as MT, and I was so sure.
What's odd is that there's also a MT column filler bezel in the stash. But... no sign of clutch linkage.
Who knows? And after all I didn't even recall the arm being cast.
Motor mounts and clutch linkage completion wore me down a bit. Only part of clutch linkage that didn't have to be modified was the pedal and rod going through the firewall. But, it all seems to work fine as extensively modified and has multiple adjustment points available if it doesn't work as well as it appears to.
Trying to get motivated again and gather up all the heater parts which were pretty scattered out after all these years. Think I found all the new gaskets and the parts except defroster plenum and "vacuum controlled thermostat valve". Lost the 57 assembly manual I had and the exploded view below scrounge up online is a 58, which should be pretty much the same.
I think the original plenum was metal and is around here somewhere, but will use a 58 fiberboard plenum if I can't locate the original one. This is not a restoration, so no matter unless metal was for convertibles specifically due to potential exposure to the elements.
The " vacuum controlled thermostat valve" .... Anyone have a better pic of that so I know what I am looking for?
There are 3 heater/defrost cables and I found a set, which I think are the original ones. These have a colored staple(?) wrapped on the black insulating plastic. One staple or wire wrap is red, one is yellow and the other is green(?), it looks like. Which of these hooks to which part of heater and control, or best left off until the dash is in?
The firewall cardboard and insulation under dash need to be in place before the heater? Been so long since I took it apart I no longer remember.
Hopefully some of you have done heater refurbishment lately and can give me some pointers to get moving again.
Found the original metal defroster plenum when I went to get the 58 fiberboard plenum, which I knew the location of..
Just happen to have pictures.
Thanks, nice clear pics. Looked around but didn't find one. Is that part reasonably durable so that one would likely work from another car, or do I need to find a new one?
I did find a rough tree-damaged 58 convertible header that I thought was probably scrapped a few years back, top base trim from both 57 & 58 convertibles, a couple lost Y block bellhousings and a couple speedometer cables that had wandered off, plus 2 more bare dashes in the pole building though...
And a complete 59 convertible top frame that I had lost track of too. Gotta sell that one of these days (Pa Kettle...). It is in better shape than either the 57 or 58 top frames, but almost nothing is the same between the 57-58 and the 59 top frames.
I have a 57 retractable and a 57 Custom dash all still complete with gauges, switches and wiring in the semi trailer anyway, but I will probably just use a complete one as a guide to reassembling one of the bare dashes using the best parts from several boxes of loose dash components.
I have a number of B7A-18495-A 57-58 Ford heater control valves 23 new NOS and NORS and a couple of good used ones. Although they are from various suppliers I believe all were made by Dole. Also have six FEK-18495-A 57 -58 Mercury valves, new. And a dozen B7A-18502-A vacuum valves as shown in pictures, new. Interested parties can contact me.
Thom...as I recall from my visit at your place...you could almost open up a '57 auto parts store! LOL!!!