Guys, I would appreciate to hear your takes on a drivetrain question!
Here I have this disassembled Del Rio project, that I might get going again. It was a great driver before, with a '69 351W and truck C6. The C6 has been sold on (didnt like the shift points). The 351W is still here and could be installed as is, doesn't smoke, no noise, rebuilt heads, good Edelbrock on Performer 351 intake.
I have 2x (hopefully) good 5.0 AODs and a ca. 1966 C4 (large bellhousing) out of a running Mustang.
Or there is a 292 Y block project, already bored 060 and a reground 312 crank, 312 rods, serviced heads, 4bbl intake and a 500 Edelbrock, new Isky torque cam....needs blueprint and final assembly.
there's also a Bendtsen Speed Gems adapter kit for Y/AOD.
I also have a '66 289, new bores&pistons, nice old Weiand 4bl intake, needs blueprint, heads rebuild and assembly.
The rearend is an og wgn 9" with the later center section and 3.25 gears installed, drum brakes and frt Grenada discs&spindles.
I love the SBF and they make great drivers. very dependable and good power/milage.
I love the 292 Y in my 4dr wgn. good power, nice shifts. but the heavy 3spd Fordo and not as good in mpg.(3.56 rear).
Not a leadfoot driver, nor into maximum performance, but want reliable and reasonable combo.
Would like to hear about your opinions/experience please!
I wouldn't second guess you on your choice, Y block or the 351 would be good. I would forget the 289. A 289 with an auto trans just isn't enough HP/torque for a heavy wagon especially with those gears. Just my $.02 with a real value of $.01
The 351 Windsor for the win. They rated them at 290 hp for the 4 bbl. version. You could have four adult passengers and still have enough passing power. The 289 or 302 are great little engines just not enough beans to keep a 3600 lbs. wagon rolling comfortably on steep grades without being in second gear all the time.
Quote2cts
Not at all, Jim ! Thx Randy! that is exactly the reason I was asking. I do appreciate to hear all of your opinons !
As mentioned before the 351 already was in the car before w/ factory engine mounts and og frame brackets. only the transmission Xmember was hacked for the C6. I have another good X member that can be tailor fit to whatever new transmission.
I want to add, that I will be using pretty tall rear tires. either 225/75-15 or more likely 8.20 15. Not that wide, but rather tall, considering the total drivetrain ratio with a 3.25 rear and a 0.67 AOD. is that too much for a 351 or the bored out 322ish Y?
What kind of terrain do plan on driving on? If it's mostly level or slight grades it should be alright. I stuck with 3.89 and OD because I live in the foothills and some city planning wackos decided now every little residential street should have a stop sign and a speed bump between them :005:. Driving around locally I never get out of 2nd gear.
Jim, you have a 4spd manual, correct ? w/ or w/o OD?
I plan on drivin it mostly level and mild grades on long distance trips (Germany/Italy/France), and it's level around my town. But I am living surrounded by mountains and steep terrain, so I also need to get over these. There are pretty steep climbs on our highways.
I reckon that with an AOD it should be possible to adapt the 57 steering column and gear selector so I can use/lock all 3 shift ranges ?!?
So I can use the OD only on flat areas.
Is the 3rd gear in the AOD 1.0?
my 34 Ford has a 2.48 posi behind a 302/C4 and 8.20-15 and that's abut the tallest ratio I would want on that car ( its also a lot lighter and probably has less wind resistance than the 57).
if I multiply the AOD .67 with the 3.25 rear, that would make 2.17 total....that really sounds very very tall gearing for a 3500pd car?!
I had a c-6 with the stock auto column. It worked fine although the pointer wouldn't exactly line up with LDNRP. It's been awhile but I think I had to flip the lever and either shorten or lengthen
it to get the correct sweep so the shift lever would hit all the gears. Not such a big deal, just a trial and error thing to get it right. You may be able to adopt a regular c-4 c-6 column indicator so it looks visually correct.
Quote from: djfordmanjack on 2021-01-14 15:18
Jim, you have a 4spd manual, correct ? w/ or w/o OD?
if I multiply the AOD .67 with the 3.25 rear, that would make 2.17 total....that really sounds very very tall gearing for a 3500pd car?!
Mine is a T85 3 spd with OD. So in OD it would be about 2.56
I don't know what gears they use in cars with AOD, I'm just not up to speed on the modern stuff.
Find out what gears Rich has in his, that should be a good base line.
One vote for the AOD. It will fit all your engines and has overdrive. But, I rebuild and modify all my automatic transmissions. The AOD is a good four speed, overdrive automatic. The OEM cross member will work if hacked much like for the C6. Like the C6 there will be limited access to the rear pan bolts...no big deal, just a pain doing regular PM. If the shift points were a deal breaker for the C6, the AOD will also be a disappointment with early shifts at low speeds with little throttle. Modifications or aftermarket governor will fix the early shift. The other downside to C6, C4 or AOD is limited manual shift control. One can ratchet shift the 1-2 shift to hold 2nd gear and then manual shift to 3rd gear with no control of the 4th gear shift. Aftermarket valve body will fix all that. As far as shift linkage, buy the Lokar stuff! The OEM automatic column will work but with questionable satisfaction and little to no gear control. At minimum, the detent and indicator would need upgrades...maybe. I did not attempt column mods and just installed a '64 Galaxie column. Worked great. As to the gear ratio, the Raunch Wagon had the OEM 3.56. To low for expressways with no overdrive and Y-Block. I changed to 3.00 and the old 292 loved it. When I changed to the AOD, I changed to 3.25 with TractionLok. With a 28" tall tire, still too much gear. Changed to a 3.89 TL and this was the gear for around town and expressway...70MPH at 2100 rpms. The last two summers, the Raunch Wagon had 4.11 TL and was still an all round great driver. I will admit that the engine really sounded good at 90 mph! Gas mileage has never been my strong suite. All your engines are great. I changed to Windsor and never looked back. It was original only once. Since the y-block is vintage, parts and especially performance are harder to find and are more expensive than a Windsor.
I'm sure you'll be happy what ever direction you go.
wow, what a wealth of information !!!
thnx for your detailed insight in your gearing and the AOD shift patterns, Gary!
No, its not the low shift points I disliked. the C6 had like a towing vehicle governor setup, and it would only shift into 3rd gear over 40 mph. That I don't like at all. It's also very bad for mpg in town. I love the low shift points of the typical C4 @ low throttle.
So that sounds as if I need a new differential gear set with the AOD, but that would be totally feasible and reasonable to change.
yes, the factory wgn 3.56 is really low. I have that in my 4dr Country Sedan. >It has great pickup but the engine becomes pretty noisy at extended 70+mph highway driving. It's possible and after cleaning the cooling system thoroughly the CS will not overheat, but I just dislike racing an old engine like that.
As mentioned before this 351 is really a perfectly working unit, even has electronic ignition. ready to reinstall.
On the other hand I have nearly all the parts for the Y block (just missing new valve rocker shafts, a set of lifters and possibly a few rockers) and I love the sound of a Y block. The 351 sounds great as well.
Yes Jim, your 2.56 total ratio confirms that the 2.17 I calculated for my setup, is most probably just too low. well i could try it anyways and replace the diff gear set later in case.
There's also that C4 that I could directly bolt to the 351 and ommitting the tall gear trouble in AOD. would also make it easier for the throttle setup, but then I already have the AOD Lokar TV cable kit.
Like Randy and Gary said, I will need some time to hook it all up with my existing column, or find a different. somewhere I have the full 65 T bird dash and sway-away column setup, but I doubt that I wanted that in the Del Rio.
Many things to consider.
If you use an AOD, the 3.56 gear would be a good starting point. Many AOD vehicles had factory installed 3.55 and 3.73 ratios.
'65 Thunderbird dash swaps fits well.
WOW Günter
You have a lot of engines to choose from and in the end it will be your decision. I hope that the transmission will be overdrive
and keep in mind the cost of fuel over there. Jay
Very important point Jay ! fuel cost is a main focus for building a setup over here. Just the other day I was talking to a local Mustang guy and he has this and that done on his engine and 500 dyno-ed hp, only to confess he sold the car because he didn't drive it at all....because of the gas bills.
I also dislike racing (as in high rpms) old engines. As you know the 2.48 rearend in our 34 sdn is just extremely comfortable to cruise at even 100mph ( and thats what I did in Germany, for hours). it is doing less than 2000rpm @ 65mph.
Gary you did a great job in making that T bird dash work in your 57.
very interesting about the og diff gear ratios in og AOD cars. I was thinking that the AOD would be an ideal addition to my 292/3.56rear 57CS 4dr.
Just to give some what of a base line my Y with 3.89 and OD gets 17 mpg on the hiway. I don't run the tank too low so I usually fill it after 280 miles. I never check it around town as I have a heavy foot and don't care about mileage. If I was worried about mileage I would buy a VW. But you already have that covered :003:
My car had a 302 and an AOD in it when I bought it. The 302 was a dog (not sure of year or what condition it was in.) I ditched it for an FE and a Toploader for a nostalgia feel. I would go the AOD and the 351 route as well! If you wanted too at some point you can build a 462 CI Windsor and save 100 lbs over a Y-block or an FE. Gas milage, what is that? Seriously for milage, you might consider EFI and computerized timing control. In any case I think the 351 is a perfect platform even stock for a '57.
thx for the input, Lynn ! I love mechanical fuel injection, like the early Mercedes had, but I do not want any electronics in my cars. I don't understand electronics, I cannot repair that. so EFI is not an option for me. although I have friends that have those modern throttle body injections on old engines (Nailhead) and they love it.
it seems the 351W has a lot of fans out there !? And it truely is a nice engine ! even a '69, very early. which I like !
Your milage figure sounds very reasonable, Jim. Of course you have manual w/ OD and the Ranchero is probably a little lighter than the wagon.
The best I could get out of the 351 with the C6 and 3.25 rear was about 15mpg, at a very steady 65mph, not a single kickdown for that.
The 292/Fordo/3.56 I cannot get much more than 12mpg at 65mph Highway cruising.
To give you guys a figure, gas is approx $5.50/gal at the moment, but usually in summer and at highway station it goes up to $8/gal. So this, and 1000 miles through Italy with their very expensive road toll....and you quickly lose interest in driving old cars.
If I were able to get the 17mpg that Jim stated, that I would be comfortable with. thats about what my 34 with the 302/C4/2.48 rear makes.
Quote from: hiball3985 on 2021-01-14 16:19
Mine is a T85 3 spd with OD. So in OD it would be about 2.56
I don't know what gears they use in cars with AOD, I'm just not up to speed on the modern stuff.
Find out what gears Rich has in his, that should be a good base line.
X2 What Jim stated about the the BW T85 with overdrive. I remember when he was patiently waiting for that particular transmission. They are great transmissions, but very hard to find these days.
I think I could do a little better on fuel but we have a different blend of gas here in the state of fruits and nuts. I tune everything on the conservative side, 34 degrees max total mechanical advance and the carb jetting on the fat side :005:. The wackos would love to kill all the old cars and makes us all have electrics, thats there goal for 2035..
I can second that, Jim. Both cars that I imported from the US and drove there in person, were running great on the domestic fuel, but I had to retune them to our local gas over here, which, at that point, still had zero ethanol in it. The Del Rio and the 351 (that I am talking about in this thread) were running great in Cali, but once over here was loping around like a Diesel truck. I think I had to tighten the idle screws about 3/4 to 1 full turn to get it properly running on this fuel. After that it was running fine without hickups, so it was definitely the different gas. Pretty similar with the 302 in the 34 but it needed less adjustment. when they went to a minimum of 5% ethanol over here, the 34 started having problems after winter storage, and it was only the quickly deteriorating gas. it ran fine again with a fresh tank fill. So at this point I am parking my cars as low as possible on fuel over winter. the 34 has a ss tank, so no concerns. the tank in the 57 CS is still absolutely clean and bare metal inside, so I am not worried either for now.
Quote from: hiball3985 on 2021-01-16 06:41
I think I could do a little better on fuel but we have a different blend of gas here in the state of fruits and nuts. I tune everything on the conservative side, 34 degrees max total mechanical advance and the carb jetting on the fat side :005:.
I think one of the many problems with ethanol is it's ability to absorb water. I don't worry about it were I live, my cars are driven year round and it's a fairly dry climate ( read miserable at times ) but from what others I've talked to that live in the cold/wet they have been storing with full tanks so there is no room for moisture to accumulate and a stabilizer additive. I can't really say if that's correct or not?
Günter
Actually in the long run , this will be your decision.
I have been giving this some thought for a while. Since you already know the 351 and drove it over here , I would be inclined to put that same engine back into the car with an overdrive automatic transmission because you have everything that you need. Gary stated that all of your transmissions will fit. Then you will not have to worry about engine mounts, exhaust system parts and a whole bunch of other stuff that you will have to make or find. All of these tale precious time and you know that we don't have that.
You still have a massive amount of body work to do, especially the unforgiving roof. All of those things, you are perfectly able to do yourself. Don't forget that there is nothing you can do until the frame gets straightened, stretched and aligned.
After the frame is repaired, I would start installing all of the suspension and make it into a rolling chassis again. That would make things a lot easier because you can just push it in and out of the shop when you have time between jobs.
In the long run, I know that you will make the right decision.
Jay
Jay, you are spot on with your thoughts. yes I have the full SBF exhaust system and it is still in good shape.
I was thinking, that when I have the rolling chassis ready, I would try mocking up both the 351/AOD and the Y block/adapter/AOD. I have a spare SBF and spare Y empty blocks, so I dont have to lift all those heavy engines in and out. reasoning, I might be able to come up with ONE transmission crossmember that fits both drivetrains, only the engines would be shoved back and forth a little because of the thick adapter plate (approx 1-1/2") that may be achieved with reversing the motor mounts or just slightly opening up the elongated holes in either or both the motor mounts and frame brackets. That way I could possibly swap the engines, without having to remove or alter the transmission location, crossmember and driveshaft. Of course I need to check firewall and oilpan clearance, but I recall Blair telling me that he had already setback the 351 a little and it was still clearing the firewall. The SBF oilpan to 57 crossmember was a touch and go already, since the motor mounts had sagged. so I would need to shim them up 1/4" or so (even with new mounts. no big deal).
You are absolutely correct on repairing the chassis first. I would then set up the body for a trial fit and replacing body mounts and floorboards. that would be a good time to check for firewall clearance. the body will have to come off again anyways.
The Windsor oil pan to crossmember clearance will dictate engine setback long before the head to firewall clearance. I used a Milodon 'T' pan to get max setback while keeping the engine low.
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/mil-30926
great info, Gary, thx !
you can see where the factory 351W oilpan was aleady rubbing the crossmember.
Quote from: hiball3985 on 2021-01-17 09:41
I think one of the many problems with ethanol is it's ability to absorb water. I don't worry about it were I live, my cars are driven year round and it's a fairly dry climate ( read miserable at times ) but from what others I've talked to that live in the cold/wet they have been storing with full tanks so there is no room for moisture to accumulate and a stabilizer additive. I can't really say if that's correct or not?
I'm sorry for HI-JACKING this thread -
You are correct. Ethanol fuel is meant for newer cars with EVAP SYSTEMS whereas the fuel is not exposed to the atmosphere directly drawing moisture. But even with storing the car with a full tank, it will still draw moisture through the filler pipe and vent. Plus ethanol fuel breaks down fairly rapidly. If long use it needs a fuel stabilizer added.
It is hard on alum parts (carb) if allowed to sit and cleans the fuel system of any built-up crud (varnish) which is then introduced into the carb. It also eats cellulose (paper) filtering materials and plugs the carb.
Ethanol is 5% water. Poorer quality ethanol can have more than 5%. Poorer quality ethanol separates quicker and easier. All my E85 systems are comprised of stainless, PFT(Teflon), anodized or powder coated components which is not a bad idea for any fuel system. The fuel filters are stainless steel mesh which are serviceable. Paper fuel filters break down from the water in separated ethanol. The mushy paper passes through the filter and plug up the injectors.
Guten Tag.
Although I love a y-block, I would also go with the 351W and either the AOD or C4, since it is a known running engine and will have adequate torque to pull the overdrive. The AOD has about the same parasitic loss as the C6. The C4 has less parasitic loss but you would not have the overdrive.
I had a 351W with C4 in my 58 and it did fine. I am now putting in a 408 Cleveland and struggled with whether to go with AOD or C4 and finally opted for the C4 with 3.00 gears since it will have enough torque to pull the taller gears. Plus I also run a C4 in my 54 Gasser and have several C4 cores that I can build.
In your case you have a running 351W and AOD so that would be the most cost effective route. Just be sure to get the throttle valve adjustment done properly before road testing. The AOD might also require a change in governor if you go lower gears like 4.11.
James
Well, since we've already pirated this thread...........I'm using a Ford fuel filter for 1995 Lincoln MarkVIII. I used it just to keep consistency with the drivetrain components as much as possible. So now you guys got me wondering what is actually inside that metal canister. Anybody know? Hope it's not paper. I'd have to check the brand, not sure if the last replacement was Motorcraft, which I would have chosen if available.
interesting point in the paper element fuel filters. I also like to replace all fuel lines with stainless tubing. Our fuel in Austria only has 5% Ethanol, but as mentioned I now leave my cars low on fuel during winter storage.The VW I don't drive enough to even use a gas of tank in a year, so I used stabilizer, which works very well.
James thank you for your further insights on the C4s. I really like those transmissions a lot. They work great for me in everyday driving situation. it would probably be pretty ok in the 57DR with the 351, 3.25 rear and tall rear tires. it might be lighter and a little shorter than the AOD.
There is even another possible combo. I could even use the C4 with the adapter behind the Y block.
Quote from: RICH MUISE on 2021-01-18 16:50
Well, since we've already pirated this thread...........I'm using a Ford fuel filter for 1995 Lincoln MarkVIII. I used it just to keep consistency with the drivetrain components as much as possible. So now you guys got me wondering what is actually inside that metal canister. Anybody know? Hope it's not paper. I'd have to check the brand, not sure if the last replacement was Motorcraft, which I would have chosen if available.
It's time to change the filter and cut the old one open :003: I have no knowledge of newer cars but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't some kind of synthetic materiel.
Quote from: djfordmanjack on 2021-01-18 07:37
great info, Gary, thx !
you can see where the factory 351W oilpan was aleady rubbing the crossmember.
Günter
I can clearly see the oil pan rub marks on the cross member. I think that you had already mentioned that you had to make some steel engine mount spacers. That's what I would do also. It might be risky to replace the engine mounts with new ones
because there is a good chance that you will end up with worthless off shore bubble gum junk that will collapse in a few days.
Jay
absolutely Jay. I am pretty sure that there was plenty of clearance when the car was built 20 years ago, but even oem mounts will settle a bit and we know the new replacement stuff.
Yes, we know about replacement stuff :005: When I removed the original engine for rebuilding I installed a temp engine with new mounts. Driving around for a few days with the hood off and every time I hit the slightest bump in the road you could see the engine bounce around like it was mounted on Jello.
New or old...drill them engine mounts and run a bolt through them.
The 351C pan has the same problem as the 351W. I used 3/8" flat stock to space the mount off the frame brackets and 1/2" flat stock to space the mount off the engine. Pan has a good solid 3/8" to 1/2" clearance now. With out the spacers the pan was sitting on the cross member and there was a small gap on either side depending on which way the engine was pushed.
Forgot, the mounts used are 63 Galaxie 289......
Jay, Jim, Gary and Bill, thnx for further input, much appreciated. gives me lots of ideas to play with!
Gary I take it by a drilling a bolt throught the motor mounts, you mean this as a safety measure, if the rubber should tear ?!? It would only be lightly tightened with a self locking nut ?
Quote from: gasman826 on 2021-01-20 07:44
New or old...drill them engine mounts and run a bolt through them.
Based on your advice a while back I bolted through mine, the third set in as many years. I haven't had an issue since. Great idea.
The idea of bolting the mounts came from the Federal Recall around 1968 to fix GM mount failures. A lot of early recall fixes were really ugly and the GM fix was really high on the list. The fix was a little piece of cable looped around the exhaust manifold and the upper control arm shaft. It looked like something I would have done when I was 16. I had a broken mount in my '63 Galaxie that would hold the throttle linkage WOT. Ford missed the governments wrath. Mind you, I was 16 so my Galaxie and the R code Mustang got a new mount and a short chain welded to the frame and bolted to the head. Ford upgraded most newer vehicles with a rivet through the mount so I just use a bolt with jam nut on older style mounts. Just as effective, invisible and neater than the chain. Moroso or somebody sold a turnbuckle kit to upgrade the chain.
The 1984-1993 Fox Mustang mounts have a safety strap incorporated into the design. They're also a little taller than the earlier mounts.
[img]
Quote from: gasman826 on 2021-01-20 07:44
New or old...drill them engine mounts and run a bolt through them.
Gary... That's a nice trick , drilling and bolting the mount together.
Jim... I in the late 50s l rebuilt the Y block in my 56 Ford and drove it around the block and l got stopped by the cops.
I forgot to state that I still had the hood off the car. They didn't give me a ticket after I told them that I just installed the
engine and was just testing driving it
Rich It was the MDC police Do you remember them when you lived here? They later merged with the Registry police, Mass
Capital police and State Police.
Thats funny Jay. I guess it was never illegal here in Calif. There was a period of time for years many guys ran without a hood.
Forgot to mention the mounts used were 63 Galaxie 289. Might be the Mustang mounts would work better without the spacers? I'll add this info to my original post....
Quote from: Ford Blue blood on 2021-01-20 08:23
The 351C pan has the same problem as the 351W. I used 3/8" flat stock to space the mount off the frame brackets and 1/2" flat stock to space the mount off the engine. Pan has a good solid 3/8" to 1/2" clearance now. With out the spacers the pan was sitting on the cross member and there was a small gap on either side depending on which way the engine was pushed.
Forgot, the mounts used are 63 Galaxie 289......
My 55 Crown has a 351c and whoever put it in there sure got it mounted low. Have to go see what motor mounts it has and how much oil pan clearance, but it does not get driven very hard or often anyway. This discussion makes me suspect it may be Galaxie 289 mounts as well.
I bought a pair or two of the 63 Galaxie 289 mounts, but didn't use them as they looked prone to separation. My son took a pair to use for a 5.0 engine swap into a Datsun 280zx. I have the triangular Butch's Rod Shop? adapter mounts on the 351C sitting here for my 57. I also modified those by welding a triangular plate across on one open side for strength. Only need access from one end, I think...
Have not set the motor/trans in yet to see engine height and pan clearance, or figured if the forward or rearward holes in plates that bolt to block are the better position, but need to finish up underside of body right now. I am going to Florida for a month and don't want it sitting in bare metal while I am gone cuz wood heat in back garage will be taking a break also.
If I didn't already have these aftermarket mounts (which I actually bought to install a 351w in a 54 Merc tudor, but sold the car after pole building collapse....), I would be inclined to try those 84-93 Mustang mounts though. They look quite sturdy and I like the descending angles of the block mount segments better than the right angle connections of these aftermarket pieces.
Oh wow, that is nice additional info ! didn't think about that before. but those appear to be the typical early Ford/streed rod donut rubber mounts that are easily available. I even have them on my 34 that Jay built in the 1980s. they are similar type of thick flame cut upper plates and those early Ford donuts. those triangular bottom brackets could also be built from scratch.
Quote from: djfordmanjack on 2021-01-22 13:02
Oh wow, that is nice additional info ! didn't think about that before. but those appear to be the typical early Ford/streed rod donut rubber mounts that are easily available. I even have them on my 34 that Jay built in the 1980s. they are similar type of thick flame cut upper plates and those early Ford donuts. those triangular bottom brackets could also be built from scratch.
Günter
This may or may not help you with donut selections. (Not the kind that you would get at Dunkin donuts).
If you have or can find some early original Ford flathead donuts around 1934, they are encapsulated with real metal and they do not collapse like the mystery rubber chewing gum garbage that is sold today. That's what I use whenever I can. They also work well with other overhead Ford engines.
FWIW Sorry....The nice early Ford donuts do not come with a cup of coffee. Jay
I've used Fox Body 5.0 Mustang mounts for mounting SBF.. I've flipped the mounts from side to side to side as that moves the engine back closer to the firewall and up higher than other mounts to enable the use of an early front sump oil pan with no clearance issues at all Using the 5.0 mounts in the position where it moves the engine back and up gives you more radiator to fan room. With the engine mounted higher it look better in the bay as a SBF is small looking compared to a Y-Block. Ebay mustang 5.0 S.S Shorty Headers will work too. You don't need to but, I made up small a jig using an old 302 head to that pulls the pipe closer to the head with a clamp bolted through the spark plug hole on old head to move the #2 pipe in just a little so I didn't need to trim the upper control arm shaft bolts for clearance much and it looks correct.
The trick to making the 5.0 mounts fit the original cross member is to slot out one of the original cross member engine mount bolt holes into into a large triangle just like a factory 5.0 mustang cross member. This lets the 5.0 larger diameter engine mount stud drop right in a large triangulated opening when setting it in place. I use factory 5.0 motor mount nuts as they have a nice large flange but you can use a flat washer. I'm triangulating the mount holes on all '57's, even Y-Block cars, now as it lets you get close to the motor mount holes and the engine drops right in place more easily.
One other note with 5.0 mount is the stud sticking out of the mount is at a slightly different height between left and right mounts. You should level the motor in the mounting triangulated slots when the studs slide down in the now-triangulated cross member mount. Only one side(drivers side if I remember correctly) will be up slightly in the triangulated hole. Tighten the the mount stud nuts and it will set nice.
thanx for the additional info on motor mounts and/or oil pan clearance. those triangular holes sound easy enough to make with a power grinder. yes the canted motor mounts can be a pain when dropping an engine in with the mounts in place and the elongated/enlarged holes seem to cut that problem just fine.
Jay I know the dished metal washers and encapsuled donuts, that you are talking about. definitely better than just a cheap rubber gum.
Again, thanx for the wealth of information and ideas this thread has collected from everybody. much more than I had ever hoped for!
Don't forget to figure in the tire height when figuring rear gearing.
My 57 Skyliner has the stock 3.56 gears but, I went to H78x15's on 15" KH wires. It cruises at 70 all day long.
I figure the gearing is about equal to 3.10 with this combo.
Good luck,
Ron.