I can't remember the correct order the core support mounting parts go in. The pictures I took 1 1/2 years ago, at the time made perfect sense now might as well be in Klingon. Does anyone have a diagram that will help assemble this thing correctly? Thanks
I'm in the same boat. Somebody posted an assy drawing a year or two back, and I made a copy of it, but can't find it either. As for the bolt, I do remember all the spacers have to be used, whether on top or under, to take up the length of the bolt. What I don't remember and am looking for is whether the big curved spring/plate has the ends up (against the core support), or down (against the crossmember). may not make any difference.
I've kept my eye open for a new/nos main bolt, but have never seen one.
Was your question in reference to the sheetmetal parts? I don't have that diagram either.
Rich
Rich
When you find out which way the core support spring goes, let us know. I probably have mine in wrong. Jay
Mine is missing completely, I used a rubber donut thingy I found in a box of junk and locking nut just snugged down :003:
Both the Ranchero and the Retractable have the "spring" down against the cross member. My 60 wagon is like that too. Need to check the Edsel as I know it has never been apart.
Thanks Bill. I'll tell Jay.
Jay.....
Hiball. The entire front end sheetmetal attaches to that core support, which is anchored in the center with that one bolt. With the "spring", the spacers give some up and down adjustment to the nose of the car, depending on where you put them, and that "curved spring plate" gives enough support to hold that adjustment, yet still have some bounce in it. Your rubber donut may be working fine, but if you're having any trouble with nose alignment....
Thanks Rich,
I know how it's suppose to be but the spring was missing when I got the car, it didn't even have a nut on the bolt, the rubber donut is just temporary until I find a spring.. It's been working fine so far.
I didn't lose the diagram...I lost my memory. It's in the buletins I posted in "technical diagrams". Buletin 337, page 2
http://57fordsforever.com/smf/index.php?topic=3238.0
Note: spring is shown in diagram with ends up.
Thank you Rich, that was the diagram I was looking for, now saved on my computer where I won't remember where it is. Now I see I'm missing more then the spring :005:. Mine only had the bolt and a couple of shims...
I see replacement pucks that are listed as rubber, is that correct?
The bulletin is saved here, in our "technical Diagrams" board....where I didn't remember it was. Yes, rubber. or, "Little Rubber Puckies" I believe I got mine from Dennis Carpenter or classicautoparts.
Now the question is, did we answer 57 imposter's question?
Quote from: RICH MUISE on 2013-10-29 10:02
Now the question is, did we answer 57 imposter's question?
I thought the link to the diagram covered it.
Thanks for finding that Rich. Of all the ways to put that together, I would have never come up with the correct option. I know I was missing the rubber bushings so will get them ordered. Carpenter lists them for about $2.00 a pair. I am almost positive that my support assy. was assembled wrong. I was worried about getting the proper core support height as I am sure that will affect hood fit and front fender to door gaps.
Quote from: hiball3985 on 2013-10-29 10:09
I thought the link to the diagram covered it.
I wasn't sure if he was looking for the info in the diagram, or how all the sheetmetal components fit together around the core support. I had a question a while back about whether the leading edge of the inner fender wells was inside the nose piece, or outboard from the fender. Guys here posted both ways.
Just ordered my $2.00 rubber pads with a $9.99 freight charge. Irritating since I know I could have made them had I known the proper thickness. If it will help anyone, when I get mine I will post all the correct dimensions and you can make your own. I will probably have to make some more shims also as I only have two. having a sample, that will be an easy fix.
Quote from: 57 imposter on 2013-10-29 18:55
... I am sure that will affect hood fit and front fender to door gaps.
Hang the fenders and get the correct fender to door gap first and then shim the core support
OK, both the Ranchero and the Retractable were evidently put together wrong in their past life, the Edsel is exactly as the drawing shows. The wagon was apart when I got it (bolt was missing and the spring was broken) so it was not a good referance point. Sorry for the bad info there guys.
Got my rubber bushings from Carpenter yesterday and nothing about them seems to be correct. First off the bolt shaft is 1/2" in dia. and the bushings have a 3/8" hole. Quite a stretch since the rubber is fairly stiff. second, both bushings are 3/8" thick. That didn't look right either so i assembled the core support mount per the dia. from the service manual and measured the distance from the spring to the bottom of the core support at .590. If I allow for the .090 clearance they want from the bushing to the core support, the top bushing needs to be 1/2" thick. I also don't believe there is any way I will be able to start the nut with the bottom bushing installed. I'm just going to make bushings from rubber i have left over from body mount kits. If you need bushings for your core support, I would sure think twice before I ordered these.
Thats good to know about the Carpenter pieces. I ordered two from Mac's but won't be here until next week and I'll post the results. Probably the same thing..
I'll be working on mine hopefully soon...but I assumed the .09 they were looking for was after the bolt was tightened and there was some compresion on the spring. Were you measuring yours uncompressed?
I had it completely assembled and the nut tight when I took the .590 measurement.
Retracts are different than all other 57's, they have 2 coil springs and a different thru bolt.
Regular cars pads are 1.5" O.D., .290" Thick (above the C/M pad). 1.10" O.D., .50 Thick (below the C/M pad). Shims are .12 Thick, 2.25"X2.25" square w/2 notched corners. Retract shims are 2.25" X 1 53/64" Oblong.
Goodluck,
Ron.
Also you can freeze rubber and drill it if needed.
Ron.
Your dimensions are not even close to what Carpenter supplied. And yes, the bag was marked "core support bushings 57 and 58 Ford". I wish I could say these were the only rubber parts i have received from Carpenter that were a problem but they are far from it. Unfortunately they seem to pretty much have a corner on the market for these cars.
I'll second the "thanks" for the info. I had no idea how it all went together, at least I now know what bits I'm looking for in one of the big box of bits that the previous owner removed & filed away.
I just received my pucks from MAC's, both are identical:
OD: 1.52"
THICK: .320
HOLE: .420
honestly, it is annoying a simple part can't be made right, but in this case I can't see it as being a big deal...just add a washer or two until the .09 is close. I haven't even looked at the ones I bought years ago..they're still in a box on the shelf.
Quote from: RICH MUISE on 2013-11-06 14:38
honestly, it is annoying a simple part can't be made right, but in this case I can't see it as being a big deal...just add a washer or two until the .09 is close. I haven't even looked at the ones I bought years ago..they're still in a box on the shelf.
A lot of the aftermarket stuff is disappointing even from reputable dealers. I've order a cowl vent seal from both MAC's and Carpenter and neither has been correct :cussing:
I dug out my pucks I bought 5 or 6 years ago. Both are .290 thick, 1.50 dia. Mine both have a .570 Dia hole..... The bolt shaft is 9/16, not 1/2, on mine, so the .570 hole is perfect. My old bag of parts also had a 3rd rubber washer, about 1/8 thick...I'm guessing was used to build up the puck at the spring to get to the .09 spacing. my oem pucks are long gone..so can't compare the new ones.
That 3rd rubber washer may explain why at least the new sets have 2 washers of the same thickness...maybe Ford used that thinner one with one of the thick ones on top. I'm pretty sure when I disassembled mine, it was the first time it came apart.
The more I think about the less I like this design :003: Why does the front end need to bounce around on a spring when the rest of the body is solid to the frame?? Maybe because the rear of the frame flexes more then the front so the front sheet metal has to follow the body?
My car is a long ways from a restoration. The OEM frame is a noodle but it rides nice. Since I was going to more power and doing suspension upgrades, I reinforced (short of caging) the frame so there is little to no flex. Like I said before, hang the front fenders to the cowl so the door gaps are correct and then shim the core support. I made the rubber cushions and tossed the spring. I snugged it down just like the rest of the body mounts. No squeaks, binding, or fatigue cracked metal. No issues at all and I'll do it again.
I don't have a spring either, just a couple of donuts and have it snugged down, it's never been a problem.
The spring mount is to cut down on metal fatigue to the radiator.
Ron.
My core support is custom and the radiator has rubber mounts.
I couldn't find my core support spring when I was putting it back together so I used a small one from a leaf spring. Just found the correct one yesterday but its going to stay the way it is because the doors line up very nicely.
:deadhorse: but anyways....got mine assembled so I could start on the radiator and core support/hoses, etc. Of course It will probably need adjusting as it was designed for when I get the front sheetmetal on. I just guessed at the single shim above, and two below. It is currently at .09 to the core support from the top rubber puckie, but the nut is not tightened all the way. After I add all the additional weight to the core support, and tighten the nut, I'm guessing that the 1/8 rubber washer will have to come out to keep the recommended.09.
Rich