351W Motor Mount Problem Need advice

[KYBlueOval]

Last Friday, with the help of some friends, we mounted the Ranchero body on the frame. The actual mounting of the body was relatively easy, but the body clearance to the engine and transmission is now a problem.
I used motor mounts for a '84-'93 Fox Body Mustang and the entire drive line was set up without the body being in place. Lesson learned!
But the transmission/ transmission tunnel clearance is too tight (4R70W) As I look at the motor mounts, I think that is the issue. The motor sits too high.
I've done some research here on the Forum and read about motor mounts for '63 Galaxies and '87 Broncos that might be the better choice. Looks like I'll have to pull the engine and transmission to change the mounts, but first I need some advice on what motor mounts I should be using. Thought I had done it right, but I'm obviously wrong, based on the lack of transmission clearance.
So, I look to the Forum to set me straight and select the correct motor mounts.
I'm looking for and hoping for your advice, thoughts and comments.
John
 

[RICH MUISE]

So, what is "too tight"? I'm only responding here because I have the 4R70W tranny, and it fits without any cutting, but there is not a ton of room. If I remember correctly, the closest point is right at the u-joint because it is right under a floor support.
John you may have to remind us what your engine is........lol.......before long I may not remember what mine is.
Also, too high, or maybe too far back?
oops.....engine is in title.duhhhhh!!

[gasman826]

With 351W and AOD (same other dimensions as 4R70), I used '63-64 Galaxie 289 mounts.  Depending which oil pan used, the mounts may require shims for oil pan to cross member clearance.  I never tried any of the stock pans.  I cheaped out and used a Moroso.  The Milodon pan clears cross member much better.  The bottom of the pan is slightly higher than the bottom of the cross member.  Headers cleared everything.  No tunnel mods for the transmission.  PS and center link all cleared.

[Ford Blue blood]

John, the 351C/AOD install in my Ranchero was with 63/4 Galaxie 289 mounts.  Because of the deeper pan on the 351C&Ws the mount needs to be spaced 3/4" from the engine bosses where the mount bolts up.  I was a little nervous about how close the pan was at that point so I placed a 3/16 spacer between the chassis and the engine mount.  I can just barely force my little finger between the cross member and the pan.  I'm comfortable with the clearance and there is no "close fit" anywhere with the transmission.

[KYBlueOval]

Thanks to all that replied. I really do appreciate your input. Don't ask why I didn't do this to begin with..........I don't know why I did not. But that's in the rear view mirror.............I'm looking forward ,and I'll get this fixed. October is rather busy for me. Several weddings out of town plus life. So, this may take awhile before it is fixed, as I don't believe I can just lift the engine/trans and replace the motor mounts. I think the Engine/trans will need to be removed, and I might need to modify the mounting slot in the frame bracket. Time will tell.
Thanks again to all.
John

[gasman826]

I would change the mounts in the car.  It would be easier than taking the engine and transmission out.  The engine will need to be suspended but you will need to do that to add shims.  Like suspension bushings, put the mounts in loose until the engine is setting on them so they can take a 'set'.  New mounts often fit poorly.

[brushwolf]

I went thru the same thing with 351C and T10.  Late Mustang mounts, original 73 Mustang mounts, and Butch's aftermarket mounts were all way too high. 70's pickup and 64 Galaxie mounts too low.  Yet all of these have reportedly been successfully used on one swap or another by other hobbiests.

Suspect you picked the late Mustang mounts cuz they appear very sturdy which is why I thought about using them too. But, I must do things the hard way so I modified my Butch's conversion mounts by cutting the bases apart and welding them back together which lowered the motor about an inch and I still have decent pan and firewall clearance. 

63 Galaxie T10 trans mount bolted right up as well on original crossmember with input bearing retainer off a 62 T10 to match the 70's bellhousing center hole.  Clutch linkage was almost as much fun as the motor mounts too with modifying just about everything to work and by using a GM 60's era screw in pivot ball on the engine side.

1st pic is final install, 2nd is original height with reinforcement welded on one side and the 3rd is what Butch's mounts look like out of the box....

[SkylinerRon]

I've found that the easiest way for diagonal mounts like 57's is to set the mounts on  the cm with the stud(s) through the holes(s), start the nut(s) on to the studs a couple turns then lower the engine down until you can start the bolts into the block. Once started slowly lower the engine on to the mounts and tighten everything up.
Good luck,
Ron.

[KYBlueOval]

Thanks to brushwolf and Ron for your replies.
Ron, your method is exactly the same as what I've done. It works well I might add.

brushwolf, a picture is worth a thousand words...........Your photos speak volumes.
John

[59meteor]

I also have to wonder about the quality and dimensional accuracy of some of the off shore aftermarket motor mounts. My 59 was a factory 332 FE car, and when I installed the 428CJ FE engine, I bought a new pair of Anchor brand motor mounts, for a 59 Ford with a 332. The mounts came in a box that said "Made in India", and although they bolted up to the engine side fine, when I lowered the engine onto the chassis, the lower studs bottomed out in the slots of the engine cross member , with the mounts still about 3/8" from resting on the brackets of the cross member. Since my Canton oil pan was already fairly close the the crossmember, I decided to put a pair of thick washers on each mount, between the bottom of the mount and the crossmember brackets. I know this doesn`t directly pertain to the swap in question, but it does make a person wonder about the quality of what should be a pretty simple to make part, that is made in a 3rd world country, 1/2 way around the world.

[brushwolf]

Thanks to brushwolf and Ron for your replies.
Ron, your method is exactly the same as what I've done. It works well I might add.

brushwolf, a picture is worth a thousand words...........Your photos speak volumes.
John

I see now that 1st pic was just testing the tacked new position to see how it fit before fully welding it. Later I welded the unfinished bottom seams and cut off outboard 1/2" of thick motor plates cuz they would have hit the base of mount under acceleration torque.  I could have cut the bottom pointed section off the frame plate too and welded a horizontal piece there also - and may still do so, but doing other projects outside now while the weather holds.

[terry_208]

Clutch linkage was almost as much fun as the motor mounts too with modifying just about everything to work and by using a GM 60's era screw in pivot ball on the engine side.

Could you elaborate on the clutch linkage and the screw in pivot ball?  I am almost ready to do this same install, both engine and clutch linkage.

[brushwolf]

I did not keep close track of what I did, but I got the engine side ball out of a misc drawer I had and luckily it was same size and threads as the hole in the block and the ball fit the brass Z bar bushings as well.  I suspect you could make one by welding a ball off the Ford bracket on to the appropriate threaded bolt or just look up some Ford or 60's GM clutch balls on the web and get one that way. Not sure what mine was from cuz I have parted so many cars.

I had positioned the motor fairly close to the firewall by mounting the 63 toploader transmission on a stock mount which caused the block hole for the engine side clutch ball to sit out of alignment with the frame ball and bracket.  Too far back and higher vertically as well.

So, I cut most of the sides off a 6" long piece of heavy 3/16" wall square tubing, drilled holes in forward end of the bottom tubing section to match the frame bracket existing bolt holes, and then a larger hole in the same location on the top piece of square tubing to get the stock frame bolts through to hold it in position and also not interfere with locating the stock frame bracket on top of this adapter.

Then I figured how far rearward I had to drill holes to fit the frame bracket to this adapter and drilled those in just the top half, welded nuts inside the top half to position the mounting bolts for the stock bracket further back to align with engine ball.  Tacked the bottom and top halves together to test fit, took it off again, welded top and bottom together, cleaned it up and painted it.

So, that moved the frame side bracket ball up vertically about 3/4" to 7/8" and 2" to 3" to the rear to align with motor side ball. I do not recall if I used a 57 or 58 rod from clutch pedal to top of Z bar, but it is the adjustable version. Probably could have just welded the adapter to the car frame too, but did not want to do that.

IIRC, next I had an issue with upper curved arm on the Z bar hitting the 58 steering sector and the lower short arm of the z bar being the wrong angle. I cut the curved arm off, repositioned and welded it back to the bar for maximum travel without hitting the steering gear. I don't recall if I cut the bottom short bar and changed that too, but I think I did cuz it was too close to the motor and poorly aligned with the clutch arm. I also used a late 60's Mustang adjustable clutch arm activation piece between the lower Z bar arm and the clutch arm because I wanted maximum adjustability.

I wanted it to remain basically stock mechanical linkage, but setting up a hydraulic clutch might not have been much more complicated.  But I have had issues with leaky hydraulic clutch setups in newer cars, so decided to just keep it old school...

[terry_208]

Thanks.  I appreciate the explanation.  I'm sorry for hijacking your thread, John.