| len47merc | -- 02-24-2017 @ 5:08 PM |
|
Any magic or science to tightening the front motor mounts on '46-'48 59ABs? The originals on the car were shot and unable to be 'copied' in terms of 'bulge', and the first set I put on the car when bringing it back to life was recently found to have been labeled correctly but were the incorrect part for this application. Some of you may recall the thread on that and my error in not comparing the new set to the originals. Now I have a new correct set in hand and plan on installing it tomorrow. Basically is it all just personal feel or do any of you have a tried-and-true method to consistently hit the 'optimum' tightness mark every time? Steve
|
|
| cliftford | -- 02-24-2017 @ 5:55 PM |
|
Steve, I don't ever recall seeing any torque specs for this. I've always tightened them until I see some bulge. Then I start the engine. rev it a few times and watch for excessive engine movement. Maybe someone has more information than I have. but I don't think it is all that critical in terms of ft/lbs of torque.
|
|
| len47merc | -- 02-24-2017 @ 6:16 PM |
|
Thanks cliftford - yeah, that's been how I've attempted to do this myself. Searched for a while today to see if there was any definitive, objective process information and couldn't find any. Thought I'd ask a stupid question and maybe learn something beyond what made sense to me the first go on an EFV8. Seems there should be something - too loose and (minor) clutch chatter results, too tight and excessive engine vibration through the car, etc.. In the absence of anything definitive I'll follow my gut again and follow the procedure similar to what you stated, this with the intent to get them just tight enough to eliminate any clutch chatter yet soft/loose enough to let the mounts absorb the inherent vibration from the motor. Just hate to possibly go through multiple iterations to get it 'just right' if a procedure exists to short cut the time and effort. Thanks again - Steve
|
|
| len47merc | -- 02-25-2017 @ 6:31 AM |
|
Decided, given the castle nut/cotter pin design of these new mounts (Drake/Carpenter), to simply tighten until the cotter pin hole was exposed just enough/first castle to allow pin insertion and call it a day. Both bottom and top bushings are tight/cannot be rotated and the bottoms have just the very slightest amount of perceptible compression/bulge. Will report back later today on effectiveness (engine movement, clutch chatter vs. engine vibration). Fwiw Steve
|
|
| supereal | -- 02-25-2017 @ 1:31 PM |
|
Be sure that you have all the parts, including the cupped and flat washers. Some kits have been shipped with just the rubber pieces. A good kit with also have the special stepped bolt. Tightening is no big deal, except someone will have to hold the bottom of the bolt while you tighten the castle nut until there is a noticeable bulge in the big donut.
|
|
| Drbrown | -- 02-25-2017 @ 8:07 PM |
|
len47merc .... went through that experience with my '47 59AB about year and half ago. No one ever seemed to be aware of any torque spec. The kit I bought from Steele Rubber Products provided everything except the wide flat washers that go on top, underneath the water pump arms - no problem, cleaned and reused existing. The parts matched appearance wise but when done the water pump arms sat about a 1/4 to 3/8 inch higher than before. I had to use a lot of muscle to tighten those castle bolts down enough to get the cotter pins installed. The new rubber didn't "squish" much at all and there seemed to be a small amount of vibration right after installation. However, after I drove the car a number times everything settled in and all is good now. I did check the carb linkage, exhaust pipe clearances and the clutch never acted up. This message was edited by Drbrown on 2-25-17 @ 8:08 PM
|
|
| len47merc | -- 02-26-2017 @ 5:18 AM |
|
supereal - appreciate the reply and I have confirmed I have all the parts. Drbrown - your description is almost exactly as I have found these new mounts' behavior to be. While the amount of torque required to get the castle nut to clear the cotter pin hole did seem perhaps a bit high to me, I will correct my earlier statement and say that at this 'minimum' tightness required to get the cotter pin in that the bottom bushing is now quite more bulged than I'd expected is 'should' be. Again, that's only my limited experience expectation. The new top bushing did not bulge nearly as much as I expected - almost imperceptibly, but the bottom much, much more - perhaps this is normal(?). And yes - the clutch is as smooth as it ever was now, maybe even better. To your point there is a noticeable amount of vibration on the first two very short test drives at a couple of specific rpms/harmonics that I've never felt before that has an item or two vibrating/rattling that also never have before. Not oppressively bad but you can feel it in the steering wheel at those rpms. Initially I was considering removing the cotter pins and castle nuts and installing the original Marsden nuts so I would not have to tighten them quite as much but thought perhaps the mounts just need to 'settle in' and I'd drive it for a hundred miles or so to see if it did improve before taking this step. Based on your experience and comments I feel a bit better about this being the case. Follow-up later with results and perhaps a pic of the bottom bushing 'bulge'. Thanks again guys - Steve This message was edited by len47merc on 2-26-17 @ 5:42 AM
|
|
| len47merc | -- 02-26-2017 @ 7:52 AM |
|
Went out for a 45 mile Sunday morning cruise and notice a more than perceptible improvement today in the engine vibration so will let this go for a while to see if it completely 'settles in' as Drbrown put it. Attached is a pic of the passenger side bottom mount bushing. The top bushing is so stiff that I can see little to no compression of it, only the bottom bushing seems to be compressed and to my inexperienced eye (on this issue anyway) it seems excessively so, but perhaps this is normal for the repop mounts - ? The original top and bottom bushings, which had 37K miles on them, were equally compressed, relatively speaking. Given the clutch is so smooth and the engine vibration appears to be improving perhaps this is correct. Note again the bottom and top bushings have been confirmed to be seated correctly, all parts are installed in the correct orientation, and the castle nut was only tightened to the absolute minimum tightness to insert the cotter pin at the corresponding first 'castle'. Thanks kubes40 to your reply on the other thread. If long-term, acceptable engine vibration improvement is not realized on this set I'll give Drake's a go. Carpenter is so close and given these are replacements to correct the erroneously provided first set it was necessary to go with theirs for this iteration. Their top bushing seems extraordinarily stiff compared to the bottom. Comments on the bottom bushing 'bulge' appreciated. Steve This message was edited by len47merc on 2-26-17 @ 7:56 AM
|
|
| len47merc | -- 02-26-2017 @ 7:59 AM |
|
Man I do this a lot - attached is the pic. Steve
|
|
| kubes40 | -- 02-26-2017 @ 8:17 AM |
|
The bolts that come with the repop mounts are shorter than the authentic. That may be why it seems you have to compress the rubber so much. Drake, in my opinion, makes the best quality mounts. However, his bolts are also too short. My .02¢? Use his rubber mounts and the authentic bolts.
|
|
| len47merc | -- 02-26-2017 @ 8:21 AM |
|
Thanks again Mike. Btw - optimally, and IYourHO, should there be some degree of bulge in the bottom bushing, just not as much as shown in my photo above? Or should it be snugged to just the point that the bottom mount bushing is firm, will not rotate and the sides of the bushing are not bulging? Steve
|
|
| len47merc | -- 02-26-2017 @ 9:49 AM |
|
kubes40's comments about the bolt length got me to thinking (dangerous I know), so I removed one mount bolt and mic'd it against the original. FYI Mike/all - the original and the new one from DC have basically the same dimensions all-around with the lone very-minor variance of 'not-real' significance is that the new bolt is 0.025" shorter than the original - not even a thread. Found the same true for both bolts btw so this shortness question does not exist for this specific set of mounts. After my earlier experience with the prior set of mounts I should've mic'd this versus the eyeballing to ensure, other than the castle vs. Marsden nut, everything was the same. The issue here upon even more examination now is that the newer castle nut/cotter pin design requires far more tightening of the nut to adequately and minimally clear the cotter pin hole to allow (stiff) insertion of the pin. Removing the castle nut and installing the original Marsden nut, scr*w*ng it on to the minimum level necessary to ensure it bites/locks on the bolt's threads, yields almost 1/8" more length between the inside of the head of the mount bolt and the bottom of the Marsden nut. That's a lot of difference and on the car the side of the bottom bushing is only barely bulged out versus the pic above. It is tight enough with this much tightness of the nut that the bottom bushing cannot be rotated and feels stiffer on the side than when not compressed at all. I'm uncomfortable leaving the bottom bushing so squeezed long term so the plan is to go back with the Marsden nuts and re-look at the resulting clutch and engine vibration performance. I'll take a pic and post it after re-install. One other piece of data for all is that the new bottom bushing from DC is much softer and less stiff than the identical piece on the previous set with a few thousand miles on it that likely was never properly compressed. After running through this test with the Marsden nut if performance is not optimum to me the plan is to then keep the Marsden nut configuration and try the previous, stiffer bottom bushing along with the balance of the new DC components. Like Tom stated it is unfortunate to have to go through exercises and iterations like this with repops. Perhaps this could have been avoided with Drake mounts had conditions in this circumstance not required DC. Follow-up later with results - Steve This message was edited by len47merc on 2-26-17 @ 10:12 AM
|
|
| len47merc | -- 02-26-2017 @ 10:51 AM |
|
For those of you sitting on the edge of your seats waiting in anxious anticipation on how this will turn out, attached is a pic of the same bottom mount bushing with a Marsden nut scr*w*d on with minimal tightness to ensure it bites/locks onto the bolt threads. Note the difference in compression between this pic and the earlier pic (earlier pic had the castle nut/cotter pin). Out for a drive. Will follow-up with results while watching the race this afternoon. EDIT - recommend right-clicking on each pic's link and opening each in a new tab to allow for an easy comparison. Fwiw Steve This message was edited by len47merc on 2-26-17 @ 10:56 AM
|
|
| len47merc | -- 02-26-2017 @ 10:53 AM |
|
And once again dang it I did it again - here's the pic. Steve
|
|
| Drbrown | -- 02-26-2017 @ 11:59 AM |
|
len47merc .... to fill in my experience a little: The front mounts in my '47 car were original. The top pad, which bears the engine weight, was very squished and marshmellowie (I just invented that word ? ). In fact, the top and underside rubbers were so weathered, soft and squished that the bolts were dangling loose !! I don't know what kept the engine from shifting around all those years .... perhaps the shape of the rubber pads, the tranny pad, torque-tube drive design or slow starts. The replacement bolts and nuts from Steele Rubber matched the originals in shape and dimension, as did their rubber pads. I had a tough time getting the lower pads that go under the frame to stay in the frame-hole. Then I had to put a small hydration jack on the floor under the bolt head, then lower the weight of the car onto the jack to force the bolt high enough up to get the castle nut started on it from the engine compartment. An initial problem was that I have no lift and couldn't find a place under the motor to jack the water pump arms up (steering arms, sway bar and frame in-way). Jacking the oil pan raised the engine and car ! The solution was a 24" carpenter's crow bar (hook at end) placed on the car frame to pry/lift the water pump arm or exhaust manifold up enough to remove/replace the parts. My take is that the tension resulting from tightening the bolt is what squishes the rubber on the underside. The rubber part on top of the frame takes the engine's weight, and that is what needs to slowly compress and settle-in.
|
|
| len47merc | -- 02-26-2017 @ 1:05 PM |
|
Thanks Drbrown for adding some more depth and context - very helpful to me. I'm not having any install problems but... Following up on earlier, all the Marsden nut change did was lighten the compression on the bottom bushing of these DC mounts. The top DC bushing seems to have virtually no cushion or compress-ability at all. Absolutely no change in the new engine vibration realized when changing to the Marsden nuts, likely due to the very hard top mounts, but with the lessened compression on the bottom bushings I am feeling the clutch chatter wanting to rear its head again ever so slightly. Wow. Now - the top bushings of these DC mounts are so darn hard and stiff they are not visually compressing at all either from the weight of the engine or from the weight plus the tightened bolts, and they basically are acting more like solid mounts between the engine and frame and provide little to no cushion. Glad these things are so easy to change... I'm going back (temporarily) to the previous (wrong) set and will include the MacGuyver'd washers with the original bolts and Marsden nuts. They were working far better all around than these DC's, and the top bushings, though used and somewhat permanently compressed, at least have more cushion and compress-ability left in them for the weight of the engine versus the rock/steel-hard DC's top bushing - none of the new engine vibration created by the DC mounts was realized with them. What an effort. Shouldn't be this hard, either to troubleshoot all these non-intuitive issues or to simply correct the original problem with a new set of mounts. Recall this all started over the slow, gradual appearance of clutch chatter over time (different thread) caused by the erroneous mounts and associated collapsing of the top bushings over not so many miles. Ordering a set of Drake's or Steele's tomorrow. Hopefully this all will be of help to someone else down the road and value is realized. Keepin' the faith in here in NC... Steve This message was edited by len47merc on 2-26-17 @ 2:43 PM
|
|
| kubes40 | -- 02-26-2017 @ 3:10 PM |
|
Steve, Perhaps (apparently?) the bolts included in the recent kits have been changed to better copy the originals. For a long time, they were supplied with bolts about 1/4" shorter than the authentic. I've got a bunch that quite frankly I should probably just toss out. Regardless, it's good to know that the current offering is correct. I find the lower bushing bulges a bit when I install new mounts. I never have had an issue with chatter if that means anything.
|
|
| TomO | -- 02-27-2017 @ 6:33 AM |
|
Steve, I think that DC gets his bushings from Steele. Another set may give you the flexibility that you want as the hardness may not be uniform from one production run to another. This is a problem with small production runs and slow sales. I hope everyone notices the GLOSS paint left on your chassis. The semi-gloss or low gloss paints were not used by Ford and when I see the chassis and engine parts painted with the low gloss alternatives, it kinda grates on my feelings. Tom
|
|
| len47merc | -- 02-27-2017 @ 11:09 AM |
|
Thanks Tom - very good info. Calling Drake later today. Replaced the DC's as noted above and clutch/vibration issues all resolved again. Cannot live with a MacGuyver'd solution though, regardless of how effective it is given the virgin nature of the car and the ongoing plans for showings and maintenance and continuation of the Rouge Award/cert & judgings. Steve
|
|
| Drbrown | -- 02-27-2017 @ 11:52 AM |
|
TomO: I've seen chit-chat in threads/postings about using semi-gloss paint for the inner engine compartment side panels, air filters etc. So your comment about using gloss black had me go back to my Early Ford V8 Club book. Sure enough, on page 5-2 it talks about "gloss black" being standard for '41-'48 inner panels with the exception of radiators etc. Thanks for mentioning that. The book doesn't seem to mention engine parts and its not clear about gloss vs. semi for other misc parts in the compartment. This message was edited by Drbrown on 2-27-17 @ 11:56 AM
|
|
| TomO | -- 02-28-2017 @ 8:08 PM |
|
Drbrown, I don't remember any semi-gloss paints being used in the engine compartment. All of the paint under the hood of my low mileage original 53 Lincoln is gloss and my memory tells me that the Ford and Mercury cars also used gloss paint under the hood and on the chassis. My memory is not as good as it as it was when I was younger, so if you have any doubts about what is correct, contact the Club's adviser for your car. Tom
|
|
| Drbrown | -- 02-28-2017 @ 10:43 PM |
|
TomO .... Didn't mean to get off-topic here. I would follow the Early Ford V8 book and use gloss black on my inner fender panels. Their only noted exception is dull black for the radiator. Apparently the underside of the hoods were done with either gloss black or the car's body color. I'm not doing any engine parts (air cleaner, generator) but as said, the Early Ford book just says "black". This message was edited by Drbrown on 2-28-17 @ 10:45 PM
|
|
| len47merc | -- 03-01-2017 @ 7:50 AM |
|
Confirming TomO's accurate observation that the original remaining areas of the black paint on the frame of this '47 under the hood and found in other areas under the body are indeed gloss black, this before bringing this back to the Topic Title. As noted in the '41-'48 Ford Book on page 5-2 and found in actual existence on this '47, various 'shades' of the original black 'glossiness' can be found (in addition to the beautiful, glorious, untouched and unmolested Rouge Class iron oxide patina) on this car on the frame, suspension components and under the hood. Back to the topic, once the Drake mounts arrive and are installed I will provide follow-up feedback and closure on this discussion. Kubes40/all - I had Drake mic the shoulder bolt before ordering and found them now to be fundamentally and dimensionally identical to the originals in design/length (shoulder and overall). They indicated to your point Mike they previously had a problem with the bolts being shorter than the originals and that, coupled with the now thicker-than-original top bushing, required excessive tightening of the bolt to insert the cotter pin (they represented they have now corrected this). Also, Drake offers a slightly longer bolt (~1/4") in addition to the mount kit should you wish to avoid what one may deem 'excessive' compression with the standard mount kit. Eliminating the castle nuts/cotter pins and using original (-style) Marsden nuts will save that additional investment and address the issue (if you perceive one) IMHO. Also anticipate confirming kubes40's endorsement of Drake's mounts as well as the 'pliableness' of their rubber compound as being most like the originals. Being anal as I typically can be, I removed my 'MacGuyver'd' mounts that solved all the problems and just for grins and personal validation re-installed the original 70 year-old mounts removed 3+ years ago to compare them to the onerous and negative results realized by the Dennis Carpenter mounts. The originals' top mount bushings, in their now-permanently thinner, compressed and surface-cracked state, still have far more more suppleness and engine vibration absorption/elimination than the new hard-as-rock DC top bushings, this by a very wide margin. Fwiw. Steve This message was edited by len47merc on 3-1-17 @ 8:45 AM
|
|
| coupeman | -- 03-07-2017 @ 10:07 AM |
|
JUST RECEIVED MY NEW DRAKE CATALOG, THEY HAVE A LONGER BOLT(ABOUT 1/4") AVAILABLE.
|
|
| len47merc | -- 03-07-2017 @ 2:02 PM |
|
coupeman - note I referenced the same concerning the longer bolt availability in my previous post. Still awaiting arrival of the Drake mounts - again will update after install. Steve
|
|
| len47merc | -- 03-07-2017 @ 2:23 PM |
|
As soon as I logged-out from the previous post and walked away from the laptop the FedEx truck arrived with the Drake mounts. A couple of quick observations: 1) The top bushing/biscuit of the Drake mount is noticeably compressible by hand when pressing with the palm of your hand on the top washer whereas the DC is not 2) Both the top and bottom bushings of the Drake have a feel of 'softness' consistent with that of the original mounts I still have. Additionally, both the top and bottom bushings/biscuits of the Drakes have a similar feel with respect to density and 'compressibility' whereas the DC's bottom bottom bushing rubber is very soft compared to their extremely hard top 3) From the end of the Drake bolt to the beginning of the cotter pin hole is 0.082". The same dimension on the Dennis Carpenter bolt is 0.154", almost twice as far as the Drake. Thus, much more tightening is required of the Carpenter bolt to insert the cotter pin than the Drake will require Motor's off the MacGuyver'd mounts - installing the Drakes after supper with the family. Report later. After all I've been through here, and from what I've seen from inspecting the Drake's in-hand, am expecting good things. Steve
|
|
| len47merc | -- 03-07-2017 @ 5:28 PM |
|
Ok - final circle-back on this and the related 'Clutch Issue' discussion threads and closure of both. Got the Drake mounts on and, given their location of the cotter pin hole nearer to the end of their bolt coupled with the 'more better' and correct suppleness of their top mount, the cotter pin could easily be inserted with minimal yet adequate tightening of the castle nut. The bottom bushing/biscuit was minimally bulged out while the top bushing/biscuit could be seen to mildly compress from the weight of the motor alone. Completely different and much improved from the DC's. Required no special processes to install the Drakes - plug 'n play as they should have been. And no need to invest in longer bolts IMHO. What a difference! Took the '47 out for the requisite 30 minute minimum drive... Counting down, for the proof in the pudding #2, any residual or excessive engine vibration realized and resulting from the Slate Rock & Gravel Company top bushing is completely gone, perceived to have been fully absorbed by the Drake softer rubber compound. And for the pièce de résistance proof in the puddin' #1, to address what was the catalyst for both this thread and the 'Clutch Issue' discussion, the Fort Wayne clutch silkiness is back in all its smooth glory now with the castle nuts tightened only to the point adequate to insert the cotter pin at the first available castle. My thanks go out to all of you on this one and I want to call out a few for hanging in there with me through my 'anal-ness' (which I understand I need to work on but perhaps not in the way most of you might think). TomO - as is standard protocol, you were the first to reply with (sounding like a broken record here) accurate, on the mark guidance right off the bat to the root cause that was neither intuitively obvious (to me anyway) or visually from up top and I may likely have fumbled around for quite a while longer before I found the loosened-through-use and incorrect parts/mounts - sincere thanks Tom. Mike/kubes40 - your $0.02 is worth gold to me here. Had I gone to Drake in the first place all this likely would've been avoided - IMHO you are right on the mark and I have the originals plus 3 different styles from 3 different suppliers plus all my testing/changing/comparing/combining parts/MacGuyvering to prove it - thank you. And Drbrown - my appreciation for sharing your experience with your '47 - it helped me greatly in diagnosing the not-so-obvious incorrect part. For you also Drbrown, as this and the other thread are so long I do not recall if I said this earlier, but I believe TomO stated and I later confirmed through my research that Steele has in fact obtained their mounts from DC. Hopefully all of this effort will be of value, help and benefit to someone else here who may need to go down this path. If so, it's well worth the effort for me. The now smooth again clutch and absorbed engine vibration is a token bonus. Thanks again to you all. Cheers guys - EDIT - to the individual recommending I improve on my anal-ness, I can only say I'll try harder and I'm Workin' on It! Steve This message was edited by len47merc on 3-7-17 @ 6:24 PM
|
|
| TomO | -- 03-08-2017 @ 7:34 AM |
|
Steve, thanks for your research on this topic. It shows that 'parts' are not just parts, and you do have to know what is available and communicate with the suppliers when you find a part that is far enough out of specifications to afect the performance of the car. The major players in the reproduction business would like to provide us with quality parts at a reasonable cost, but they may not know that a part is out of spec unless we let them know. On the other hand, suppliers may not change a part until they have used up their supply or recovered a major part of their costs of manufacturing so beware that these out of spec parts may be fine for a garage queen, but not a car that is driven. Tom
|
|
| supereal | -- 03-08-2017 @ 9:01 AM |
|
The chassis and inner fender panels were covered with a paint called "chassis black". It was a quick drying mixture that was constantly changing as new paint was added as the pot ran down. The best match seems to be a chassis black sold by Eastwood. It is neither gloss or flat, but somewhere in between. I have seen many inner fender panels with high gloss, but all were painted during restoration.
|
|
| Bob-93021 | -- 03-10-2017 @ 10:15 PM |
|
Steve, I have followed this thread from the beginning. Thank you for your detailed observations of each part and recording it here. Also, there were many great recommendation by other forum members - so thanks to them also. On a quick review the motor mount seems dead simple and how could they get a re-pop wrong. But there is a lot to consider. The hardware should be straight forward to get correct. The bushing is deceptively simple looking but complicated. It not only needs accurate form but since it is a dynamic part composition and durometer of materials is critical. Looks like Drake got it right! Thanks for you 'anal-ness" on this problem. -Bob (aka: paralysis by analysis) This message was edited by Bob-93021 on 3-10-17 @ 11:08 PM
|
|
| len47merc | -- 03-11-2017 @ 10:21 AM |
|
Thanks Bob-93021. Given your reply you have unwittingly prompted me to anal-ly (supportively) add one more point I'd failed to mention earlier. The first line of this discussion is "Any magic or science to tightening the front motor mounts...". What I have learned through all of this is the answer to the question is Yes - to Both Magic & Science. The design, composition and durometer variances, not only supplier-to-supplier but lot-to-lot of the same supplier, IMHO greatly limits the ability of anyone to get the tightness EXACTLY right the first time/setting EVERY time. Depending upon the softness or hardness of each bushing, a specific torque setting may equate to little-to-no bottom bushing bulge on supplier A's product yet significant bulge on supplier B's (or substitute Lot A & Lot B, etc.). Supplier A's top bushing may be soft and supple and show obvious compression from the weight of the engine alone while Supplier B's may not (again substitute Lot A & Lot B). In some cases a combination of suppliers' bushings may yield the most optimum result for your vehicle. Additionally, and this is the key point being made here, I've learned that the 'magic' in tightening these mounts is to optimize the balance between engine vibration felt through the frame (top bushing) against overall engine movement and corresponding clutch chatter (bottom bushing). Tighten very firmly and you'll have no engine movement-associated clutch chatter due to the tightly bulging bottom bushing but you may eliminate the ability of the top bushing to absorb engine vibration due to too much compression. Tightening to the minimum necessary to insert the pin and impart minimal pressure on the bottom bushing (will not rotate by hand but shows little-to-no bulging) allows the bottom bushing to be excessively 'springy' and you likely will feel engine movement in the form of clutch chatter, though in this case the top bushing is fundamentally only compressed by the weight of the engine and the top bushing will absorb virtually all of the engine vibration. So the magic is in balancing these two for what feels right to you to achieve the best of both worlds - silky smooth clutch and no engine vibration through the frame. If you have only used one supplier's mounts for years and have installed them several times perhaps you can eyeball the bottom bulge and/or know exactly how many castles to tighten past the first pin hole opening and nail it the first time - I'm just not that good and do not have that level of experience. I do believe this does constitute the last I have for us all on this one. Hope it helps. Thanks again Bob! Cheers - Steve This message was edited by len47merc on 3-11-17 @ 4:39 PM
|
|
| LarryK | -- 03-15-2017 @ 2:58 PM |
|
I discovered this instruction on tightening motor mounts in the Ford Service Bulletin for June 1932. It pertains to the 4 cylinder engine, but the illustration of the mount shows it to be of the same design as our V8s. The instruction states that the nut should be tightened until the large washer on top bottoms on the shoulder of the bolt and that his will give the proper tension of the rubber cushions. This is probably of academic interest at this point. Bolt lengths and shoulder heights provided in reproduction parts may no longer be compatible with changes made over the years in cross-member thicknesses and water pump mounting feet. In my first attempt at changing the front mounts in my 1939 Deluxe Tudor, I believe I bottomed the washer on the shoulder of the bolt. I also had to use a washer under the bolt head to prevent this. Larry
|
|
| EFV-8 Club Forum : | https://www.earlyfordv8.org/forum |
| Topic: | https://www.earlyfordv8.org/forum/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=18&Topic=10545 |