Early Ford V-8 Club Forum

EFV-8 Club Forum / General Ford Discussion / Tightening Motor Mounts

Reply to Discussion | New Discussion << previous || next >>

Posted By Discussion Topic: Tightening Motor Mounts -- page: 1 2 3 4     LarryK 03-15-2017 @ 2:58 PM reply profile send p.m. New Member Posts: 105 Joined: Aug 2012 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 len47merc 03-11-2017 @ 10:21 AM reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 1165 Joined: Oct 2013 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 Bob-93021 03-10-2017 @ 10:15 PM reply profile send p.m. Member Posts: 47 Joined: Jan 2011 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 supereal 03-08-2017 @ 9:01 AM reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 6819 Joined: Oct 2009 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. TomO 03-08-2017 @ 7:34 AM reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 7250 Joined: Oct 2009 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 len47merc 03-07-2017 @ 5:28 PM reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 1165 Joined: Oct 2013 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 len47merc 03-07-2017 @ 2:23 PM reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 1165 Joined: Oct 2013 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 @ 2:02 PM reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 1165 Joined: Oct 2013 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 coupeman 03-07-2017 @ 10:07 AM reply profile send p.m. Member Posts: 62 Joined: Oct 2009 JUST RECEIVED MY NEW DRAKE CATALOG, THEY HAVE A LONGER BOLT(ABOUT 1/4") AVAILABLE. len47merc 03-01-2017 @ 7:50 AM reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 1165 Joined: Oct 2013 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

<< previous || next >>

PAGE: 1 2 3 4

NOTE: YOU MUST BE A REGISTERED USER AND BE LOGGED IN TO POST (and reply to) messages in this forum. If you are a first time user, please click the CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT in the masthead above to register and Log In. After that, all you do is LOG IN to enjoy using this site.

DISCLAIMER: The V-8 Club does no independent testing of any of the opinions, thoughts or suggestions presented in the website on the Forum, in the Tech Tips section, or any section. A reader should consider the website to be a forum wherein differing solutions to a particular set of circumstances may be discussed. Ultimately, the selection of an item for an individual's vehicle must be based upon the independent study of the vehicle owner in consultation with people in the hobby and restoration experts.

EFV-8 Club Forum Home | Back to Home Page | Contact the Webmaster

Copyright © 2009 - EFV-8.org
Powered by < CF FORUM > v.2.1