1973 mustang coupe, MOTOR MOUNT ISSUE

1

1973stang

New Member

Sep 23, 2009

46

0

0

Mar 31, 2010

#1

• Mar 31, 2010

• #1

So heres the story, Ive searched the forums and cant find much help. I have a 1973 coupe and a 351C, The correct mounts are captive and discontinued.
I picked up the 66-72 short mounts (MM2257) I bolted the mounts to the motor and got one side to bolt up to the frame mount but the other side is about 3/4 of an inch too narrow from lining up with the bolt hole on the frame mount.
I attempted raising and lowering the unconnected side to align the bolt hole with no luck.

Are there any adjustable mounts for the 71-73? I have checked into ron morris but they only have 66-70 and the frame side looks incompatable.

Any advice welcome Thankyou.

 

B

BubbaB1966

New Member

Nov 2, 2008

30

0

0

Fort Walton Beach, Fl

Mar 31, 2010

#2

• Mar 31, 2010

• #2

Try Trans Dapt part #4981, they are supposed to fit.

 

1

1973stang

New Member

Sep 23, 2009

46

0

0

Mar 31, 2010

#3

• Mar 31, 2010

• #3

Has anyone had experience with these mounts? If so Ill go ahead and buy them.

 

B

BubbaB1966

New Member

Nov 2, 2008

30

0

0

Fort Walton Beach, Fl

Mar 31, 2010

#4

• Mar 31, 2010

• #4

Also, not meaning to be mean, but you know they are right and left specific? If you have them backwards, they won't fit (I know from experience........)

 

1

1973stang

New Member

Sep 23, 2009

46

0

0

Mar 31, 2010

#5

• Mar 31, 2010

• #5

They sell one mount (MM2257) for both driver and passenger side, getting them mixed up would only effect the front to back location of the engine and not the width from eyelet to eyelet of the mounts.

 

B

BubbaB1966

New Member

Nov 2, 2008

30

0

0

Fort Walton Beach, Fl

Mar 31, 2010

#6

• Mar 31, 2010

• #6

Dunno. Everything I have checked says the mounts are the same from late 65 thru 73 for the small block. Somebody help this man!!!

 

1

1973stang

New Member

Sep 23, 2009

46

0

0

Apr 1, 2010

#7

• Apr 1, 2010

• #7

Hey thanks for offering up your help. In 1973 due to new safety regulations they switched over to captive mounts which are now discontinued and not in reproduction. This is why I am in this mess and trying to figure out a solution without custom fabrication of some sort of spacer system beneath the frame brackets although that may be the route I take.

 

2

2+2GT

10 Year Member

Apr 25, 2009

3,333

10

79

Southeastern Pennsylvania

Apr 1, 2010

#8

• Apr 1, 2010

• #8

I have never seen a 73 mount go bad. What happened to them?

Many of the "2257" mounts on the market are complete crap.

Why don't you give Glazier Nolan a call? They list:

G08773 73 302-351 Motor Mount ................................................$47.95

 

1

1968-coupe

New Member

Mar 28, 2010

131

0

0

Deep East Texas

Apr 1, 2010

#9

• Apr 1, 2010

• #9

Could be worse, im working on making a set of motor mounts for my car. Putting in a built 300, so far i have a pic, the car, and the engine.

 

M

Mr. Eamann

New Member

Jan 12, 2016

2

0

1

Jan 12, 2016

#10

• Jan 12, 2016

• #10

Did you ever resolve the 73 351C issue? I have the exact same problem and the captive originals are definitely not the same as the 2257 versions being suggested because they simply aren't tall enough. If you mount one side, the other doesn't contact the cross member until too far down resulting in the holes in the mount being about and inch lower than those in the member. The pattern is right, they just don't align.

 

M

Mr. Eamann

New Member

Jan 12, 2016

2

0

1

Jan 18, 2016

#11

• Jan 18, 2016

• #11

FYI, for a 73 351C you can find Anchor Industries 2370 listed for Torino and Ranchero. The look the same as the original captive mounts for the Mustang, but aren't listed for Mustang. The primary difference seems to be about 3/8" of width on the U bracket which mounts to the lower section. Shimming this additional space with some washers, I was able to install these with no additional modifications, though it appears they could be ever so slightly different in dimension. Not so much though, that the tolerances in the mounting holes were not able to accommodate it.

Certainly a far better alternative to the 2257's which aren't captive and don't even come close.