Engine mounts '65 -> '66 replace problem

[mhjo]

We have changed from 1965 type mounts to 1966 type mounts. After replacing the mounts (with a lot of hassle) yesterday we found that the engine had moved approx 1 cm ( 1/2 ") forward causing clutch fan to touch fan shroud.

What is wrong?

 

[Jetsetmantony]

mhjo,

I switched my 65 I6 to a V8 302 and went with heavy duty after market motor mounts, before also switching to an electric fan...no problems, just a very small adjustment with the new mountor mounts.

What length is the spacer for the fan? A couple of good pics would help too. Why the hassles, the new motor mount/bolts didn't line up, i.e. , 1/2" off?

 

[2+2GT]

a) Maybe a photo of the installed mounts from underneath would help.

b) The "65" mounts were used for the first three months of the 1966 Mustang. Why did you change?

 

[65fastbackresto]

Hitting the fan shroud?

The fan should be sitting in the fan shroud, not on it... You may just need the little "Z" looking brackets for your shroud to move it up or down. The depth of you fan in the shroud shouldn`t mean anything unless your to close or too far from the radiator, it already sounds like your too far from it now.

 

[eleanor_350]

Those frame mounts aren't symetrical, they're offset. I think if they're installed correctly they're offset to the rear of the car. Could it be possible that you have the driver and passenger side frame mounts flip-flopped thus shifting the engine forward? Just a guess???

 

[2+2GT]

There is no advantage to changing from the "65" style to the "66" style. The person who recommended the change is now someone you should not take advice from.

 

[dennis112]

There is no advantage to changing from the "65" style to the "66" style. The person who recommended the change is now someone you should not take advice from.

For a typical street performance car, the 65' mounts will be just fine. I prefer them as they tend to lower the motor 1/2-1" compared to the 66' and later mounts.

In a serious performance situation (again drag strip related including hard launches with slicks) the single attaching stud 65' mounts are at a disadvantage. I replace the driver's side yearly as engine torque pulls the center mounted stud and results in a distorted mount making the LH side higher in the engine bay. The problem would be lessened with the 66 bolt-through dual mounting location which is better supported.

 

[rbohm]

its possible that you have the mounts reversed from side to side. try swapping them around and see what happens.

 

[2+2GT]

For a typical street performance car, the 65' mounts will be just fine. I prefer them as they tend to lower the motor 1/2-1" compared to the 66' and later mounts.
It's not supposed to. Clearance on the lower hose and shroud is about 1/2" with either mount system.

In a serious performance situation (again drag strip related including hard launches with slicks) the single attaching stud 65' mounts are at a disadvantage. I replace the driver's side yearly as engine torque pulls the center mounted stud and results in a distorted mount making the LH side higher in the engine bay. The problem would be lessened with the 66 bolt-through dual mounting location which is better supported.
Either is a rubber sandwich type, not suited to drag racing. Now, the good ole' boys take a new mount and put a bolt through it, making it indestructible. Then you don't need new ones all the time.

 

[mhjo]

Thanks for replies.

Yes I have worn out one set of mounts before on the RGH side. Also I was plaquede with engine twising.

Yes, the 66 mountes di raise the engine, and we had to cut a little inside the shroud (plastic). T

They where not installed backwards LH/RH.

 

[dennis112]

For a typical street performance car, the 65' mounts will be just fine. I prefer them as they tend to lower the motor 1/2-1" compared to the 66' and later mounts.
It's not supposed to. Clearance on the lower hose and shroud is about 1/2" with either mount system.

But it does and header manufacture's normally specify that 66' mounts be used for additional shock tower clearance. Shrouds can be adjusted up and down to accommodate and the lower hose moves down with the motor so clearance differences is nill.

In a serious performance situation (again drag strip related including hard launches with slicks) the single attaching stud 65' mounts are at a disadvantage. I replace the driver's side yearly as engine torque pulls the center mounted stud and results in a distorted mount making the LH side higher in the engine bay. The problem would be lessened with the 66 bolt-through dual mounting location which is better supported.
Either is a rubber sandwich type, not suited to drag racing. Now, the good ole' boys take a new mount and put a bolt through it, making it indestructible. Then you don't need new ones all the time.

I guess that I am a gold ole boy then as I always install flat head bolts on either side of the stud. The motor still distorts the center out of the engine mount. Maybe my car is just special . . . . .

For the record, I show no mercy on the 4 speed car at the strip so I do consider my antics to be a little harder on parts. That is why I qualify my answers with dragstrip use when needed. As an example, here is a qualifying run just last Friday-my first trip back this year and both car and driver were "rusty":

‪7_29_11 at BS #2.AVI‬‏ - YouTube

Oh, we both figured it out by eliminations as I won the stick class and took out the current points leader in the process.

Anyways here is the excellent article for those who are curious on how to modify the mounts for added strength:

Modifying the engine mounts

 

[2+2GT]

OK, then here's a trick you need for your car- Use the "66" frame brackets, and 73 motor mounts.

 

[dennis112]

OK, then here's a trick you need for your car- Use the "66" frame brackets, and 73 motor mounts.

Thanks for the tip, but what is the advantage(s) of using this combo?

I assume strength but does it also lower the motor? (needed for my combo to fit under the hood.)

 

[2+2GT]

1973 was the year the feds started requiring loop-through mounts. The intent was the mounts won't fail even in severe impacts.

You can get them in rubber or urethane.

 

[dennis112]

1973 was the year the feds started requiring loop-through mounts. The intent was the mounts won't fail even in severe impacts.

You can get them in rubber or urethane.

Good info. Thank You very much!