• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech

Engine setback thought experiment??

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stangboy67
  • Start date Start date Jan 13, 2006

Stangboy67

New Member
Aug 26, 2005
59
0
0
Lynnwood, WA
Jan 13, 2006
#1
  • Jan 13, 2006
  • #1
My basic idea for my 67 is to do the Heidts or Rod and Custom front end conversion a bit down the road and from what I can tell, the cross member has to be placed quite precisely eliminating that as a possible engine setback opportunity. Then I noticed (can't remember where at the moment ) motor mounts that allow a few inches of front to rear adjustment.

Would setting the engine/tranny back using adjustible motor mounts help weight distribution? My first thought was yes as the weight is further to the rear, but then after a little further thought, my answers was no. The reason for my "no" was even with the engine set back in the mounts, the weight of the engine assembly is placed on the crossmember which is still located in the same position in the car, so no weight shift. Right??? or will there be some sort of leverage effect that will help, maybe shifting more of the "weight" to the tranny mount?
 

Route666

Active Member
Aug 16, 2003
1,652
6
39
Brisbane, Australia
Jan 13, 2006
#2
  • Jan 13, 2006
  • #2
It is where the mass of the engine is in direct relation to the car that matters.

Any leverage the mass of the engine has over the mass of the rest of the car is only changed if the position of the engine relative to the rest of the car is changed.

The force vectors that you will end up with, flowing through the mount, will sum to the same thing as directly connecting the engine to centre of mass of the rest of the car.

Otherwise people would be building wierd mounts that mount the engine wherever they like, connecting it to the middle of the car.
 

Stangboy67

New Member
Aug 26, 2005
59
0
0
Lynnwood, WA
Jan 13, 2006
#3
  • Jan 13, 2006
  • #3
Route666, thanks for the reply!

So, if I understand you correctly (little slow this morning, been up 20 hrs and looking forward to bed) in my hypothetical example, the force applied on the adjustible motor mounts will be vectored through the stationary crossmember and have a positive influence on the weight distribution of the car, in effect transferring weight to the rear of the car, right?
 

Dark Knight

Founding Member
Feb 1, 2000
2,578
0
0
Chandler, Az.
Jan 13, 2006
#4
  • Jan 13, 2006
  • #4
You can put the engine wherever you want, just use engine plates.. not a big deal.. The BB is my 68 is set back and down, lower CG. Pretty much all types of racing move the engine back and down, if it's legal
 
1

180 Out

Member
Jul 23, 2005
375
0
16
Jan 13, 2006
#5
  • Jan 13, 2006
  • #5
The motor mounts you're probably thinking of are from Ron Morris Performance:



Here's a link: http://www.ronmorrisperformance.com/
 

Attachments

  • 6110.webp
    18.9 KB · Views: 140

LMan

Founding Member
Aug 10, 2002
1,246
0
0
Mom's basement
Jan 13, 2006
#6
  • Jan 13, 2006
  • #6
It will shift your CG to the rear, but unless you are a roadracer or something similar, you prob won't notice it.
 

Stangboy67

New Member
Aug 26, 2005
59
0
0
Lynnwood, WA
Jan 13, 2006
#7
  • Jan 13, 2006
  • #7
LMan said:
It will shift your CG to the rear, but unless you are a roadracer or something similar, you prob won't notice it.
Click to expand...

This was going to be my next question. With the 5.0 in there now, I would not be able to move it much (back anyways) without modifying the firewall. Being that this is a daily driver (with only a bit of track time) I was wondering if it would make a noticable difference considering the work invoved (motor & trans mounts and cutting driveshaft)

180 OUT...those were the mounts I remember seeing, thanks. My plans also include dropping in a 351W based stroker and they may be handy to lower the engine assembly to get it to fit under the hood if that is an issue.

Dark Knight, I had not considered an engine plate as I assumed this was more of a race only type of setup. Being primarily a driver, does this transmit alot of vibration to the frame? Where do these bolt to the front of the block? I also thought this would be a bad idea since your moving the mounting point forward in the car, but if it all depends on CG rather than mounting location than this is not an arguement against that I guess.

Thanks for all the replies.
 

xoxbxfx

Founding Member
May 9, 2001
3,959
0
0
Southlake, TX
Jan 13, 2006
#8
  • Jan 13, 2006
  • #8
180 Out said:
The motor mounts you're probably thinking of are from Ron Morris Performance:



Here's a link: http://www.ronmorrisperformance.com/
Click to expand...


lol... tcp whaaaat??
 

Attachments

  • 6110.webp
    18.9 KB · Views: 170

HistoricMustang

Active Member
Apr 11, 2003
2,359
0
46
Confederate States of America
Jan 13, 2006
#9
  • Jan 13, 2006
  • #9
Stangboy67 said:
My basic idea for my 67 is to do the Heidts or Rod and Custom front end conversion a bit down the road and from what I can tell, the cross member has to be placed quite precisely eliminating that as a possible engine setback opportunity. Then I noticed (can't remember where at the moment ) motor mounts that allow a few inches of front to rear adjustment.

Would setting the engine/tranny back using adjustible motor mounts help weight distribution? My first thought was yes as the weight is further to the rear, but then after a little further thought, my answers was no. The reason for my "no" was even with the engine set back in the mounts, the weight of the engine assembly is placed on the crossmember which is still located in the same position in the car, so no weight shift. Right??? or will there be some sort of leverage effect that will help, maybe shifting more of the "weight" to the tranny mount?
Click to expand...

Oh yes. These guys are going it but it is very hard to tell, just like the "expanded fenders".

www.cobraautomotive.com

HistoricMustang
www.historicmustang.com
 

Route666

Active Member
Aug 16, 2003
1,652
6
39
Brisbane, Australia
Jan 13, 2006
#10
  • Jan 13, 2006
  • #10
Stangboy67 said:
Route666, thanks for the reply!

So, if I understand you correctly (little slow this morning, been up 20 hrs and looking forward to bed) in my hypothetical example, the force applied on the adjustible motor mounts will be vectored through the stationary crossmember and have a positive influence on the weight distribution of the car, in effect transferring weight to the rear of the car, right?
Click to expand...

Sorry for not replying sooner, I too was going to bed, but at night.

Others have answered it anyway - yes, moving the engine mass back will centralise the whole mass more. The amount though as others have said, will hardly be noticable.

The simplest way I can think of analogising it at the moment is:

Get a medicine ball, hold it between your forearms with your arms extended and shake side to side, note the effort it takes. Now hold the ball the same distance away, but in your hands, with your arms bent, and shake side to side. The effort will be the same, except it might be easier to hold it with your hands. So how your arms are held (the mount configuration) doesn't matter, just where the ball (mass of engine) is in relationship to your body (car's body).

The problem is with that analogy is that your arms have muscles which can probably work easier in one configuration than another, such as holding the ball in your hands, not just between your forearms, and then your bent arms will use your chest muscles better than straight in front of you, etc.
 

Hack

15 Year Member
Mar 23, 2004
1,945
13
69
Minneapolis
Jan 13, 2006
#11
  • Jan 13, 2006
  • #11
Stangboy67 said:
This was going to be my next question. With the 5.0 in there now, I would not be able to move it much (back anyways) without modifying the firewall. Being that this is a daily driver (with only a bit of track time) I was wondering if it would make a noticable difference considering the work invoved (motor & trans mounts and cutting driveshaft)
(snip)
Thanks for all the replies.
Click to expand...
No, you probably won't notice. Now if you put in a motor that's more than 100 pounds lighter than the 302, you will notice!

If you're really serious about having a great handling car, try putting in a twin turbo modular 6 or a big OHC four with a turbo. That would be well worth the effort, and you won't have to hack up the body of your classic.

Edit: another method I highly recommend for improving the car's handling is to get yourself some driving lessons and seat time on the track. You are going to be the limiting factor much more than the car.
 

Stangboy67

New Member
Aug 26, 2005
59
0
0
Lynnwood, WA
Jan 13, 2006
#12
  • Jan 13, 2006
  • #12
Hack said:
Edit: another method I highly recommend for improving the car's handling is to get yourself some driving lessons and seat time on the track. You are going to be the limiting factor much more than the car.
Click to expand...

That is very true, and something else that is already on the to-do list, but not until the car is up for it (steering needs help!)

Route666, The ball analogy works and after thinking about your first post (after sleep) I understand what you were getting at.

I have been learning quite a bit since finding this site and forum a few months back. Lot of helpful and knowledgable people. Thanks all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

89 LX Electrical Troubles
  • fun331
  • Oct 25, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
5
Views
315
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Nov 27, 2025
fun331
S
Drivetrain 8.8 Pinion and 302 rear main seal leaks after replacing. 93 5.0 with t-5
  • Steigy4827
  • Jun 23, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
10
Views
596
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Apr 1, 2026
Steigy4827
S
For Sale Borg Warner WC T5, Stock Bell Housing, RAM Clutch Set, Double Hump Cross Member, & Pro 5.0 Shifter
  • AeroCoupe
  • Aug 9, 2025
  • Drivetrain Parts
Replies
1
Views
519
Drivetrain Parts Dec 26, 2025
AeroCoupe
0
V6 to V8 Swap info
  • 02_2v_Curtis
  • Jan 11, 2026
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
555
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Jan 11, 2026
02_2v_Curtis
0
S
Help with window and possible engine
  • StefRena22
  • Jun 12, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
19
Views
782
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jun 21, 2025
Willybill32
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?