Engine mount orientation

[tony-muscle]

The 71-72 and 73 motor mount are different heights. As you can see from the picture below the holes in a 73 captive mount are 4 1/2" to bolt hole center and on the 71-72 (actually (68-72) the bolt hole is 4" to center. This is why the 73 hardtop small block frame mounts are a different height than the 71-72 hardtop small block frame mounts.

You are correct, but the Prothanes 6-503 are captive but shorter than the 73s. They are apparently made for the earlier years. Side-by-side they are the same height as the 71.

 

[EdM]

Not intending to derail this but clearly the knowledge is here. I have a '73 Mach 1 Q code with a rebuild of the motor and new mounts maybe 8 years ago by the PO. There is only 5K on the combo since then. I will soon be installing a 351 Windsor based stroker and, with the research I have done, planned to reuse the motor mounts. I just want to confirm all will be fine dimensionally. TIA.

 

[tony-muscle]

So i placed both mounts in the car and the Prothane sits slightly lower, about 1/8". However, there is play in the mounting hole so once the engine is installed I assume it will settle and the difference should be negligible.

PS: the side of the tape measure facing the hole is metric.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[rcadd1ct]

So i placed both mounts in the car and the Prothane sits slightly lower, about 1/8". However,  there is play in the mounting hole so once the engine is installed I assume it will settle and the difference should be negligible.

PS: the side of the tape measure facing the hole is metric.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Are those not flipped around?

I thought the engine mount boss vertical.

 

[tony-muscle]

Thanks for the observation. Making a fool of myself here........ I dont have the block now and i couldn't remember. Here are oriented up. The dimensions are the same between the two.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[rackerm]

Not intending to derail this but clearly the knowledge is here. I have a '73 Mach 1 Q code with a rebuild of the motor and new mounts maybe 8 years ago by the PO. There is only 5K on the combo since then. I will soon be installing a 351 Windsor based stroker and, with the research I have done,  planned to reuse the motor mounts. I just want to confirm all will be fine dimensionally. TIA.

The stock small block 302 Windsor and 351C Cleveland used the same frame and motor mounts in 73. Although not an engine option in 71-73 models, the stock small block mounts would also work with a 351W block. Beyond that, it's hard to say, it is possible that changes in your deck height, intake and exhaust manifolds could create clearance issues. Maybe someone on the forum who has made a similar swap will weigh in.

 

[rcadd1ct]

Thanks for the observation. Making a fool of myself here........ I dont have the block now and i couldn't remember. Here are oriented up. The dimensions are the same between the two.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

All of us are fools here.  Welcome to the party.

Zooming in it looks like the tape is saying that the old is .5cm lower.

Which is interesting to me as my aftermarket pan touches the front of the cross member.  That .5cm might make it work instead of cutting the cross member more and rewelding.

Thanks for the info.

 

[tony-muscle]

Thanks for the observation. Making a fool of myself here........ I dont have the block now and i couldn't remember. Here are oriented up. The dimensions are the same between the two.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

All of us are fools here.  Welcome to the party.

Zooming in it looks like the tape is saying that the old is .5cm lower.

Which is interesting to me as my aftermarket pan touches the front of the cross member.  That .5cm might make it work instead of cutting the cross member more and rewelding.

Thanks for the info.

I think you may be looking at a difference in the radius of the tab. The flat where the hole is is at a similar dimension. I could take the picture again by placing a straight edge along the flat to double check.

In your case, could you add a spacer between the mount and block? You can easily make a spacer out of aluminum stock or thick washers. Just a thought.

 

[73pony]

Thanks for the observation. Making a fool of myself here........ I dont have the block now and i couldn't remember. Here are oriented up. The dimensions are the same between the two.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

All of us are fools here.  Welcome to the party.

Zooming in it looks like the tape is saying that the old is .5cm lower.

Which is interesting to me as my aftermarket pan touches the front of the cross member.  That .5cm might make it work instead of cutting the cross member more and rewelding.

Thanks for the info.

Which pan do you have? I got mine from Kevko Racing. Really nice pan and cleared the cross member without any issues.

https://kevkoracing.com/collections/ford-cleveland/products/part-f607-ford-cleveland-front-sump-t-style-drag-pan

 

[rcadd1ct]

Thanks for the observation. Making a fool of myself here........ I dont have the block now and i couldn't remember. Here are oriented up. The dimensions are the same between the two.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

All of us are fools here.  Welcome to the party.

Zooming in it looks like the tape is saying that the old is .5cm lower.

Which is interesting to me as my aftermarket pan touches the front of the cross member.  That .5cm might make it work instead of cutting the cross member more and rewelding.

Thanks for the info.

Which pan do you have? I got mine from Kevko Racing. Really nice pan and cleared the cross member without any issues.

https://kevkoracing.com/collections/ford-cleveland/products/part-f607-ford-cleveland-front-sump-t-style-drag-pan

It is a milodon pan I bought MANY years ago.

I think it is a large capacity road race

 

[keiths71]

I had to trim mine for a moroso pan to fit

 

[tony-muscle]

So here are the mount heights again. I measured each twice. The Prothane sat 2mm higher. However, my conclusion is that they are "almost" the same height because there is a lot of play while they are not tighten to the engine.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[rcadd1ct]

So here are the mount heights again. I measured each twice. The Prothane sat 2mm higher. However, my conclusion is that they are "almost" the same height because there is a lot of play while they are not tighten to the engine.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Excellent.  Thanks for the update.

 

[rcadd1ct]

I had to trim mine for a moroso pan to fit

I trimmed to the spot welds.  If I cut anymore I will need to have it reshaped and rewelded.

I was looking at a way to move the engine .25” forward.  I might be able to go .125 up and .125 forward and get my clearance........until the engine settles.  Hmfp

 

[rcadd1ct]

I had to trim mine for a moroso pan to fit

I trimmed to the spot welds.  If I cut anymore I will need to have it reshaped and rewelded.

I was looking at a way to move the engine .25” forward.  I might be able to go .125 up and .125 forward and get my clearance........until the engine settles.  Hmfp

Image of the oil pan I have

 

[EBSTANG]

So i placed both mounts in the car and the Prothane sits slightly lower, about 1/8". However,  there is play in the mounting hole so once the engine is installed I assume it will settle and the difference should be negligible.

PS: the side of the tape measure facing the hole is metric.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Are those not flipped around?

I thought the engine mount boss vertical.

(edit)...made a comment, then deleted it but can't remove post...