| len47merc | -- 02-19-2017 @ 7:55 AM |
|
The Fort Wayne clutch installed ~7,000 miles ago in the '47 (59AB), which was buttery smooth for basically all of these miles, has developed a noticeable '1st & reverse' chatter reminiscent of the original clutch in the car. The car was just two weeks ago removed from winter storage on jack stands in the garage (last driven in a Christmas Parage before Thanksgiving) and the chatter mysteriously appeared on the first drive. No change in oil loss from the rear seal. And have not found it to get better or worse with higher or lower temps and/or humidity. It's not so bad that I cannot live with it, but after these miles and years of smooth operation it is more than annoying & bothersome. Thoughts on cause and possible simple correction measures (meaning short of pulling the engine again and installing a new clutch/pressure plate) are appreciated. Steve
|
|
| TomO | -- 02-19-2017 @ 8:51 AM |
|
Check your front and rear motor mounts. They may have become soft from oil saturation or age. Make sure the mounts are secure. Tom
|
|
| carcrazy | -- 02-19-2017 @ 8:57 AM |
|
Your rear shock absorber links may have been damaged or loosened. The rear axle has to be properly secured to the car to prevent clutch chatter with the torque tube driveline.
|
|
| len47merc | -- 02-19-2017 @ 12:27 PM |
|
Thanks guys. Rear shocks and links are strong and solid. Can't say the same for the front motor mounts - I could rotate the bottom bushing on both sides they were so loose, approximately 1/16" - 1/8" vertical play in both. I had checked them before the trip to Gettysburg last year and they were fine then. Weird they both were so loose now - installed new about 8,000 miles/3 years ago. Trying to figure this out - they were clean and no oil leaks anywhere to affect them, so why did they get so loose over an ~3 month storage period - ? Rear mount was fine/tight. Tom gets the prize today. Thanks to you both - Steve
|
|
| 40cpe | -- 02-19-2017 @ 12:30 PM |
|
And after you tightened the front mounts?
|
|
| len47merc | -- 02-19-2017 @ 12:56 PM |
|
40cpe - I think I know why you asked that question - now - but I have yet to tighten them. I actually removed the bolts to inspect them, but am questioning whether it may be normal to have that amount of play in the bottom bushings. Top bushings were appropriately tightened. Have some research to do here and personal education. Steve
|
|
| 40cpe | -- 02-20-2017 @ 6:38 AM |
|
Yeah, I was wondering if tightening them solved the chatter. Please keep us posted.
|
|
| ken ct. | -- 02-20-2017 @ 7:02 AM |
|
Steve first time ive ever heard of this from a FW clutch. Have one in my 36 over 10 yrs now and smooth as silk as the day it went in. ???? ken ct.
|
|
| TomO | -- 02-20-2017 @ 8:12 AM |
|
Steve, do you have all the washers for the mounts? The lower cushion should not be free to move. I can only think of one reason that it would change and that is the lower bushing was not correctly seated when you tightened the bolt or that you are missing one of the washers. https://www.bobdrake.com/FordItem.aspx?Item=B-6038-K Tom
|
|
| len47merc | -- 02-20-2017 @ 8:19 AM |
|
Ken - I don't think it's the clutch and something else must be at play. 40cpe - I will reply here when I'm through with diagnosing and correcting any associative problems I may find, and will respond with the results of each 'correction' before proceeding to the next. Have yet to reassemble the motor mounts or drive the car. Ok - (stupid) question of the day: Is the bottom motor mount bushing supposed to be appropriately compressed when properly installed or loose with approximately 1/16" - 1/8" inch of vertical travel? Believe it or not, depending upon the supplier I've called with this question responses have run the gambit from 'yes', 'no', 'not sure' to 'no one's ever asked the question'. The reason for asking is the shoulder on the shoulder bolt that holds the entire Dennis Carpenter mount together strikes home on the steel washer located above the top bushing and below the water pump mount flange. The opening in this top washer is of a smaller diameter than that of the shoulder of the mount bolt. Basically once that happens the 1 1/16" hex head of the bolt below the bottom bushing has no further available vertical travel, leaving the bottom bushing with the mentioned play. This renders the bottom bushing more of a loose bump stop than a compressed motor mount bushing. I never noticed this before but perhaps it is as 'supposed to be'?!?!?! (if so - really?) Steve
|
|
| len47merc | -- 02-20-2017 @ 8:27 AM |
|
TomO - you were responding as I was typing my earlier response. My mounts have all the parts shown in the image you sent. You answered my question and strong suspicion that both the top and bottom mounts should be compressed. Can't believe I've missed this but given the top bushing has been properly compressed (bolt & weight of the engine) the assumption has been the bottom was correct as well. Feeling a bit foolish here though I never had reason, given this, to crawl under the car and check the bottom bushing. On the phone with Carpenter (again) now. Steve
|
|
| len47merc | -- 02-20-2017 @ 8:52 AM |
|
Well now - isn't this a fine how do you do. The shoulder on the 'correct' motor mount bolt on the right in the photo is 1/4" longer than that of the original motor mount bolt on the left. And it is 1/4" longer than what the same supplier of the same mount has in stock currently. Lovely. Glad I have saved all my original parts and invoices. Steve This message was edited by len47merc on 2-20-17 @ 8:54 AM
|
|
| ken ct. | -- 02-20-2017 @ 9:10 AM |
|
That pic you show lists it as 32-36 mount. (not 47 Merc) Part # B-6038-K. below that he lists exlong bolts. Is it possible you have mismatched 1 or more or wrong bolts ???? ken ct.
|
|
| alanwoodieman | -- 02-20-2017 @ 9:14 AM |
|
mounts should be tight, but not to the point of taking all the "cushion" out of them. does you lower mount have the extra rubber ring that goes thru the hole in the frame? some of the new repro's do not have them, also they would be about 1/8" thick so they might not have been seated in the frame to begin with and have now moved around to create the sloppyness
|
|
| len47merc | -- 02-20-2017 @ 10:34 AM |
|
Ken - I believe you are referring to TomO's Bob Drake reference. I'll leave that to him to respond. alanwoodieman - a pic of all the mount parts is below, I removed them in their entirety today. I am talking with the supplier now. Thinking is twofold here - they supplied me the wrong mount all those years ago even though the paperwork shows the correct part number. Note the underside of the top bushing displayed - I cannot recall if it was like this originally. None of the current sources, nor the original bushing, are 'inverted' like this and if they did in fact 'pic' the wrong part it likely has failed over the miles and reduced the overall height of the top bushing which consumed, as it failed, the bolt distance necessary to compress the bottom bushing. Secondly, the shoulder length on the 'new' bolt is clearly longer than the original and longer than anything anyone has in stock for the correct motor mounts for the '47. Update later. Steve
|
|
| len47merc | -- 02-20-2017 @ 11:00 AM |
|
Ok guys - I've now confirmed that what's been on the car for 2 3/4 years or so is incorrect for the '47. The bolt shoulder length is off/too long by 1/4" and the thickness of the top bushing without the washer is shorter by 3/16", both versus what are currently available from all sources. Apparently some 'universal' part was pulled and shipped to me - I clearly never compared the pieces to the original but assumed they all were correct, freezer-bagged my old mounts for storage and inserted the new ones. This answers several questions that I've had for a while. So - motor mounts. Carpenter or Drake? It appears Mac's cobbles theirs together from other sources. C&G appear to get theirs from Carpenter. None of them are completely identical to the originals. Thoughts on quality and your personal experiences on this part from either source appreciated. Chase one problem and find 2 more...what were we talking about here originally anyway? Oh, yeah - clutch chatter. Back to that later... Steve
|
|
| 40cpe | -- 02-20-2017 @ 2:02 PM |
|
How about using the original, shorter shouldered bolts? If the old shoulders are 1/4" shorter it should allow you to take up the 1/8" slack.
|
|
| len47merc | -- 02-20-2017 @ 2:03 PM |
|
Killing all the proverbial birds with one stone here: I went to the local hardware store and purchased six 5/8" x 1 3/4" washers for about $1, placed 3 each on each ORIGINAL mount bolt, then the bottom bushing on top of the washers, and then held the bolts/washers/bottom bushing in place while my son tightened the original Marsden nut on top until I could see and feel good compression on the bottom bushing and it was 'tight' but not overly compressed. Threw the knife-blade battery shut-off down, closed the hood and drove the car. 1) TomO - thought I might have been premature in awarding you the prize, but confirmed today it was well earned. Thank you - because, 40cpe... 2) 40cpe (and kenct) - the chatter problem is gone now that the mount bushings are able to be properly compressed. EDIT - saw your last post 40cpe after I posted this - I did try the old bolts but after 'full' tightening I could still rotate the bottom bushing with my fingers and it was not adequately compressed, hence the washers 3) alanwoodieman - I was extra diligent in reassembly today due in large part to your comments. All the parts were there and were assembled correctly since install, just took an extra ounce of care due to your weighing in, and... 4) Ordered a new set of motor mounts after confirming the dimensions of all the components were correct and will allow for a non-modified installation per stock, versus my current MacGuyver'd rig to prove out the chatter issue The combination of the bolt shoulder being too long and bottoming out against the washer, coupled with the top bushing likely being overly compressed in erroneous efforts to 'compensate' for the shoulder issue, and the top bushing also prematurely aging somewhat due to the compression and thus appearing to have collapsed somewhat (this based on the thickness now versus all bushings measured at all known sources) - all these issues allowed the head of the bolt to drop over time & miles to create the gaps around and looseness of the bottom bushing. I noticed the chatter last year and it seemed to be worsening at the pre-Thanksgiving Christmas Parade, but it really showed itself after the 3 month storage. The upper bushings were likely gradually getting softer/thinner/weaker over that period. And clearly the mounts looked close to what came off the car, but dimension-ally they are incorrect - what their application actually is no one can tell me. I am absolutely stunned at the difference now in 1st and reverse that correcting the loose mounts made. Count me in as a better educated and experienced believer here. I'll drop a follow-up post after the new mounts are installed. Thanks again to all. Steve This message was edited by len47merc on 2-21-17 @ 6:23 AM
|
|
| TomO | -- 02-21-2017 @ 9:26 AM |
|
Reproduction parts are necessary, but it sure would be nice if the vendors chose manufacturers with some quality control and responded when the supply a part that does not fit. Today, with parts being made all over the world, it pays to compare the new part with the old part and if they are different, look at another source. Ken, the link I had to Drake's catalog was for the earlier motor mount, but the 78 prefix drawing appears to be the same drawing. Steve, I am glad that you do not have the chatter anymore. Unfortunately, when you call in to the help line at most vendors, you get someone that has been hired to answer the phone, not someone that has experience with the old cars. That is why you received different answers from different vendors. Tom
|
|
| ken ct. | -- 02-21-2017 @ 10:24 AM |
|
Sorry Tom ,I assumed the pic was what Steve had,my mistake.Shows what a 1/4" short will do LOL. ken ct. Glad he was helped.
|
|
| TomO | -- 02-22-2017 @ 10:21 AM |
|
No problem, Ken. I just answered your question to keep the record clear, in case someone brings this up in the future. Steve was the right guy to have the problem. He takes the time to diagnose the problem and make sure that he only changes one thing at a time, so he knows if it fixes it. Tom
|
|
| len47merc | -- 02-26-2017 @ 5:38 AM |
|
Just a follow-up of closure on this thread as committed. You may have seen under the other thread concerning motor mounts tightness I have now installed new mounts and these actually made a further noticeable improvement over the 'MacGuyver'd' set-up and test described earlier here, at minimum so far as clutch performance is concerned. The clutch is so smooth that I had my 26 year old son, who had almost given up driving the '47 due to his frustration with the clutch chatter his limited experience could not manage, drive the car yesterday evening. Like my earlier comment, he also was stunned not only at how smooth it is now but that when leaving from a dead stop on level ground, in both 1st & reverse, that with little-to-no effort no gas pedal needs to be used now to release the clutch. Really appreciate all your input on this - still working on the prize for TomO. Just amazed how every day I'm in learning/education mode on something here with these old Fords, even with what seems on the surface should be intuitive & simple. Thanks again - Steve This message was edited by len47merc on 2-26-17 @ 5:39 AM
|
|
| kubes40 | -- 02-26-2017 @ 7:12 AM |
|
Steve, As you have well learned, TomO is a sharp guy. I read his posts thoroughly each and every time and continue to pick up lessons from his contributions herein. You had earlier asked about who might supply the best mounts and I am probably late offering my .02ยข. Drake does, in my opinion, offer the best repop mounts available. However, you must use your authentic bolts as his are too short. Still, the mounts themselves are very good quality and mimic the originals better than any others I've seen (currently) offered.
|
|
| EFV-8 Club Forum : | https://www.earlyfordv8.org/forum |
| Topic: | https://www.earlyfordv8.org/forum/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=18&Topic=10525 |