Early Ford V-8 Club Forum

EFV-8 Club Forum / General Ford Discussion / Clutch issue

Reply to Discussion | New Discussion << previous || next >>

Posted By Discussion Topic: Clutch issue -- page: 1 2 3     len47merc 02-20-2017 @ 8:27 AM reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 1165 Joined: Oct 2013 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 reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 1165 Joined: Oct 2013 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 reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 1513 Joined: Jan 2010 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 reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 864 Joined: Oct 2009 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 reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 1165 Joined: Oct 2013 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 reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 1165 Joined: Oct 2013 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 reply profile send p.m. Member Posts: 472 Joined: Jan 2010 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 reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 1165 Joined: Oct 2013 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 reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 7243 Joined: Oct 2009 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 reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 1513 Joined: Jan 2010 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.

<< previous || next >>

PAGE: 1 2 3

NOTE: YOU MUST BE A REGISTERED USER AND BE LOGGED IN TO POST (and reply to) messages in this forum. If you are a first time user, please click the CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT in the masthead above to register and Log In. After that, all you do is LOG IN to enjoy using this site.

DISCLAIMER: The V-8 Club does no independent testing of any of the opinions, thoughts or suggestions presented in the website on the Forum, in the Tech Tips section, or any section. A reader should consider the website to be a forum wherein differing solutions to a particular set of circumstances may be discussed. Ultimately, the selection of an item for an individual's vehicle must be based upon the independent study of the vehicle owner in consultation with people in the hobby and restoration experts.

EFV-8 Club Forum Home | Back to Home Page | Contact the Webmaster

Copyright © 2009 - EFV-8.org
Powered by < CF FORUM > v.2.1