motor mounts

[manmerc5519]

Removing 302 from 55 Merc Monclair for a 352 what mounts would i use for this motor it came out ford truck. not sure of what year.I am changing motor and tranny al togeather will i have very many problems.

[darrell]

55 mercury mounts

[JeffB2]

These are what you will need. https://www.ebay.com/itm/28112108589...4AAMXQ2UVQ8Gy6

[Brushwolf]

The mounts are the same from 54-58 all V8. Most say they need to be swapped side to side, but since they are the same, I think that means reverse them from their normal position by flipping them which causes the motor to be moved either further forward or back toward firewall.

If the 352 is later than 58, your driver side manifold may hit the steering box. I am considering a 390 into a 56 Merc and since 390 is the same profile/dimensions as a 352, the same issues apply to either engine. I can get pics of the 58 driver side manifold if desired.

Even a 58 manifold may also hit the inner edge of the driver side upper A arm frame mount. Some have raised the motor with a plate under engine mount or trimmed a bit off the inner edge of that to get clearance.

Discussed this swap on HAMB 52-59 Ford social group recently along with several other engines and crossmember repairs. "56 Mercury engine swap. Anyone done a 400M?"

[KULTULZ]

I can get pics of the 58 driver side manifold if desired.

I would appreciate that and CASTING ID NOS if possible. The same manifold was used on 58/59 FE and 1958/60 BIRD FE.

[KULTULZ]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

... and ...

The 58/ steering box was redesigned to accept the FE.

NOTE -

The box was re-designed in 1958 FORD to RECIRCULATING BALL TYPE -

[Brushwolf]

I have a lot of FE manifolds, but being dark out I can't check any still in cars. I do have a couple hanging on the wall, one of which I believe came off a 58 332 with the machined chamber heads (5750731 E 08). The other came off a 58 Ford convertible IIRC (EDC9431A 70 backwards C)

The profiles of both left side manifolds is almost the same. But one has a tapped fitting for heat riser tube or something and the other does not. Otherwise they appear identical with the recessed top profile on the top at the rear to clear the steering box.

[Brushwolf]

I have a 59 332 engine sitting in one 58 retractable that I believe is all original (the engine itself) and a 58 four door that is in pretty decent shape for a project car and supposed to be all original. There are a couple more 58 retractables out there, but one has a 64 engine and the other I can't remember if it still has exhaust manifolds still on it. All are FE's though.

But, I can check those tomorrow if you like, though idk if I can see the casting numbers on those cuz except one they have front clips on them. I have bears and coyotes coming in the yard sometimes, so I don't venture out back at night usually...

[Brushwolf]

The 57 and 58 Ford steering gear boxes are different as mentioned already. Besides internal changes the profile of the 58 steering gear top is narrower and has a 3 bolt cast cover. The 57 has a 4 bolt cover that would intrude on an FE exhaust manifold.

As far as the Merc's IDK if 55 and 56 are the same or not. My 56 Merc has a 3 bolt cover with a narrow profile just like a 58 Ford steering gear, but my 55 Ford has a 4 bolt cover that does not look FE friendly.

If you have a 4 bolt cover on the steering gear on your 55 Merc you may have to change to a 56 Merc steering gear, even with a 58 narrow profile left exhaust manifold. If it has a 3 bolt cover with flat side toward the engine, you should be OK as far as that manifold clearance issue as long as an early FE driver side manifold is used.

[KULTULZ]

Just a note regarding 1955/56 steering boxes. In mid 1956 production, FORD went with a 3T sector shaft gear as opposed to the earlier 2T design to strengthen the box. That is what you are seeing.

[Brushwolf]

Originally Posted by KULTULZ

Just a note regarding 1955/56 steering boxes. In mid 1956 production, FORD went with a 3T sector shaft gear as opposed to the earlier 2T deign to strengthen the box. That is what you are seeing.

Do you know if Merc did the same as Ford and changed to a different steering box in mid-1956? And if so you can tell the difference by whether there are 3 or 4 bolts on the top cover? Or was that strictly an internal mechanical improvement and did not change the box profile in 1956?

Total guess, but I suspect that being both the FE and MEL engines were probably on the drawing board by mid-1956, that they were at least contemplating eventually using one or both of them in Mercury as early as 1956. As previously mentioned my 56 Merc has a narrow profile 3 bolt cover that visibly resembles a 58 Ford steering gear.

Since the MEL originally had upswept exhaust manifolds though, I would be inclined to think it was the imminent FE that was the motivation to slim down both Ford and Merc steering boxes by 1958 on both makes.

And perhaps even earlier on the Mercs since the manufacturers tended to try out new innovations in lower volume makes or models before using them across the board in their big volume sellers. (Recall the 4100 Cadillac disastrous new engine that evolved into the fairly successful 4500 and 4900 versions).

I had a different 57 convertible way back and stuck a 58 Merc 430 in it with a 1961 T85 OD and had no issues with 57 steering box clearance. Makes me wonder whether an early 58-60 MEL engine would fit in a 56 Merc or Ford too..

[darrell]

ive seen 430s in 56 fords.almost bought one.

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by Brushwolf

Do you know if Merc did the same as Ford and changed to a different steering box in mid-1956? And if so you can tell the difference by whether there are 3 or 4 bolts on the top cover? Or was that strictly an internal mechanical improvement and did not change the box profile in 1956?

It seems MERC got fancy one model year ahead of FORD. I have photos of both boxes - will have to dig them out. More to follow.

[KULTULZ]

Total guess, but I suspect that being both the FE and MEL engines were probably on the drawing board by mid-1956, that they were at least contemplating eventually using one or both of them in Mercury as early as 1956. As previously mentioned my 56 Merc has a narrow profile 3 bolt cover that visibly resembles a 58 Ford steering gear.

The MEL 410 was to be introduced on the 1957 MERC (TPC) but foundry/casting problems pushed it back to be introduced in the 1958 EDSEL. The EDSEL saw the first intro of the FE (361) and MEL (410) as it had an early release date. MERC used the LINC 368 for the TPC in 1957.

[5851a]

I don't remember any trouble installing FE engines into 55 or 56's if you use the early manifolds. It was tight by upper A arm but cleared it. Fastest ride I have ever had was in a 56 Victoria with 427. Sandeson makes a header for the combination I believe, but you have to call. May be expensive but they are quality and know Fords.

[KULTULZ]

I will clear up a couple things the ANCHOR 2725 & 2726 are 1984-93 Mustang 5.0 mounts they are taller and eliminate the need to add spacers to the other mounts mentioned ...

Now we have found that ANCHOR mounts in the last few years have been failing as the rubber is from China and India so check the country of origin before you buy as they are sold under other trade names,mine compressed with my 302 and the stock manifold is now against the steering box when first installed you could pass a finger thru the gap,when I went to swap them the stud is turning in the rubber.They are being replaced with Prothane mounts all USA made and they will cost more but look at the quality.

SOURCE - https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/...e-swap.964715/ (EDITED)

[Brushwolf]

Originally Posted by KULTULZ

The MEL 410 was to be introduced on the 1957 MERC (TPC) but foundry/casting problems pushed it back to be introduced in the 1958 EDSEL. The EDSEL saw the first intro of the FE (361) and MEL (410) as it had an early release date. MERC used the LINC 368 for the TPC in 1957.

Edsel being the lowest production of Ford products then was the perfect test bed for engines not yet in wide production.

[Brushwolf]

Originally Posted by 5851a

I don't remember any trouble installing FE engines into 55 or 56's if you use the early manifolds. It was tight by upper A arm but cleared it. Fastest ride I have ever had was in a 56 Victoria with 427. Sandeson makes a header for the combination I believe, but you have to call. May be expensive but they are quality and know Fords.

I put a 61 Starliner 390 and its T85 OD in a 54 Ranchwagon and it bolted in with the 61 manifolds, but the left upper A arm eventually broke the left manifold during hard acceleration.

Motor mount flex I assume, but use of a 58-59 manifold probably would not have helped because it broke forward up alongside the arm. Not in the rear by the steering gear. The cure would probably have been to raise the motor a 1/4" with plates under the motor mounts. But I was in my teens, so didn't really know what I was doing anyway...

When the FE motor started burning too much oil I put an early 430 MEL engine in it which actually fit better cuz upswept exhaust manifolds. Everything bolted up with stock Ford parts.

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by Brushwolf

Edsel being the lowest production of Ford products then was the perfect test bed for engines not yet in wide production.

Well, the 1958 MERC received the 383 and 430 while LINC received the 430 only. The 410 was the first in the MEL SERIES and was meant for MERC HP in 1957. Missing 1957 assembly the 410 was ready/available for the MERC based EDSEL early assembly dates.

[Brushwolf]

Originally Posted by KULTULZ

SOURCE - https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/...e-swap.964715/ (EDITED)

That was a good link. May not help the OP with his FE, but it was useful to me cuz that is exactly what I am doing now. 351c into a 57 Fairlane and so far not happy with the several sets of mounts I have tried.

Butch's mounts way too tall for me...

351c 71-73 Mustang way too tall for me...

63-64 Galaxie too short and have to twist the engine on the mounts to make it sit straight. That would probably unduly stress them in actual use. And the engine is still just a tad further forward than I want it...

Next candidate up is 77-78 LTD with SBF, similar to pickup mounts but crossbolt, no stud...
Have to fab an adapter plate between frame and motor mount - IF enough vertical room.

If that doesn't work then the Anchor 2725 and 2726 for fitment analysis only and replace them with the Prothane mounts if the Anchor pieces fit. Have mechanical clutch linkage so can't have the motor flopping around...

Anyone need some extra motor mounts? JK.....

[KULTULZ]

If that doesn't work then the Anchor 2725 and 2726 for fitment analysis only and replace them with the Prothane mounts if the Anchor pieces fit. Have mechanical clutch linkage so can't have the motor flopping around...

That reference was meant for you and the 351C. Read all of it as the actual frame mounts may have to be massaged to have the mounts sit correctly.

I still owe you the 55/59 steering box photos and need more info on those FE EXH MAN.

What do you have up there, a complete FOMOCO salvage yard?

[Brushwolf]

I have lots of 50's to early 60's Fords and parts, but some other brands too. Was collecting project cars and parts for 20+ years on my weekends, but have sold off some of it the last few years. Literally still have tons of it though.

Yes I read the whole thread and the reason I decided to try the LTD crossbolted mounts first is that stud placement and I don't really want to cut or weld the car frame itself. No problem welding or cutting parts you can unbolt again..

But the Prothane versions shown in that link could be unbolted on the bottom, the stud removed and the bottom part modified to a dual bolt mount that matched the 57 frame mount. Same end result, just a different part modified. Those could end up being too tall too though, so don't want to spend the $156 for the Prothane unless I first know they are not too tall by trying the Anchor pieces in mockup.

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by Brushwolf

Do you know if Merc did the same as Ford and changed to a different steering box in mid-1956? And if so you can tell the difference by whether there are 3 or 4 bolts on the top cover? Or was that strictly an internal mechanical improvement and did not change the box profile in 1956?

Originally Posted by KULTULZ

It seems MERC got fancy one model year ahead of FORD. I have photos of both boxes - will have to dig them out. More to follow.

UPDATE -

It seems MERC jumped FORD again. MERC used a recirculating ball design box in late 1956 (FORD in 1958). So there are actually three choices for the 55/56 MERC.

I am still looking for the 55/56 FORD box info. There was a big discussion a while back here and all the information is in that post. I rarely have success with the SEARCH FEATURE here.

[KULTULZ]

63-64 Galaxie too short and have to twist the engine on the mounts to make it sit straight. That would probably unduly stress them in actual use. And the engine is still just a tad further forward than I want it...

I think the way it has been done to allow the insulators to sit correctly on the frame mounts is shown below. The mod is a little sloppy (IMO) but you can do a cleaner job. I am also of the DO NO HARM crowd.

[Brushwolf]

Yes those are the 84-93 Mustang motor mounts I believe. The concerns for my particular application with 351c motor and 400M manifolds is those mounts may sit the motor too high, though apparently with the 5.0 motors users are satisfied. And the Prothane version was recommended due to failing rubber in the 2725 and 2726 pieces.

The lower side single stud in either version locates between the frame holes so the simplest correction to the stud is cutting the slot, but which I am not crazy about doing on this car. Some of my other cars I would not hesitate to cut the slot if it was the only drawback.

I think being the Prothane versions are bolted together rather than riveted and molded like stock units would make them easier to disassemble and relocate the studs, but if the engine height issue is still there then I am right back where I started with Butch's mounts.

The last 2 pics are Butch's mounts which would be the perfect height with the insulators removed.

[Brushwolf]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

The 63-64 Galaxie mounts and 70's pickup mounts (perhaps Bronco mounts as well), utilize the single stud as well, but all sit in the lower existing frame hole and sit too low instead of too high. It does occur to me that the slight twist I mentioned before with the Galaxie mounts could be eliminated by a slight enlargement of the bottom frame hole though.

These mounts seem to all require between a half inch and full inch spacer between the engine and mount to raise the engine height. But this has also worked satisfactorily for other hobbiests apparently.

[Brushwolf]

Then we get to the 77-78 LTD and other 70's pickup SBF mounts which do not have a stud and utilize ears and a crossbolt instead. So no frame mount modification required, IF there is enough vertical space to place an adapter on top of the frame mount.

They appear to have a low profile like the Galaxie mounts and so there is that 1/2" to 1" additional height that probably would need to be added somewhere. And unlike with metal fabrication, it is easier to add material than subtract it putting mounts together.

Some people have reported success doing exactly that as well. Using a short SBF mount and making up an adapter to bolt between the stock mount and an off the shelf mount with the ears on the ends. That mount could probably be utilized with no ears or shortened ears too, but it would take some finesse welding on it and not burning up the rubber. But, I think I could manage that.

The adapter plate could begin with the bottom of an old Y block 54-58 mount and go from there. That is where I am now, but if it does not work out I will try the Mustang repro mount for fitment and if it does not sit too high I will get the Prothane Mustang mount and modify it to use 2 studs on the bottom plate that match the original frame mounts as well.

[KULTULZ]

Brushwolf, I need a favor. On POST #7, you showed photos of the 1958 FE manifolds.

Originally Posted by Brushwolf

I have a lot of FE manifolds, but being dark out I can't check any still in cars. I do have a couple hanging on the wall, one of which I believe came off a 58 332 with the machined chamber heads (5750731 E 08). The other came off a 58 Ford convertible IIRC (EDC9431A 70 backwards C)

The profiles of both left side manifolds is almost the same. But one has a tapped fitting for heat riser tube or something and the other does not. Otherwise they appear identical with the recessed top profile on the top at the rear to clear the steering box.

In the sequence of the photos you posted, can you show PHOTO #3 without the markings? Can you also show that fitting on the one by itself to show more clarity and which ENG NO. it has?

On photo #4, can you ID which manifolds is which by listing the CAST ID NOS.?

The backwards C (with F encircled) indicates CLEVELAND FOUNDRY.

THANX!

[Brushwolf]

Ok, I got these 20 and 10 years ago so who knows what could have been swapped by then, so don't bet the farm on it.

But the machine chambered head manifolds had the number starting with 5 and did not have the heat tube fitting. I was told it came from a retractable that had sat for years even back then. Engine had adjustable rockers too IIRC.

I have an unknown FE engine that I think was a 60 engine (yellow original paint valve covers) that has that same narrowed rear profile again and has the heat tube provision. All 3 were 4v engines, so idk why one didn't have that heat tube unless that came later on. But my 58 4 door 4v and that 59 332 2v don't have the heat tube provision either, so that can't be it.. Different carbs maybe?

BTW, I found 3 more manual MC (57 & two 58's). All 3 have the same exact casting number as ArtDeco's and the one on Ebay and the core I have laying here and every one also has the one inch bore designation cast on it. That is 6 out of 6. So, if it has that casting number it is definitely 57-58 manual brakes with 1" bore and common as grass.

All my power brake MC I looked at too and are all Wagner MC and Wagner part numbers. So, it looks like Ford farmed out the PB 1 1/8" 57-58 MC judging from my hoard.

[Brushwolf]

Pics disappeared..

[KULTULZ]

THANX!

Photos are perfect.

Originally Posted by Brushwolf

Ok, I got these 20 and 10 years ago so who knows what could have been swapped by then, so don't bet the farm on it.

But the machine chambered head manifolds had the number starting with 5 and did not have the heat tube fitting. I was told it came from a retractable that had sat for years even back then. Engine had adjustable rockers too IIRC.

I have an unknown FE engine that I think was a 60 engine (yellow original paint valve covers) that has that same narrowed rear profile again and has the heat tube provision. All 3 were 4v engines, so idk why one didn't have that heat tube unless that came later on. But my 58 4 door 4v and that 59 332 2v don't have the heat tube provision either, so that can't be it.. Different carbs maybe?

The early production (1958) 332-352 FE had machined combustion chambers and a solid cam. That explains the adjustable valve-train. Later production went to cast heads and hydraulic valve-train.

Most anything you have hiding up there can be ID'd by CASING ID and DATE CODE.

BTW, I found 3 more manual MC (57 & two 58's). All 3 have the same exact casting number as ArtDeco's and the one on Ebay and the core I have laying here and every one also has the one inch bore designation cast on it. That is 6 out of 6. So, if it has that casting number it is definitely 57-58 manual brakes with 1" bore and common as grass.

All my power brake MC I looked at too and are all Wagner MC and Wagner part numbers. So, it looks like Ford farmed out the PB 1 1/8" 57-58 MC judging from my hoard.

WAGNER was a vendor to FOMOCO during that period. Can you post photos of the PB MC when you have a chance?

Again THANX, one could probably spend a whole summer up there going through your yard ...

OH! Forgot to ad ...

The PN SEQUENCE you see with SEVEN NUMERICAL CHARACTERS was a FORD attempt to modify its' PARTS NUMBERING SYSTEM in 1958/59. Must not have worked as they went to the now familiar P&A SYSTEM most are more familiar with. You see it now mostly on period castings.

The sequence reading as EDC (example) was another part numbering system that was replaced by P&A. It was used to ID engine series.

[Brushwolf]

Here is the rebuilt Wagner/Kantor 1 1/8" rebuilt 57-58 PB MC. Casting says FE 23237, but Kantor tag says MC 23236. Dimensionally identical exteriorwise to the Ford 1" manual 57-58 brake MC, so either would bolt to either a manual or power brake car 57-58 firewall and pedal assembly. Bore diameter appears stamped on the Wagner 1 1/8" MC instead of raised cast characters on the Ford 1" unit casting.

When I get back to organizing stuff, if I find any more of either unit I will check them too. But, back to the motor mount fiasco for now..

[35ply351ford]

thanks for answering, But the Question was how to put a TRUE 351 cleveland into a 1956 ford fairlane the exhaust hits the steering box. Does anyone know if the make a lower steering box or a set of headers to fix this?

[Brushwolf]

It should fit with stock 351c manifolds. My 55 has stock steering box with a 72 351c 2v manifolds. If you have 4v manifolds it may be hard to find info on that.

Another thing that could possibly be done to create more exhaust space on the driver side is switch to a 56 Merc steering box which has a narrower top profile 3 bolt top like a 58 Ford steering gear.

Have not ever seen anyone mention that, but I have a 56 Merc and the steering gear is narrower at the 3 bolt top than a 55 or 57 Ford 4 bolt top steering gear.

So I would check out that possibility if you have steering box clearance issues that would be resolved with just a little more clearance. Probably an inch difference at the top of the sector where exhaust is most likely to be close.