1955 customline 351 c motor mount help

[spoon5]

I have a 1955 customline that had a 272 in it i want to put a 351c in it, do anyone know what motor mounts i need. Thanks

[JeffB2]

You can use these:http://www.ebay.com/itm/1984-1995-Mu...0a76b1&vxp=mtr You will also need this: http://www.speedwaymotors.com/1970-8...-Pan,7280.html The 5.0 (302) is a much better fit and there are even headers that will work,to use the mounts in your '55 look at these pictures of the modifications.The problem with the Cleveland is it's wider width 25 1/2" compared to 24" in a 289-302/5.0 the 351W is 24.5" this causes issues with the exhaust on the drivers side and the steering box.

[35ply351ford]

great post: but what would you suggest for replacement steering box or headers for this app I have a 1956 fairlane and a 1972 cleveland that I,ve had completely rebuilt am trying to put them together

[dmsfrr]

Originally Posted by 35ply351ford

great post: but what would you suggest for replacement steering box or headers for this app I have a 1956 fairlane and a 1972 cleveland that I,ve had completely rebuilt am trying to put them together

35ply351ford, this was an 8 year old thread. spoon5 hasn't posted on FordBarn for 3 years.

JeffB2 or someone else may reply or there is a similar current thread here that mentions '351c' motor mounts into a '57. At this link, 2 pages for your review. It may have some info that's helpful...

https://www.fordbarn.com/forum/showthread.php?t=300649


.

[Brushwolf]

You don't have to change steering box or use headers. I have a 55 Crown that has a 1972 351C with stock 2v cast manifolds and stock 55 steering box.

I also started the post about modifying SBF Butch's mounts to install a 351c in a 57. It has 77 pickup 400M manifolds which are larger than 351c 2v manifolds and still fit very good in the 57 chassis, but idk if those manifolds would fit in a 56.

Butch's mounts set my 351c too high in 57 chassis, as did the stock 71-73 Mustang 351c mounts and the later 84-93 Mustang 5.0 mounts appear too high also, though I have not tried them as yet. By "too high" I mean you can put a clenched fist between the oil pan and engine crossmember. Those mounts appear to work better for the 5.0 though judging from other installs on 54-56 chassis. Maybe cuz different pan profiles...

63-64 Galaxie SBF mounts, 70's SBF pickup, 77-78 LTD SBF mounts all sit too low (oil pan sits on crossmember w/o spacers added), but some people are using them with 1/2" to 1" shims between the mount and the motor.

Some of those mounts are short enough to use a fabbed adapter plate to put between the frame mount instead and the later SBF mounts mentioned and adapter fabrication would depend on which motor mount you chose (studs or ear-type crossbolted mounts). But I prefer the shorter mounts cuz easier to add height than subtract it.

The 351c 2v manifolds clearly will work with several motor mount possibilities discussed in detail on those 2 other threads. If you have 351c 4v heads and manifolds it will be hard to find a lot of info on those and those may interfere with the steering gear cuz they are larger too.

[Brushwolf]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

https://www.fordbarn.com/forum/showthread.php?t=300780

[35ply351ford]

Thanks, for all the advice I have accomplished my goal. that was to put a 72 351 2v cleveland into a 1956 fairlane. used the mounts from a 65-66 289-302 mustang, had to add a 1" square tubing spacer between mount and block but so far looks very good no manifold to steering sector problems. Though was not as simple as putting the 351W into my 1935 plymouth coupe.

[JeffB2]

Originally Posted by 35ply351ford

Thanks, for all the advice I have accomplished my goal. that was to put a 72 351 2v cleveland into a 1956 fairlane. used the mounts from a 65-66 289-302 mustang, had to add a 1" square tubing spacer between mount and block but so far looks very good no manifold to steering sector problems. Though was not as simple as putting the 351W into my 1935 plymouth coupe.

And that is why for years we have recommended the late Mustang mounts like my older post shows they are tall enough that you do not need a spacer also by changing them side to side it moves the engine further back (preferred) or forward

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by JeffB2

And that is why for years we have recommended the late Mustang mounts like my older post shows they are tall enough that you do not need a spacer also by changing them side to side it moves the engine further back (preferred) or forward

VERY GOOD POINT!

*********************

YEARS AGO... IN A GALAXIE FAR, FAR AWAY ...

SALEEN MUST came out with a mount set that allowed a 5.8L to be set into the then MUST engine bay and be able to close the OEM hood. I don't know if these are still available or not if hood clearance is an issue (351C).

[5851a]

The Saleen mounts may have just been the fox body convertible mounts 87 to 90, in 90 all the 5.0 mustangs had them. Supposed to drop engine 3/4". They are the captured design like JeffB2 has pictured.

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by 5851a

The Saleen mounts may have just been the fox body convertible mounts 87 to 90, in 90 all the 5.0 mustangs had them. Supposed to drop engine 3/4". They are the captured design like JeffB2 has pictured.

You're Right!

I lost the MUST fever many years ago. You refreshed my memory.

THANX!