I went with the ron morris mounts since they are adjustable. That way i can tweal things forward, backwards and sideways a bit.

I also got the lower side plates so that i can install the motor 1/2" lower than stock for better handling. I am hoping to install it a few inches back as well.
 

afrid, I sent you a PM.....

barnett468 wrote:

.
why do you want to lower it?
 

Hello barnett,

My understanding is that the old style frame mounts on the 65-66 were about 1/2" lower than later ones.  The convertible and big-block mounts in 67+ were also 1/2" lower than standard.  Not clear why they lowered the convertible other than maybe cg or exhaust clearing the extra frame box?  So the first 1/2" sounds like a freebie.

Don't recall why people were using the 1" lower brackets in the motor-mount thread, but maybe for added tunnel clearance for a 6 speed or maybe so it would at least require less tunnel modification, or maybe purely for cg?

I think taking ~25% of the weight of the car and moving it lower or back will make a measureable change to the cg, maybe not too significant in the big scheme of things.

I plan to switch the efi intake to a GT40 version, and would like to use a 1" phenolic spacer.  So concern that it may add hood/export brace clearance issues, or at least it would be pretty tight, so lowering it may add some flexibility.

And lastly the drive-line angles could be changed in a small amount.  With 34.5" between the engine/trans mounts a 1" drop changes the rear-pinion relative angle by 1.6 degrees.  It appears it is in the right direction by going lower, but maybe still not enough in my case.

So far the downsides are the stock cross-member won't fit and the oil pan is lower to the ground.  I have the other brackets if I find a bigger negative and need to go higher.  I haven't checked the steering linkages yet, but that would be a game changer.

Those are the reasons I considered.  Any other positives/negatives?

Hey afnid,

Looks good. I've been thinking about building mounts with Beuning's plans vs. buying Ron Morris. I would do Daze's Ron Morris mods to use rubber rear leaf shackle bushings instead of poly but wondering what bushings you're using for the 1.75" O.D. tube? Daze reports a good result with the smaller bushings but a little more cushion might not be bad.

http://www.fordmuscleforums.com/engine-articles/492722-modifying-ron-morris-engine-mounts.html

afnid wrote:

barnett468 wrote:

.
why do you want to lower it?
 

Hello barnett,

My understanding is that the old style frame mounts on the 65-66 were about 1/2" lower than later ones.  The convertible and big-block mounts in 67+ were also 1/2" lower than standard.  Not clear why they lowered the convertible other than maybe cg or exhaust clearing the extra frame box?  So the first 1/2" sounds like a freebie.

Don't recall why people were using the 1" lower brackets in the motor-mount thread, but maybe for added tunnel clearance for a 6 speed or maybe so it would at least require less tunnel modification, or maybe purely for cg?

I think taking ~25% of the weight of the car and moving it lower or back will make a measureable change to the cg, maybe not too significant in the big scheme of things.

I plan to switch the efi intake to a GT40 version, and would like to use a 1" phenolic spacer.  So concern that it may add hood/export brace clearance issues, or at least it would be pretty tight, so lowering it may add some flexibility.

And lastly the drive-line angles could be changed in a small amount.  With 34.5" between the engine/trans mounts a 1" drop changes the rear-pinion relative angle by 1.6 degrees.  It appears it is in the right direction by going lower, but maybe still not enough in my case.

So far the downsides are the stock cross-member won't fit and the oil pan is lower to the ground.  I have the other brackets if I find a bigger negative and need to go higher.  I haven't checked the steering linkages yet, but that would be a game changer.

Those are the reasons I considered.  Any other positives/negatives?

If your goal is to position the motor so your T5 fits and the shifter lines up well in the stock hole in the tunnel, then I suggest you try the early style 65 mounts you mentioned.  That's what I have in my 65 and my T5 fits very well and the shifter lines up in the stock hole with only minor cutting.  I needed to move the motor back a bit, and by swapping the mounts side-side, I was able to do that.  Also, the slot in the frame brackets provides some adjustability.  See my post on this for more info: http://fyi.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=4001
 

Last edited by jkordzi (3/05/2015 11:59 PM)

afnid wrote:

jon, i do have a pmgr but the solenoid is up top already.  I will loosely-assemble the center this week-end just to make sure and figure out what to do for the frame brace.  Did you buy or build your brace?

Mine is a '62 Falcon, the brace I bought from Falcon Enterprises didn't fit so if I want one I have to fire up the welder. Honestly with these poly bushed motor mounts I wonder if it's even necessary for a mild street car, the engine is now a pretty solid cross brace.