Thanks, Jac, I just figured that out when I installed them. 
RF engine mount upgrade
- Thread starter ross nicol
- Start date
Ford motor mounts
Ford makes a heavy duty motor mount for the mid 80's F150 with small block, they have a bolt thru the 2 pieces of the mount. I have them on my Tiger, they seem to work just fine.
Ford makes a heavy duty motor mount for the mid 80's F150 with small block, they have a bolt thru the 2 pieces of the mount. I have them on my Tiger, they seem to work just fine.
Mark i'd find them through google at
http://www.totalcontrolproducts.com/motormounts.html
But i'm making them myself i'll post a picture
Frank
http://www.totalcontrolproducts.com/motormounts.html
But i'm making them myself i'll post a picture
Frank
Yes, I never fitted the RF style mount from the begining. the bracket at the rear between the exhaust seem to be a short sighted band aid fix to what was a problem with the engine lurching, not to mention causing problems with fitting the correct exhaust system under the rear clip. I simply modified the rear cross member based on the origonal design and fitted the mount your talking about. I also remade the gear box mounts to reduce any movement in the drive train. This allows the use of rod style shift that works without difficulty. If you need to have a look i have posted pic on 40inches Weblog
Last edited:
Hi Burns,
I replaced my standard ford mounts with the GT40Aus mounts recently. Dimensionally they are the same as the ford and fit straight in without any mods.
The reason I used the GT40Aus mounts is because I lowered the gearbox and effectively solid mounted it. Because of this I did not want the engine rotating on the soft ford mounts and then loading up the gearbox cases. The GT40Aus mounts are very rigid limiting any movement and are very well made.
Advantages were that the engine / gearbox is now more level in the car, there is no need for the standard RF restraining rod under the exhaust headers to stop engine movement fwd and back (as mick noted) and it tidys up the mounting arrangement.
Vibration is only noticable on start up, otherwise everything still runs pretty smooth.
It was a good thing I did replace the ford mounts though as the rubber had started to separate. This is after 2500km of track use.
I replaced my standard ford mounts with the GT40Aus mounts recently. Dimensionally they are the same as the ford and fit straight in without any mods.
The reason I used the GT40Aus mounts is because I lowered the gearbox and effectively solid mounted it. Because of this I did not want the engine rotating on the soft ford mounts and then loading up the gearbox cases. The GT40Aus mounts are very rigid limiting any movement and are very well made.
Advantages were that the engine / gearbox is now more level in the car, there is no need for the standard RF restraining rod under the exhaust headers to stop engine movement fwd and back (as mick noted) and it tidys up the mounting arrangement.
Vibration is only noticable on start up, otherwise everything still runs pretty smooth.
It was a good thing I did replace the ford mounts though as the rubber had started to separate. This is after 2500km of track use.
Ross Nicol
GT40s Supporter
I have always been under the impression that the reason there was so much angle on the RF/Audi, motor and gearbox, was to get sensible drive shaft angles. Having lowered the rear of your unit Rick, have you now got a lot more angle on the shafts? I haven't solid mounted my 302/ZF but it is pretty well mounted with 2 rear g'box mounts, 2 top g'box mounts onto crossmember
and 2 of the standard rubber engine mounts which don't seemed to get stressed due to the firm mounting of the ZF. I've now done a lot of standing race starts and no problem so far.
Ross
and 2 of the standard rubber engine mounts which don't seemed to get stressed due to the firm mounting of the ZF. I've now done a lot of standing race starts and no problem so far.
Ross
Ross,
Drive shaft angles are not too bad. I have not measured the angle but they look ok with travel still available in the CV's.
My rear end (the car that is) is set up fairly stiff to counter understeer issues so there is inherently minimal rear suspension movement.
Attached photos show : Engine as level as I could get it, Drive shaft looking down on it, and, Drive shaft looking from as far behind as I could get with the rear clip in place.
We are off to NZ tonight for a couple of weeks (yee haa) Only south island but looking forward to it.
Drive shaft angles are not too bad. I have not measured the angle but they look ok with travel still available in the CV's.
My rear end (the car that is) is set up fairly stiff to counter understeer issues so there is inherently minimal rear suspension movement.
Attached photos show : Engine as level as I could get it, Drive shaft looking down on it, and, Drive shaft looking from as far behind as I could get with the rear clip in place.
We are off to NZ tonight for a couple of weeks (yee haa) Only south island but looking forward to it.
Attachments
Similar threads
