Register now to get rid of these ads!

flattie in a deuce... firewall clearance??

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by tinmann, Dec 15, 2009.

  1. tinmann
    Joined: Nov 11, 2005
    Posts: 1,588

    tinmann
    Member

    Should be "slam dunk easy" but with a mint original firewall and a '39 tranny bolted up to a stock '32 K member, I've got Offy heads touching the firewall.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Is it normal for thicker than stock aftermarket heads to interfere with the firewall?
     
  2. lowsquire
    Joined: Feb 21, 2002
    Posts: 2,567

    lowsquire
    Member
    from Austin, TX

    If you have room in front, I would space the engine& trans forward slightly. Looks like you are very close behind the breather/fuel pump stand too.
    what mount are you using at the K member? I seem to remember there is a spacer ring that may give you enough. Bruce L. or someone maybe more help.
     
  3. /.............
     
  4. HellsHotRods
    Joined: Jul 24, 2009
    Posts: 1,409

    HellsHotRods
    Member

    I only had to modify the firewall a little for the intake. Your heads seem way to close. I have 2 32's with stock frames, 39 trans and 50 merc flatties....no clearance issues on the aftermarket heads. Maybe something didn't get set up spacing right??
     

  5. HotRodMicky
    Joined: Oct 14, 2001
    Posts: 1,783

    HotRodMicky
    Member

    Hard to see in the pic, but i would think your engine is too high in the front.
    If you are useing stock trannymount your front engine mount ears should be
    1/2 inch below the top of the rail. Not the rubber mount!

    If you have the mount on top of the rails you have to lower the front 2-2,5 inches
    to be in the ORIGINAL position.

    Then the clearence at the firewall will be fine.


    Michael
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2009
  6. HotRodMicky
    Joined: Oct 14, 2001
    Posts: 1,783

    HotRodMicky
    Member

    I forgot.....

    I raised the transmission-part of the crossmember 1.5 inches so that i can mount the
    the engine rubber mounts on top of the rails
     
  7. Laurent
    Joined: Nov 27, 2009
    Posts: 44

    Laurent
    Member

    I think you right Michael!!
     
  8. klazurfer
    Joined: Nov 21, 2001
    Posts: 1,596

    klazurfer
    Member

    Seems like the firewall needs to go back a bit.
    Klaz
     

    Attached Files:

  9. HotRodMicky
    Joined: Oct 14, 2001
    Posts: 1,783

    HotRodMicky
    Member

    There is a rubber band and the gap wil be 1/8 to 1/4 inch later.
    So that is not the problem.

    Michael
     
  10. 327-365hp
    Joined: Feb 5, 2006
    Posts: 5,430

    327-365hp
    Member
    from Mass

    Keep in mind, if the head is that close you won't be able to take it off if use heads studs instead of bolts.
     
  11. tinmann
    Joined: Nov 11, 2005
    Posts: 1,588

    tinmann
    Member

    Is my engine too high at the front? Does anyone else have some pics of these areas for reference>

    [​IMG]
     
  12. HotRodMicky
    Joined: Oct 14, 2001
    Posts: 1,783

    HotRodMicky
    Member

    Not the best pics that i have but you may get the idea

    I have original `32 front mounts and waterpumps whith ears still there
    so good to compare
     

    Attached Files:

  13. Bruce Lancaster
    Joined: Oct 9, 2001
    Posts: 21,681

    Bruce Lancaster
    Member Emeritus

    The original axis of engine mounting is dictated by the trans mount at rear and the handcrank acess hole up front...looks like you have maybe a narrowed A crossmember, so front bearing has move up, so put on radiator and shell and use holes in those to find crank axis.
     
  14. alchemy
    Joined: Sep 27, 2002
    Posts: 20,516

    alchemy
    Member

    When I put a V8 in a virgin B car, I lined the crank centerline up with the hand crank hole on the top spring mount. This places the bottom of the waterpump feet (pre 48's) about level with the top edge of the frame.

    You need to lower your front mounts about the height of your biscuits. When you do this you will probably notice your trans mount will feel more comfortable as well. It's probably got quite a wedgey right now.
     
  15. continentaljohn
    Joined: Jul 24, 2002
    Posts: 5,535

    continentaljohn
    Member

    I think Klaz is right , push the firewall back some and toss in the bolt on top of the cowl. The high of the motor seem to be fine and I belive your problem is a combo:D. The firewall and trans mount needs to be check. The rubber donut can get crushed if you don't have the 1/8 " spacer in it, also what the condition of the rubber and the tophat it sits in? You should have a 1/2 space on the head and firewall.
     
  16. LOUDpipes
    Joined: Dec 20, 2003
    Posts: 125

    LOUDpipes
    Member
    from Finland

    Hi,
    If using original K-member and "new" style waterpump enginemounts the front mount should
    be about an inch or a bit more below the frame rail top (sory don´t have a computer in garage). Otherwise there will be some twist in trans mount and and if using original type closed drive shaft also too much angle in front joint. And Klaz is right too! It´s all about small adjustments ?
    LOUD
     
  17. dsiddons
    Joined: Mar 6, 2006
    Posts: 1,542

    dsiddons
    Member
    from Indiana

    Yeah your motor is in there too high. When using that stock kmember you need to set your motormounts lower. Than it will fit. Probably wont be able to run lake pipes. Plan on fenton headers. Also with the motor in there low you might have probablems with a f100 steering box. I'm running a stock 32'..
     
  18. dsiddons
    Joined: Mar 6, 2006
    Posts: 1,542

    dsiddons
    Member
    from Indiana

    Just lower them mounts a 1/2 inch. Budda bing budda boom. Don't move the firewall, that will create more problems and look like shit. The motor should sit in there low with a stock k member. Fenton headers and probably stock 32' steering box.
     
  19. HellsHotRods
    Joined: Jul 24, 2009
    Posts: 1,409

    HellsHotRods
    Member

    Get a hand crank block or line up the center of the crankshaft about 1/2" above the top of the front crossmember. This will put your motor mounting tabs/ears abotu 3/4" below the top of the frame ( bringing your heads away from the firewall at the same time).

    The only time I have seen motors mounted on top of the frame rails or even higher (Ionia) is when the rear trans mount is positioned higher and usually an open driveline is then used.
     
  20. tinmann
    Joined: Nov 11, 2005
    Posts: 1,588

    tinmann
    Member

    As usual, the HAMB comes to the rescue. I've got lots to check when I get home from work. Thank you one and all!!
     
  21. xix32
    Joined: Jun 12, 2008
    Posts: 596

    xix32
    Member

    when you get it lowered it should look like this ( `39 trans,stock "K" and front of crank lined up with the crank guide on a stock front crossmember)
    [​IMG]
     
  22. thunderbirdesq
    Joined: Feb 15, 2006
    Posts: 7,092

    thunderbirdesq
    Member

    Well, crap! I guess I'll be changing over to stock style '32 mounts on my frame now, glad I saw this before I burned these pump mounts in all the way.

    [​IMG]
     
  23. dsiddons
    Joined: Mar 6, 2006
    Posts: 1,542

    dsiddons
    Member
    from Indiana

    You dont have to do that. Just lower the ones you have. You have truck pumps dont you?
     
  24. xix32
    Joined: Jun 12, 2008
    Posts: 596

    xix32
    Member

    without the stock front crossmember to measure from, you can place a straight edge across the top frame rails and measure down to the crank centerline at the front of the pulley. it should be 2 3/8". then the rear trans mount will also be flat up against the "K" member.
     
  25. Deuce-Merchant
    Joined: Dec 1, 2007
    Posts: 325

    Deuce-Merchant
    Member
    from BC Canada

    Awesome thread guys, Thanks Tinmann for asking the right questions and thanks guys for the right answers, I love this place.....
     
  26. thunderbirdesq
    Joined: Feb 15, 2006
    Posts: 7,092

    thunderbirdesq
    Member

    I would, but honestly I think it might be just as much work as fabbing up some stock style mounts and using the crossmember mount holes that are already there. The current mounts are located directly above the rear edge of the crossmember so they would need to be notched there as well as the top reworked. I think I might just whip up some front mounts out of 3/8".
     
  27. tinmann
    Joined: Nov 11, 2005
    Posts: 1,588

    tinmann
    Member

    I'm heading to my shop right now to write this little tidbit of information to my large poster-sized deuce frame diagram (in permanent ink).

    This place works!!
     
  28. xix32
    Joined: Jun 12, 2008
    Posts: 596

    xix32
    Member

    i have no idea why so many insist on hanging the engine on the frame rails. the engine weight must be carried through the frame / crossmember attachment that way, on it's way to the spring.
    why not mount it on the front crossmember, the way ford intended?
    i built these mounts from 3 pcs of 1/4", welded together. just be sure to build in clearance for the belt on the 59a
    [​IMG]
     
  29. Likewise...........I didn't use a deuce crossmember but I made these so I could use an existing cross steer box
     

    Attached Files:

  30. dsiddons
    Joined: Mar 6, 2006
    Posts: 1,542

    dsiddons
    Member
    from Indiana

    Cuz most people have model a front crossmembers.
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.