Register now to get rid of these ads!

Will This Work, If Not, Why Not?

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by 43gman, Feb 2, 2009.

  1. 43gman
    Joined: Jan 19, 2009
    Posts: 187

    43gman
    Member
    from NC

    I'm trying to mount the rear of a '56 265" SBC into a stock, (boxed) A chassis. (Early Chevy, no "side mounts".) We have the front mounts from Vern Tardel, and everything there is fine. These are struts from the front end of a Jeep, rubber insulated, mounted to homemade angle iron brackets which are bolted where the stock GM rear motor mounts were originally. The way we've set it up is no metal to metal contact. Probably will also mount the rear of the transmission, (later model Saginaw with tail shaft mounted "ears",) for good measure, but do you think these will work okay? Thoughts? Thanks in advance.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Looks like it will work when you consider the front and the tranny have supports as well. Clean idea.
     
  3. HotRod33
    Joined: Oct 5, 2008
    Posts: 2,570

    HotRod33
    Member

    I see no reason why your setup won't work, but I would use a transmission mount on the tailshaft...Looks good...
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2009
  4. gearsforguts
    Joined: Sep 18, 2005
    Posts: 436

    gearsforguts
    Member
    from temple,pa

    i would pop the rubber bushings out of those links and weld a good bead around where the shaft meets the eyelit.but i dont see why it wont work if your using a tailshaft mount aswell
     

  5. AZAV8
    Joined: May 3, 2005
    Posts: 997

    AZAV8
    Member
    from Tucson, AZ

    The upper mount that attaches to the frame is good because the bolt is in double shear loading. The lower mount is not because that bolt is single shear loaded. That means that the shear load on the bolt is in a single plane. You need to design a lower mount similar to the upper mount so the bolt has two planes of shear load. I hopes this helps. If it doesn't make sense, send a PM to El Polacko and he can explain it better.
     
  6. Flipper
    Joined: May 10, 2003
    Posts: 3,395

    Flipper
    Member
    from Kentucky

    Won't that allow the engine and trans to sway? ....and twist the rubber motor mounts in two?
     
  7. oilslinger53
    Joined: Apr 17, 2007
    Posts: 2,500

    oilslinger53
    Member
    from covina CA

    Looks like a slick set up to me. Nice use of you brain!
     
  8. Little Wing
    Joined: Nov 25, 2005
    Posts: 7,505

    Little Wing
    Member
    from Northeast

    I think mount the tranny end bracket under the ear instead of behind ,,using the same kinda mount as on the frame.but thats me,,looks good ,,nice work.
     
  9. Hackerbilt
    Joined: Aug 13, 2001
    Posts: 6,254

    Hackerbilt
    Member

    I dunno....
    Lots of angles between front/mid/trans mounts...loads of rubber suspending everything...
    I know its not really like it, but with the potential for movement, I almost see this like supporting the torque rotation of the engine with hanging chains.

    Might work...might work FINE...but it wouldn't be working on something I was building.
    I'd go with a set of early Ford style pucks and flat steel ears from the bellhousing.
    Stability in all directions...enough rubber to cancel any vibrations...strength to resist torque loading and more room to fit your exhaust and whatever else might need the space.

    To use double bushed links along with the narrow lower mount configuration you have due to the early Chevy engine, I'd want the links to be mounted to the top of the engine so that they can easily resist torque...
     
  10. I am undecided, because with a trans mount it will not mimic the factory arrangement (might have weird harmonics) and without a trans mount it will be shaky. If the side mounts were solid at the bottom I would be willing to sign off on them.
     
  11. alchemy
    Joined: Sep 27, 2002
    Posts: 20,405

    alchemy
    Member

    Won't it rock side to side like a hammock?
     
  12. 49ratfink
    Joined: Feb 8, 2004
    Posts: 18,828

    49ratfink
    Member
    from California

    ^^^^ what AZAV8 said about shear and all that.

    will your clutch linkage clear everything?
     
  13. With the front engine mounts AND a rear tranny mount, the idea of the middle mount id to take the strain off the bellhousing and not much more. In that regard I think your idea will work fine although it isn't as much support as the original style GM mount.
     
  14. 57tailgater
    Joined: Nov 22, 2008
    Posts: 845

    57tailgater
    Member
    from Georgia

    If you use that on the tail shaft too you will have a lot of swaying going on. While something like this would be a good torque arm, it looks like this just lets gravity mostly keep the engine in place. When you apply torque kiss gravity good bye. Trouble is there is rotation allowed. I had thought about this situation on my '57 Chevy pickup and I'm staying with the front mounts, custom brackets to the isolators on an original crossmember that goes under the bellhousing (where you are looking at), and then a support at the tail shaft. The original manual 3 speed didn't have a rear support as it just hung off the bellhousing - it was designed that way. I'm going to a 4 speed designed to use a tail support so I believe it's necessary as the case isn't designed to withstand the loads (same with automatics too). No use have things tearing everything up after you put all the work into it.
     

  15. Yup, like I said, with front and rear mounts these things just take a load off the middle.
     
  16. Fogger
    Joined: Aug 18, 2007
    Posts: 1,804

    Fogger
    Member

    Even though you plan on a rear transmission mount you might consider a tube loop that would connect both sides of the frame together and bolt to your existing frame brackets. Then fab up two isolated mounts to attach at the bellhousing. Or have solid mounts at the bellhousing and rubber isolated mounts at the frame. There are lots of ways to accomplish a solid and vibration free mount. Good luck, The FOGGER
     
  17. Zombie Hot Rod
    Joined: Oct 22, 2006
    Posts: 2,452

    Zombie Hot Rod
    Member
    from New York

    Hmmm, the problem with front mounted (saddle moun) engine is that all of the weight from the rear of the motor is on the bell housing causing it to crack. This set up is the right idea, just in the wrong place (in my opinion, whatever that's worth to anyone who knows!).

    The weight of the rear half of the motor is still all on the bell housing. Mounts comming directly off the rear of the motor might work better.
     
  18. 43gman
    Joined: Jan 19, 2009
    Posts: 187

    43gman
    Member
    from NC

    I really appreciate the input and helpful ideas from everyone. Thanks very much.

    <p>The plain fact is I know the thing probably will work, but I know it could, and should, be “better”. Back to the drawing board. I’m going to try a square tubing “cradle” that is attached at both sides of the frame, and then fab some angled brackets to mount a couple of “biscuit” type mounts for the bellhousing to sit on, per Tailgater, Hackerbuilt, Zombie, Fogger, and others. This would be then closer to the GM arrangement, and give a four corner mounting system. The weight of the back of the engine will push down on the mounts and probably cut down on the tendency for it to rock or sway. BTW, someone told me that the original ‘55 and ‘56 passenger cars had no rear mount for the transmission, and that it sort of hung off the b/h in the breeze? As mentioned, we still will have a transmission mount as well.

    <p>Thanks again. We’ll post pics of the “new” arrangement, but it may be a while, as some of us here are moving slower this time of year. . .
     
  19. flatheadgary
    Joined: Jul 17, 2007
    Posts: 1,012

    flatheadgary
    Member
    from boron,ca

    well, that would work, the question would be "for how long"
    you have to remember, the original mount was on the bell housing and the front of the motor. there was no mount on the back of the trans. this was the design from the oem from '55 to '58 i believe. it worked but they did change to side mounts on the motor and tailshaft mount on the trans.
    why? i don't know, but they never went back. most likely for more support. then of course, there are still a lot of them running around too.
    what i would look into would be to fab a bolt in cross member. where you have the angle steel on the bell housing, make it a flat plate instead and just use sbc side mounts. drill the plate to match the 3 motor bolt holes and weld a piece of u channel or a piece of flat plate bent into a u and weld it to the cradle. all you have to do then is, use a 3/8th bolt through the mount holes (just like were it is normally bolted to the frame).
    now, the problem with anything you make like this or anything else is, this bell housing is not beefed up to handle the forces in this area like the oem in '55 has.
    now that's something to think about. why not just use the '55 oem bell housing and use the original '55 mid mounts. problem solved. or is this an oem bell housing already. if it is, never mind.
    ps. one side note, if you use mid mounts, the prevailing wisdom is not to use a rear trans mount. it locks up the whole unit to be able to rock, like oem designed it to.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2009
  20. The bellhousing he is using is designed to use the mid-mounts. That's what the "ears" on both sides of the bellhousing are for. It will be fine when used in such a configuration with a front mount.

    However, you need to get rid of the links you have running from the frame to the bellhousing. It would not be hard to design a bracket that allows the use of a biscuit and mimics the OEM design. You don't need to use a mount on the end of the transmission in conjunction with the front and mid-mounts; in fact, it'd be better if you didn't.
     
  21. 43gman
    Joined: Jan 19, 2009
    Posts: 187

    43gman
    Member
    from NC

    Minor update for the Hambers that were interested enough to set me straight on mounting my 265" in the stock "A" chassis.

    <p>Pics show how we resolved the issue, using Chassis Engineering biscuits and angle brackets to bolt to the stock location in the bell housing. We still have some strengthening gussets to make and some trimming to be done. We roughed it in while the motor was still in the frame. The general idea pretty closely follows the '55 and '56 "front mount/bellhousing mount" mouse. Or is that mice?

    <p>Anyway, thanks to those who suggested both here and PM's. The Hamb rules.
     

    Attached Files:

  22. Brad54
    Joined: Apr 15, 2004
    Posts: 6,021

    Brad54
    Member
    from Atl Ga

    '60-'62 Chevy trucks with small blocks had a front mount that was a saddle-style mount, that bolted to the motor mount holes on the front of the engine, and the mount bolted to the chassis directly under the crank pulley.
    The bellhousing was just like yours, and had mounting ears on the side.
    the trans bolted to the back of the housing and hunt there in space.

    I see no reason you couldn't just do your mounts either the same as the Chevy trucks, or ever easier, the same as the Tri-5 Chevy. It's a 265 in a light car... you're not going to rip the trans off the back of the bellhousing.

    Do you have access to the original Chevy frame? Do something that mimics the solid frame ears that the bellhousing mounts to.

    You might find an early Hurst mount, or even modify an early Corvette front motor mount too.

    -Brad
     

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.