Topic: options for 67 289 motor mounts

[Brian in PA]

Hi guys, after finding out recently that 67 289 motor mounts are not available and mine are long gone.  what are my best options?  I have the steel brackets that bolt to the car but not the insulators that bolt to the engine.  Thanks in advance!  Oh,  Jan 67 SJ fastback c code

[67gtasanjose]

Occasionally you might find original mounts but they were weak (even when they were new,prone to breaking under hard/harsh use). Convertible Mustangs, 67-70 and 67 Cougars are same too.

For non concours, there are aftermarket versions available. Those reproduction or later Ford service replacements have a safety lock to help keep them from breaking.

[67gtasanjose]

There may  be some help here too:
http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=11718.msg70688#msg70688

[Brian in PA]

Thanks for the reply. The link was helpful, but do I do a high or low mount ?  My car has air too. Thanks.

[67gtasanjose]

Using the image at the other thread of the MPC, it states motor mount insulators for Fastback & Coupe call out for C7ZZ-6038-E (right or left)  (carline "F", exc. 76)

Convertible calls out for C7ZZ-6038-F (right or left) (carline "F", 76)

Going by the information within the thread, the "-F" mounts from a convertible WILL FIT a coupe or fasback, though the engine will ride a little lower in the cradle. 

Also, going by the comment within the thread, the "-E" mounts installed on a converible MAY cause a clearence problem, at least on AC equipped cars, but possibly with the air cleaner on the non-AC applications.

[Brian in PA]

Thanks.  Ill be looking for low mount ones then.  Ill have to get aftermarket though.  thanks again for the time to answer my questions.

Brian

[Bob Gaines]

Using the image at the other thread of the MPC, it states motor mount insulators for Fastback & Coupe call out for C7ZZ-6038-E (right or left)  (carline "F", exc. 76)

Convertible calls out for C7ZZ-6038-F (right or left) (carline "F", 76)

Going by the information within the thread, the "-F" mounts from a convertible WILL FIT a coupe or fasback, though the engine will ride a little lower in the cradle. 

Also, going by the comment within the thread, the "-E" mounts installed on a converible MAY cause a clearence problem, at least on AC equipped cars, but possibly with the air cleaner on the non-AC applications.

To add, if you use the fastback/coupe motormounts which allow the engine to sit higher ,then on a convert with air the bracketry and or compressor may rub on the bottom side of the hood. I haven't really seen much of this on 67(although i have heard of the problems reported by others) because I don't study many 67 converts but have seen it on ,69,and 70 which i do study.

[196667Bob]

Brian : While Richard (67gtasanjose) did note the correct part numbers for convertibles versus coupe & fastbacks, I think there may be a question as to which is taller. MU lists both, and shows the one for the convertible (the -F) to be the taller one at 4-1/4" from frame anchor bolt hole to engine mount bolt hole, while the one for coupes/fastbacks to be 3-1/4". I ordered the ones noted for the 67 convertible for my 67 convertible this past summer, and they matched my original "-F's" exactly. Unfortunately, my 67 is at our Vacation home some 670 miles away, and I can't measure them to see if they are in fact the 4-1/4" ones. Possibly John (67gta289) has had a chance to double check his originals to see if they are "-E's or -F's". If they are the "-F's" as he originally thought, possibly it was something that SJ did (his is a December 66 SJ Fastback), or just a mix up on the Assembly Line. You may want to check with other owners of early 67 Fastbacks built at SJ. Also, if John has both "-E's and -F's", he could confirm which is taller.
As far as any A/C problems, I had original 67 hang-on A/C (which of course may not be identical in heights to integral A/C components), and never had any under hood clearance problems (my convertible is a January 31 Dearborn built 67).
Bob

[67gta289]

Not sure why I'm a magnet for the C7ZA-6038-F mounts when I have never owned a vert...  But that is what I find and in fact can't find any C7ZA-6038-E mounts at the moment to compare to.  I'll work on getting a couple over the next week or so and will report back.

In the meanwhile here are some pics of the C7ZA-6038-F with two dimensions of the key aspect. 

I also included some pics of an NOS D0ZA-6038-E that is dimensionally identical to the C7ZA-6038-F.  The steel shape is a bit different.  Not sure if this constitutes the "safety lock" that Richard mentioned.

[jwc66k]

Here's some pictures of the difference in 67 mounts from late 66 plus 68 to 70 289/302 engines.
http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=6382.msg36083#msg36083
Jim

[196667Bob]

John : Thanks for chiming in. I knew you had the -F mounts from your Post back in August, and thought you might have had a chance, as you thought you would then, to pull your original mounts back off of your donor car, hoping they were the -E's. I'm sure you know that I would have furnished the info on my -F's if I would have had easy access to them. It really makes me curious now with you showing the dimensions. The first picture appears to show 3-1/4", and to me, MU description of "from frame mount center hole to engine mount center hole" fits what you show. If that is the case, then they have either their description wrong, or the two types labeled backwards. Your second picture appears to show 4-1/4", but to me, that measurement does not appear to fit their description of where its taken from. It will be interesting to see when you get a -E to compare to.
Glad you brought up about the "D0" mount. I was going to mention that, but forgot. At least by July of 1974, the OSI book shows that both the -E and -F mounts were replaced by Part # D0ZZ-6038-B mounts (which I would guess is the same as the D0ZA mounts you show.

Thanks again,

Bob

[67gta289]

Jim - thanks for the link but that does not shed any light on the rubber insulator discussion in this thread - at least that is my interpretation.

Bob - the -F is what I pulled off my car (pretty darn original procured in 1979) and also from the Metuchen donor.  Not enough to declare a misprint in the various documentation sources, but given the other MPC errors noted over the last few months let's just say that I have my doubts.  More data is needed.

I would agree that the first picture, at 3-1/4", is accurate and most representative.  The other picture does not have the engine mount face "on the flat" like the first pic.

[196667Bob]

John : Interesting that all the mounts you have are the -F's. Remember on my Convertible, also pretty darn original having talked with the original ordering owner who owned it about its history until my Dad bought it in 1981, it has the original -F mounts. Definitely more data is needed. I have checked the Shop manual, Mannel Book, several other books, the Chassis Assembly Manual, and TSB's from August 66 through December 67 and found nothing enlightening.

Surely there are plenty of 289 Coupe and Fastback owners out there who can add to this discussion
Feel free to join in !

Bob

[WT8095]

I'd like to raise a point to consider: the service part numbers may not directly correlate to the assembly part numbers. Is a C7ZA-F physically the same as a C7ZZ-F? Most of the time the service part suffix will match the original, but not always. Note in John's photos that the part physically marked D0ZA-E has a service part label with D0ZZ-B.

[Brian in PA]

Thanks for the replies guys. It seems that my options are very limited though. I don't think I'll be able to find an NOS set of mounts. Used are very available either. I was doing some mock up last night with a spare block and it seems that if I redrill the holes onthe brackets that mount to the car it will be the same as the 68 mounts. This may be the most subtle way of making it work. From what I've seen this is the only big mounting difference in the 67 small block and the 68 small block mounts that is recommended to change out for making the later mounts work. I understand that this may not be a concourse approach but will have to do for now. Thanks. For all the help.