Author Topic: options for 67 289 motor mounts  (Read 7432 times)

Offline krelboyne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1223
    • West Coast Classic Cougars
Re: options for 67 289 motor mounts
« Reply #15 on: December 23, 2015, 12:32:26 PM »
Why ruin a set of 1967 frame stands? You can easily find a set of used 1968-70 small block frame stands.

The 1967 V8 frame stands, are also the same as 1968-70 390/428CJ frame stands.

Scott Behncke - Carcheaologist
West Coast Classic Cougars
503-463-1130
1968 GT/CS 302-4V San Jose 05B
1968 Cougar XR7 Dearborn 09A

Offline 67gtasanjose

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5093
  • "Take the MUSTANG PLEDGE"
Re: options for 67 289 motor mounts
« Reply #16 on: December 23, 2015, 01:52:21 PM »
Why ruin a set of 1967 frame stands? You can easily find a set of used 1968-70 small block frame stands.

The 1967 V8 frame stands, are also the same as 1968-70 390/428CJ frame stands.



+1

Earlier this year, I was scouting for a 2nd "-E" motor mount to go along with a pair I had, that one of them was cracked deeply. I ended up buying a full original set from a 67 Cougar 289, including the frame brackets, KNOWING THE FRAME BRACKETS FIT THE BIG BLOCK FE ENGINES. Bottom line, I sold the frame brackets as "for big blocks" and that sale paid for the two other motor mount insulators, though only one was good, other cracked... but hey, since I only needed one, I ended up getting it (you could say) for free.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2015, 02:00:07 PM by 67gtasanjose »
Richard Urch

1967 (11/2/66, S.J.) GTA Luxury Coupe, 289-4V w/Thermactor Emissions, C-4, Int./Ext. Decor +many options

2005 (04/05) GT Premium Convertible, Windveil Blue, Parchment Top w/Med. Parchment interior,  Roush Body Appointments

Offline Brian in PA

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: options for 67 289 motor mounts
« Reply #17 on: December 23, 2015, 05:16:53 PM »
good point fellas.  Ill be looking for some of those and maybe throw these up on eBay.

Thanks!

Offline krelboyne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1223
    • West Coast Classic Cougars
Re: options for 67 289 motor mounts
« Reply #18 on: December 23, 2015, 07:20:28 PM »


C7ZA-6038-E Engine mount.
Scott Behncke - Carcheaologist
West Coast Classic Cougars
503-463-1130
1968 GT/CS 302-4V San Jose 05B
1968 Cougar XR7 Dearborn 09A

Offline 67gta289

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3080
Re: options for 67 289 motor mounts
« Reply #19 on: December 23, 2015, 07:39:19 PM »
Thanks - looks to me like the -E is 1/4" shorter than the -F.  Do you happen to know what type of car these came out of? 
John
67 289 GTA Dec 20 1966 San Jose
7R02C156xxx
MCA 74660

Offline krelboyne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1223
    • West Coast Classic Cougars
Re: options for 67 289 motor mounts
« Reply #20 on: December 23, 2015, 08:03:18 PM »
Thanks - looks to me like the -E is 1/4" shorter than the -F.  Do you happen to know what type of car these came out of?

No idea, they were in the parts pile, way before I got here in 2010. 1969-70 convertible, maybe?
Scott Behncke - Carcheaologist
West Coast Classic Cougars
503-463-1130
1968 GT/CS 302-4V San Jose 05B
1968 Cougar XR7 Dearborn 09A

Offline 196667Bob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: options for 67 289 motor mounts
« Reply #21 on: December 23, 2015, 11:43:42 PM »
I must have missed something along the way. Brian, why would you think about changing out an original correct frame bracket for an incorrect one just to be able to use original insulators, that would also be incorrect (not correct stamping on the rubber), versus using a set of repro insulators that are just like the originals with the exception of no rubber “C7ZA” stamping ? In either case, neither would be Factory correct. The aftermarket/ reproduction insulators are reasonably priced, and available from most suppliers for less than $20 each.
I believe that all of my Retractable and T-Bird friends over the last 35 years, as well as John here, will agree that I am kind of a “stickler” when it comes to originality, whether it be major parts or down to the smallest piece of hardware, and whether it shows or not. However, using an almost 50 year old rubber insulator, particularly if cracks can be seen, is, in my opinion, a safety issue; something like still wanting to use an original camshaft or brake shoe, even though they are worn, just because they are original. If the insulator looks like the original, how many people are going to go under to see if the rubber has the correct “C7ZA” extrusion cast into it ?  Back in the 70’s, I actually had an original insulator on my ’57 Retractable have the rubber come unbonded from the steel part. While it was a little scary when it happened (I was driving it at the time), it was more frustrating having to replace it after the car was complete. I “kicked myself” for not replacing them when I redid the engine.

Enough of my “soapbox” talking. Back to the issue at hand.

Scott : on the insulator that you provided the picture of, is the “C7ZA – E” extruded on the rubber, or is it paint stamped ? The reason I ask is because that sometimes, when Ford phased out a part and replaced it with another “that would work” (although not be exactly like the one it replaced), they stamped the number on it. If in fact it is extruded on the rubber, and thus definitely an “E”, does anyone really think that tolerances were so close that ¼´would make a difference in something rubbing or having a clearance problem ? Just throwing that out for comments.

Bottom line, IMO, if you are planning on driving your car, I would opt for the new rubber reproduction/aftermarket insulators. However, that being said, I think it would still be beneficial to have more data on dimensions of “E’s” versus “F’s”.

Bob
1966 Coupe, C Code, 3 Sp MT, 6T07C154XXX, Build Date 11/22/65
1967 Conv, C Code, C4, 7F03C154XXX, Actual Build Date 01/31/67
MCA 04909

Offline Brian in PA

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: options for 67 289 motor mounts
« Reply #22 on: December 23, 2015, 11:47:00 PM »
Bob that is where my dilemma started. No one makes a motor mount for a small block to fit that stock frame mount.  Unless I'm missing something?

Offline 196667Bob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: options for 67 289 motor mounts
« Reply #23 on: December 24, 2015, 01:44:02 AM »
Brian : Check CJ Pony Parts, Mustangs Unlimited, and National Parts Depot. All list mounts for 67 289's, as well as show pictures of same which appear correct. I can only personally attest to the ones I purchased from Mustangs Unlimited for my 67 Convertible ; they were same size, etc. as my original C7AZ -6038-F's.
Hope this helps.

Bob
1966 Coupe, C Code, 3 Sp MT, 6T07C154XXX, Build Date 11/22/65
1967 Conv, C Code, C4, 7F03C154XXX, Actual Build Date 01/31/67
MCA 04909

Offline Brian in PA

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: options for 67 289 motor mounts
« Reply #24 on: December 24, 2015, 10:04:54 AM »
I looked at MU and in the catalog it says that for 67 mounts needs to change to 68 frame brackets.

Offline 196667Bob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: options for 67 289 motor mounts
« Reply #25 on: December 24, 2015, 11:39:58 AM »
Brian : I see the note to which you are referring. My question is, do you know for a fact that yours is one of those " Some '67s use a specific mount that is not available, they should convert to above Frame brackets & this mount" cars ? The reason I ask is that the ones I ordered from them this past summer were identical to the original ones on my Dearborn January 66 Convertible and appear to be identical to 67gta289's SJ December 66 Fastback. At least they have the same C7AF-6038-F extrusion in the rubber. Maybe you could get some additional dimensions of that mount from John to see if it would work. Although possible, I can't really see that SJ would have changed the frame mount between December and January, but best to check. By the way, CJ Pony Parts shows no differentiation, and NPD notes that "not correct, but will work.

Bob


1966 Coupe, C Code, 3 Sp MT, 6T07C154XXX, Build Date 11/22/65
1967 Conv, C Code, C4, 7F03C154XXX, Actual Build Date 01/31/67
MCA 04909

Offline Brian in PA

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: options for 67 289 motor mounts
« Reply #26 on: December 24, 2015, 12:13:01 PM »
Well unfortunately I have nothing to go by.  I can tell you this though, my 67 390 cougar has the same frame brackets that this small block mustang has.  I ordered some "67 289 mounts" from Napa to try it out and If I move the frame bracket to the other position it works perfect.  Hope this helps out.

Brian

Offline krelboyne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1223
    • West Coast Classic Cougars
Re: options for 67 289 motor mounts
« Reply #27 on: December 24, 2015, 01:46:19 PM »

Scott : on the insulator that you provided the picture of, is the “C7ZA – E” extruded on the rubber, or is it paint stamped ? The reason I ask is because that sometimes, when Ford phased out a part and replaced it with another “that would work” (although not be exactly like the one it replaced), they stamped the number on it. If in fact it is extruded on the rubber, and thus definitely an “E”, does anyone really think that tolerances were so close that ¼´would make a difference in something rubbing or having a clearance problem ? Just throwing that out for comments.

Bottom line, IMO, if you are planning on driving your car, I would opt for the new rubber reproduction/aftermarket insulators. However, that being said, I think it would still be beneficial to have more data on dimensions of “E’s” versus “F’s”.

Bob

Factory embossed, hope the picture is clear and legible. Worth mentioning, that it is not molded into the same location as the -F example.

« Last Edit: December 24, 2015, 01:59:12 PM by krelboyne »
Scott Behncke - Carcheaologist
West Coast Classic Cougars
503-463-1130
1968 GT/CS 302-4V San Jose 05B
1968 Cougar XR7 Dearborn 09A

Offline 196667Bob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: options for 67 289 motor mounts
« Reply #28 on: December 24, 2015, 01:59:51 PM »
Scott : Thanks ! I think that helps a lot. So, we're talking about 1/4" difference between the -E and -F insulators. This shows why Ford replaced both of them with the same Part Number of D0ZZ-B (stamped D0ZA-E). Like I noted before, I don't think that they would have had hood clearances that close that 1/4" would make a difference.
Thanks again,
Bob
1966 Coupe, C Code, 3 Sp MT, 6T07C154XXX, Build Date 11/22/65
1967 Conv, C Code, C4, 7F03C154XXX, Actual Build Date 01/31/67
MCA 04909

Offline ruppstang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3936
Re: options for 67 289 motor mounts
« Reply #29 on: December 25, 2015, 10:24:06 PM »
I ran across this from Glaziers Mustang Barn and thought it was helpful.