Restoring - General discussions that span across many different groups of years and models > Drivetrain

V-8 Engine Mounts Change Reason?

(1/2) > >>

krelboyne:
One of our customers interviewed his uncle about engine mount changes after 1967. Here is the email I received:

After 2 long months researching why 1967 289 and 68 to 70 convertible mounts are so hard to find or why they are not reproduced took me on a nice journey of Ford history. Also found out why the big change.
After hitting brick walls with online searches about 1967 289 motor mounts. I finally asked my great uncle Johnny that worked for Ford motor headquarters in the 60s and 70s. He was part of product development team for Ford. So, I asked. If he knew anything about the reason why 1967 289 motor mounts are a one year item but still used in 69- 70 convertibles. My Uncle Johnny said 1968 happened to be a big shake up year with federal auto safety standards. Longer hood latch, collapsible steering columns, side reflectors. And motor mounts were also included into this shake up. Seems the 67 289 motor mounts now required a safety cage. To stop motors from falling out during mont failures. An exception was made for 68- 70 302 convertible models since they didnt expect high sales numbers on convertibles for those years.. In 1970 Ford wanted to stuff a Boss 302 motor in the cars, but the standard 302 caused hood clearance issues. So they took the 1967 289 motor mount out of stock and redesigned it to comply with federal standards. The new Boss 302 motor mount now has the the safety cage and much stronger than the original 67 289 motor mount. The 1970 Boss 302 motor mount number 9n the part is D0ZA-6038-E. Which now has the original dimensions and geometry of the 1967 289 or 68-70 302 convertibles. But stronger with a safety cage. So Ford actually stopped all production on al 67 289 old mounts and the 70 Boss 302 mount became the service replacement part. Which explains why my 67 had one D0ZA-6038-E motor mount. The reason aftermarket companies cant reproduce the 67 289 motor mount is because it wasn't federal safety compliant. The big shake up in 67-68 cause the aftermarket to get confused of what mount actually belongs on the 67 289. I can imagine 50 years of people getting wrong motor mounts. Very frustrating. Now my in depth research unvieled the truth. All 67 289 or 68- 70 302 convertible or Boss 302 and I believe the cougar eliminator. With the boss 302 will now and forever take the D0ZA-6038-E motor mount.
Sincerely ,
James S
I did not verify the Boss2 part number.
I found some examples of original coupe mounts. Doesn't look like the 'cage' started until 1970.

Can anyone confirm or deny any of this information?

J_Speegle:
First thought and comment about what you shared is that 70 was not the first year they had put a Boss 302 in a Mustang.


Not sure what the writer is referring to as the "safety cage" on a motor mount.

Need to look at some documents and pictures before comment more on a number of points mentioned. Sure you have likely already cracked open MPC's from 67 and 70 if available to you

67350#1242:
A couple of points:   The 68 rubber mounts reverted to the 65-66 style with no changes.   Also in 67 the metal frame mounts were changed (mounting angle change by moving one of the bolt holes).   
I don't see that a Federal safety standard change for 68 would explain why they would go back to the 65-66 style.
Got to be another explanation - maybe they discovered problems with the 67 arrangement?

jwc66k:

--- Quote from: 67350#1242 on October 19, 2023, 01:35:09 PM ---A couple of points:   The 68 rubber mounts reverted to the 65-66 style with no changes.   Also in 67 the metal frame mounts were changed (mounting angle change by moving one of the bolt holes).   
I don't see that a Federal safety standard change for 68 would explain why they would go back to the 65-66 style.
Got to be another explanation - maybe they discovered problems with the 67 arrangement?

--- End quote ---
A comparison between late 66 and 67 289 engine mounts. There's more than just a different mounting hole location.
Jim

ruppstang:
I save this several years ago. i thought it was a good bit of information.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page