ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1967 Mustang => Topic started by: Brian in PA on December 20, 2015, 05:33:12 PM
-
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
-
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.
-
There may be some help here too:
http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=11718.msg70688#msg70688
-
Thanks for the reply. The link was helpful, but do I do a high or low mount ? My car has air too. Thanks.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
good point fellas. Ill be looking for some of those and maybe throw these up on eBay.
Thanks!
-
(http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w115/CougarCJ/th_IMG_1357-1028_zpsgllguv3y.jpg) (http://s174.photobucket.com/user/CougarCJ/media/IMG_1357-1028_zpsgllguv3y.jpg.html)
C7ZA-6038-E Engine mount.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
I looked at MU and in the catalog it says that for 67 mounts needs to change to 68 frame brackets.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
(http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w115/CougarCJ/th_IMG_1365-1028_zpsvyetn1c3.jpg) (http://s174.photobucket.com/user/CougarCJ/media/IMG_1365-1028_zpsvyetn1c3.jpg.html)
(http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w115/CougarCJ/th_IMG_1367-1028_zps59smpm8n.jpg) (http://s174.photobucket.com/user/CougarCJ/media/IMG_1367-1028_zps59smpm8n.jpg.html)
-
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
-
I ran across this from Glaziers Mustang Barn and thought it was helpful.
-
Was loaned a pair from a 68 small block Cougar. C8ZA-6038-B also marked as C6OA-6038-E "AU 40". These are about 9/16" taller than the C7ZA-6038-F mounts.
-
Found a beautiful C7ZA-6038-E and did some comparisons. Refer to the attached pics. I see only a 1/16" difference between the -E and -F. No wonder why streamlining was done for service parts.