Engine too far forward - Moparts Forums

Register Log In Moparts Forums Moparts Question and Answer Engine too far forward

Print Thread

Page 2 of 2

1

2

Re: Engine too far forward [Re: 70Drop] #1286505 08/16/12 11:58 PM 08/16/12 11:58 PM
Joined: Mar 2003 Posts: 18,688 Fresno, CA Jim_Lusk I Live Here
Jim_Lusk I Live Here Joined: Mar 2003 Posts: 18,688 Fresno, CA	The first step is to get the trans in the proper location. Then figure out the mounts. Those are the correct mounts, otherwise I don't think they'd fit at all. It could be the rotation of the biscuits, too...

Re: Engine too far forward [Re: Jim_Lusk] #1286506 08/17/12 12:43 AM 08/17/12 12:43 AM
Joined: Jan 2008 Posts: 299 East Brunswick, NJ F finadk enthusiast
finadk enthusiast F Joined: Jan 2008 Posts: 299 East Brunswick, NJ	I agree with hemirick, the isolators are rotated 90 degrees from where they should be. That is what is pushing the block too far forward. Scott 1956 Dodge Custom Royal Lancer (408 Stroker, 4 Wheel Disc Brakes, Rack & Pinion, 6 speed) 2002 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab 1976 Corvette

Re: Engine too far forward [Re: finadk] #1286507 08/17/12 01:26 AM 08/17/12 01:26 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 226 California 70Drop OP enthusiast
70Drop OP enthusiast Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 226 California	Quote: I agree with hemirick, the isolators are rotated 90 degrees from where they should be. That is what is pushing the block too far forward. Actually, if I were to rotate the biscuits 90-degrees, it would move the engine farther forward, not back.

Re: Engine too far forward [Re: 70Drop] #1286508 08/17/12 01:40 AM 08/17/12 01:40 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 70,126 Here DirectSubjection Tacohead. The First and Only
DirectSubjection Tacohead. The First and Only Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 70,126 Here	My 383 sits pretty far forward in my 70 Duster too. I had to give my 187 oil pan a smack in a location or two for steering clearance and the same with my TTI headers a little. I had no problems with the trans mount as I recall. The biggest issue I have is cooling fan clearance. I used a Summit radiator and its really close so i had to mount and electric unit as a pusher on the front. Ride eternal, shiny and chrome

Re: Engine too far forward [Re: DirectSubjection] #1286509 08/17/12 02:09 AM 08/17/12 02:09 AM
Joined: Jul 2010 Posts: 295 Vallejo, CA D ditchdrift enthusiast
ditchdrift enthusiast D Joined: Jul 2010 Posts: 295 Vallejo, CA	your mount brackets look like they are bolted to the wrong side of the engine mount ears.... they are machined flat on one side for a reason.

Re: Engine too far forward [Re: 70Drop] #1286510 08/17/12 02:16 AM 08/17/12 02:16 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 217 Roseburg, Oregon T Tom Swope enthusiast
Tom Swope enthusiast T Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 217 Roseburg, Oregon	Is it possible that you have a 66 or older a-body k-frame in the car? The early k-frames located the engine about 1-1/2" farther forward. Just an idea.

Re: Engine too far forward [Re: Tom Swope] #1286511 08/17/12 08:07 AM 08/17/12 08:07 AM
Joined: Feb 2003 Posts: 925 C CrazyD super stock
CrazyD super stock C Joined: Feb 2003 Posts: 925	Here's a picture I found of a guy pulling his 440 from his Dart, used Schumacher mounts (I think), shows DS orientation. Thread from BigBlockDart 7338803-IMG00232-20100501-1201.jpg (104 downloads) Last edited by CrazyD; 08/17/12 08:11 AM.

Re: Engine too far forward [Re: CrazyD] #1286512 08/17/12 08:14 AM 08/17/12 08:14 AM
Joined: Feb 2003 Posts: 925 C CrazyD super stock
CrazyD super stock C Joined: Feb 2003 Posts: 925	Pass side 7338811-passside.jpg (105 downloads)

Re: Engine too far forward [Re: CrazyD] #1286513 08/17/12 08:45 AM 08/17/12 08:45 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,324 A gulag near you. JohnRR I Win
JohnRR I Win Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,324 A gulag near you.	I just looked at the Schumacher directions on line and your pictures. First you do have the mounts on correctly, they should be behind the block ears and you can't really swap them side to side because of they appear to only have 3 holes and one one would end up not being used on each side and you would have used only 1 bolt instead of 2 on the forward mount . First you should have not modified the trans mount as said , the trans locates the engine front to back , change the trans mount to one that is not ovaled and go from there . Looking at your drivers side picture the rubber mount is not 90* to the bracket, everything I saw says it should be and it doesn't look like there is a big enough notch in the K frame mount for the oil pump. I'm not sure about the pan but the Pro parts headers were NOT designed to be used with the Schumacher mounts so any dimpling that needs to be done does not surprise me. I'm pretty sure you would run into a ding here and there with them on a motor plate , I have yet to see any set of headers that didn't need a whack no matter who made them and what they were installed in. If anything I would be slotting the holes on the K frame to make it fit based off correct trans mounting. As close as things to begin with, if the trans mount was not modified then the headers would probably clear, pan to, change that and work from there.

Re: Engine too far forward [Re: Tom Swope] #1286514 08/17/12 10:25 AM 08/17/12 10:25 AM
Joined: Mar 2003 Posts: 18,688 Fresno, CA Jim_Lusk I Live Here
Jim_Lusk I Live Here Joined: Mar 2003 Posts: 18,688 Fresno, CA	Quote: Is it possible that you have a 66 or older a-body k-frame in the car? The early k-frames located the engine about 1-1/2" farther forward. Just an idea. It would not be possible to get it in there (narrower frame) and they look completely different.

Re: Engine too far forward [Re: Jim_Lusk] #1286515 08/17/12 10:35 AM 08/17/12 10:35 AM
Joined: Feb 2003 Posts: 925 C CrazyD super stock
CrazyD super stock C Joined: Feb 2003 Posts: 925	Do you have a picture of your K frame without the engine installed?

Re: Engine too far forward [Re: JohnRR] #1286516 08/17/12 11:31 AM 08/17/12 11:31 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 226 California 70Drop OP enthusiast
70Drop OP enthusiast Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 226 California	Quote: If anything I would be slotting the holes on the K frame to make it fit based off correct trans mounting. As close as things to begin with, if the trans mount was not modified then the headers would probably clear, pan to, change that and work from there. That's exactly my thinking. I'm pretty certain that, if the tranny mount holes lined up, the other clearance problems would go away. Slotting the holes in the K-member seems like a solution, but then the rear edges of the insulators would really be hanging out way past the rear of the K-member. Maybe that ends up just being an appearance issue, but I'd like to avoid it. The only other thing I could come up with is that maybe I have the wrong set of Schumacher mounts. I would guess that the /6-to-B/RB mounts would be way different and wouldn't install at all, though. I think we've established that the mount brackets are installed correctly (thanks for the pics, CrazyD).

Re: Engine too far forward [Re: 70Drop] #1286517 08/17/12 12:05 PM 08/17/12 12:05 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,324 A gulag near you. JohnRR I Win
JohnRR I Win Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,324 A gulag near you.	Quote: Quote: If anything I would be slotting the holes on the K frame to make it fit based off correct trans mounting. As close as things to begin with, if the trans mount was not modified then the headers would probably clear, pan to, change that and work from there. That's exactly my thinking. I'm pretty certain that, if the tranny mount holes lined up, the other clearance problems would go away. Slotting the holes in the K-member seems like a solution, but then the rear edges of the insulators would really be hanging out way past the rear of the K-member. Maybe that ends up just being an appearance issue, but I'd like to avoid it. The only other thing I could come up with is that maybe I have the wrong set of Schumacher mounts. I would guess that the /6-to-B/RB mounts would be way different and wouldn't install at all, though. I think we've established that the mount brackets are installed correctly (thanks for the pics, CrazyD). Slant 6 drivers side mount is the same , Pass side is different so one braket would be right the other would be different and off by a lot . I was going to ask what was meany by RECONDITIONED K frame ? If you don't [Edited by Moparts - Family Friendly Site - Keep it clean] too much of the insulator hanging off , I really not impressed wit hthe way they are to begine with , then I'd weld a small platform , if you well , so there is more support under the biscuit ... Or just use Elephant ears ... The more I look at these mounts the more money my spare factory big block K is worth ...

Re: Engine too far forward [Re: JohnRR] #1286518 08/17/12 12:52 PM 08/17/12 12:52 PM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 226 California 70Drop OP enthusiast
70Drop OP enthusiast Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 226 California	Quote: I was going to ask what was meany by RECONDITIONED K frame ? If you don't [Edited by Moparts - Family Friendly Site - Keep it clean] too much of the insulator hanging off , I really not impressed wit hthe way they are to begine with , then I'd weld a small platform , if you well , so there is more support under the biscuit ... Or just use Elephant ears ... The more I look at these mounts the more money my spare factory big block K is worth ... I think "reconditioned" is a fancy word meaning cleaned and re-painted, and maybe fixing up the scratches on the bottom. I didn't buy it - it came with the car. But there's no way it could have been modified to affect the motor mounting. It all looks totally stock. A motor plate is sounding better and better to me. I just wanted to avoid the vibration. I'm sure I couldn't afford your factory big-block K-member, but how much would you want for it?

Re: Engine too far forward [Re: 70Drop] #1286519 08/17/12 01:04 PM 08/17/12 01:04 PM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 226 California 70Drop OP enthusiast
70Drop OP enthusiast Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 226 California	Michael Schumacher replied quickly to my email sent to him last night and, after looking at this thread, he had the following comments: Based on the thread a little background might help. First the ProPart Headers were designed in the '80s and like CPPA these headers were designed based on the old Direct Connection motor mount platform, at the time really the only big block set-up out there. As you recall these mounts while a great design caused the motor to sit about .75" too tall. Remember all the complaints about the fenderwells and 727 trans hitting the floorboards? - thats what that was all about. The "187" oil pan was originally designed for the '66 and up "C" body. It was a happy coincidence that we found that it works with the A-body conversions. Now this pan works quite nicely (in fact I have one in my car) in approximately 90% of our big block conversion kits. The other 10% have the same issue as you are experiencing. The reason for this (the best that we can tell) is frankly sloppy tolerances from the factory. In the '60 and '70s K-members and some other suspension parts were welded by hand and the perches are not always consistent from one to the next. Now all of that being said...we still recommend this pan, but we have also started to recommend the "971" pan. This is a pan that was originally designed for a '73 and newer "B"-body and is shallower in the back than the "187" and usually fixes any and all of the issues that you have encountered. The other thing that I like is that it is still available new and can be had from a number of sources - including us. As far as the installation of the mounts from us - it looks to be correct. (the horizontal placement of the insulators is intentional) The trans mount lines up fairly close but I can see that it would be nice if it was back about .25". This can be accomplished by loosening the insulator from the motor bracket and sliding (the hole is slotted to accommodate the tolerance issues I stated above) it as far forward as it will go. This will push the motor back so as the trans will line up a little better. Now of course you can if you wish elongate the bracket hole more so you can push the insulator further if you wish. It is just that we haven't need to do this in the past. The height issues like I said in an earlier email can be handled easily with the shims we carry for just this reason and can send to you anytime if you wish. It appears that you are doing a great job and are very close. Hopefully this address' every issue you have. Sincerely, Michael

Re: Engine too far forward [Re: 70Drop] #1286520 08/17/12 01:13 PM 08/17/12 01:13 PM
Joined: Mar 2003 Posts: 18,688 Fresno, CA Jim_Lusk I Live Here
Jim_Lusk I Live Here Joined: Mar 2003 Posts: 18,688 Fresno, CA	Quote: Based on the thread a little background might help. First the ProPart Headers were designed in the '80s and like CPPA these headers were designed based on the old Direct Connection motor mount platform, at the time really the only big block set-up out there. As you recall these mounts while a great design caused the motor to sit about .75" too tall. Remember all the complaints about the fenderwells and 727 trans hitting the floorboards? - thats what that was all about. I find this quote to be quite interesting as I have been building DC k-members for well over twenty years and have seen quite a few originals in use. We have had no trans tunnel interference with the 727. The motor does not, in my opinion, appear to be sitting too high in any car that I have built. Nothing against Schumacher, but I'll keep building DC k-members (as long as I can still find core k-members) and building them without all these fitment issues that seem to crop up with other systems...

Re: Engine too far forward [Re: Jim_Lusk] #1286521 08/18/12 02:39 AM 08/18/12 02:39 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 549 Oregon A abodyman super street
abodyman super street A Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 549 Oregon	I too like the D.C. style K-member. never had any fitment issues, have done 3 separate ones so far. using regular manifolds, pro parts headers and Schumachers headers too. 2 cars were 4 speeds the other an automatic 727 of course, the k-members are getting harder to find.

Re: Engine too far forward [Re: Mad Accountant] #1286522 08/18/12 09:30 PM 08/18/12 09:30 PM
Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 587 IL . usa C cjs69mope mopar
cjs69mope mopar C Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 587 IL . usa	Quote: Any chance you have the mounts on the wrong side of the engine? Don't remember if that was even possible or not. Other possibilities may be the wrong mounts (they changed in 73, you may have the 73+ mounts instead of the 67-72s), or maybe a different years K frame is in the car. I bought the whole kit for my 69 and had no problems. When i was installing a bigblock for the first time in my charger i had the mount brackets on the block on the wrong side and had the same problem you are having . If it were me i would swap the block brakets ant try it again ! cheepest thing to start with . 1969 Dodge Charger 1969 Dodge Superbee

Page 2 of 2

1

2

Moderated by Al_Alguire, Hotwheelsjr, moparts, not_a_charger, RangerDan440, tboomer

Hop To

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1