UPPER CONTROL ARM ZERK...

[gravelman]

I'm assembling my suspension and noted there's no room for a 90-degree zerk fitting, then later noted that someone had taken
a can opener to the shock tower to gain access... Pretty ugly. The right side had an opening for servicing the zerk fitting with a
frame surrounding the opening that must be factory as it is spot welded to the shock tower.

I guess my fix is to cut out the bad sheet metal and rivet a new frame around the cutout?

[dgalietti]

Do you have any pics? You have a 65 right? On my 65 there is plenty of room on both sides for 90 degree zero fittings.

[gravelman]

Hmm, my '65' on one side has no room for even a 90 degree zerk... I'll take some pics and repost tomorrow...

[Privateer]

It's hard to tell from pictures, however between the two it looks like on Gravelmans the metal could be pushed out into the a-arm in the front causing issues? Like I said it's hard to tell from pictures.

[dgalietti]

Is it possible that the control arm is not centered on the shaft? I'm not sure there is even enough room for it to be off center. But that would definitely cause it to not have enough room.

It's hard to tell from the pics, but something definitely got mangled by a previous owner. Unless you want to get into some serious cutting and welding, I would probably just clean it up the best you can with a grinder(if the metal is hacked up).. paint it and leave it be. So long as it appears to be structurally sound anyway.

[gravelman]

The car has never been hit and there's a frame over the hole that has been spot welded so that has to be "factory''. Also, the upper control has to align with the lower control arm which it does.

The picture and orange circle replied by Privateer shows a wrinkling in the fabrication of the shock tower, but not from damage.
The photo has exaggerated the condition.

Like dgalletti says I'll leave well enough alone. i will make a neoprene flap to close off the engine bay from the wheel well.

[dgalietti]

That looks about right.. I think it just got banged up a bit along the way somewhere.

As a side note.. those are the incorrect engine mounts that everybody sells for our cars. The one you need are shaped like big C's and you can get them through the T-bird vendors. C-6 and Cruiseomatic are different but similar looking.

[gravelman]

The car has a C6, it's set up for those motor mounts, the P.O. installed them when he redid the engine and trans... If they work, are there other issues?

Thanks,

[Privateer]

If those mounts fit I'd be interested if there are other issues they can cause also.
Gravelman the engine bay is looking really nice. I see some cool goodies tucked under the custom radiator cover. I'm anxious to see your finished project!

[dgalietti]

The C6 mounts I believe just move the engine back a bit. They are almost exactly the same as the Cruisomatic mounts.

I'm very curious too about how those will work. I bought a set and never even tried them because they were so different.

It seem that the engine would sit a lot lower with these, which would cause some problems with the headers at the very least.

If they work well, I think I would prefer them to the OE style. They are definitely beefier.

[dgalietti]

Here are both styles. You can see the Aftermarket style is a few inches shorter. Maybe it mounts to different holes on the block?

One more note. My stock sway bar was hitting my aftermarket balancer. I had to take it off and order the HD sawy bar which comes with spacers.

Keep an eye out when you get the engine back in. If you have an aftermarket balancer, you may have to space the bar down.

[Privateer]

Thank you, nice to see the differences and the info for header fitment as that's the next on my list with the new engine install shortly. My 66 428 car has the "C" style mounts and the parts stores do show the incorrect mount that you referenced.

For info I believe the correct "C" mount is a Pioneer 602141 at RockAuto for about $12 or the NAPA equivalent I believe is a BK6021058 for $10.

[gravelman]

I wish I had an answer to why the P.O. installed the motor mounts that I have. The support for the motor mount has a welded base so since they work I'm not messing with them. Hopefully, my Stan Johnson headers will be happy with them as well.

Double click for larger view...

[dgalietti]

It's looking awesome. Can't wait to see how it all turns out.

If they work and the engine just needs to be moved up a bit, spacers shouldn't be too hard to make.

On mine, I had clearance issues with the passenger header and the crank pulley/damper. It's a pretty tight fit, but I adjusted things and removed the factory sway bar.

Have you thought about what you're going to do for the fan? The pulley system on there looks like it sticks out a bit further than V-belt setup. If I remember correctly from my measurements, you have just under 3.5" of clearance if you mount the radiator as the factory did.

[gravelman]

I've thought a lot about it... Since the car was apart I used the motor mount on the car and compared that with the same motor mount location on the engine. I should have a 1/2"clearance between the fans and pulleys. Then will the radiator install with the fan package or will I have to break it down and reassemble in place? Will the engine install with the headers attached... I modified the shock towers and hopefully, that doesn't bite me.

I built commercial and industrial buildings, the plumber might come up and ask if he could move a pipe, I thought about it for 30 seconds and said go ahead, a month later the electrician might come up and said there's a plumbing pipe just where I need to be. This custom scenario reminds me of what-ifs...

Here's a pic of the new radiator supports that I fabricated, then a pic of the radiator fan package. Let's keep our fingers crossed that all of this works...

Double click for larger view...