Trans Mount query

RobTwin · Post by **RobTwin** » Tue Jul 03, 12 1:24 am

Hi all

Could do with a bit of advice from anyone who knows their trans mounts and crossmembers.... especially the 62-65 variety

Having noticed the 727 in the Polara was resting on (and not supported above) the trans mount and crossmember, we decided we ought to whip it out to take a closer look at the rubber part of the mount to see if it had failed.

In my/our haste, I neglected to take any pics with it in situ

but I took some pics when the crossmember & mount were removed.

Looking at the first pic below.... when the trans/crossmember/mount was all bolted up and still in place, the horizontal part of the trans mount bracket (Arrow A) was sitting down on the sheet metal part of the crossmember (Arrow B); so the gap indicated in the pic by the yellow arrow was down to nothing. This also meant that the tailshaft was sitting on the top of the crossmember.

This pic shows a witness mark on the crossmember where the tailshaft was sitting (Arrow C) Cant be right, surely?

Cant remember exactly how it looked when we fitted this mount new about 5 years ago, but it looks to us like the rubber portion of the mount should be taller, to give more space between faces A & B., and also to lift the tailshaft off the crossmember.

The other query on the mount is - ours seems quite loose but without any obvious cracks in the rubber. There's quite a bit of movement between the rectangular mounting plate and the 2x studs that fix it to the crossmember. I know there should be some movement provided by the rubber material, but the whole assembly does seem quite 'loose'. Cant see this helping much with damping any vibration

The mount is an Imperial Services item but I think we may have got it from Schumacher? The Imperial website says they are polyurethane, but it feels more like regulation rubber. Is there anything better available?

And while we're on the subject has anyone else got the same crossmember? Ours looks pretty beat up (looking at the angle of the end plate) and some of the welding looks a bit do-it-yourself

I'm wondering if this is how they were? Or has our been modified in some way?

Any help gratefully received, as usual

Cannonball · Post by **Cannonball** » Tue Jul 03, 12 1:31 am

the welding on the crossmembers is pretty grim yours looks about right
looks like your mount has collapsed can you make a packer to sit it up save getting another mnt

RobTwin · Post by **RobTwin** » Tue Jul 03, 12 2:36 am

Thanks Dunc, yes we were thinking of maybe putting a packer under the mount, but can only go about 5mm as that's how much stud was showing beyond the nuts

Cannonball · Post by **Cannonball** » Tue Jul 03, 12 11:45 am

RobTwin wrote:Thanks Dunc, yes we were thinking of maybe putting a packer under the mount, but can only go about 5mm as that's how much stud was showing beyond the nuts

go 6-7 mm bit of loctite on your threads its going no where

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Tue Jul 03, 12 3:26 pm

Very similar to early-ish "A" body, and from memory different to the '62 "B" Body mount. As Duncan says the welding on them from the factory is poor.

The best solution is, as usual, the hardest: Convert to poly spool-type mount as per later "B" and "E" bodies. If you don't want the griefthen probably a new mount from Schumacer and shim/pack to suit.

Blue · Post by **Blue** » Tue Jul 03, 12 7:05 pm

I'd repair the crossmember and redo some of that ropey factory welding. I would also completely fill all those gaps in the mount with black mastic to give it a little more rigidity. Then shim to taste.

Mick70RR · Post by **Mick70RR** » Tue Jul 03, 12 7:40 pm

That is a poly mount and it doesn't look as tall as a stock rubber mount
.

AllKiller · Post by **AllKiller** » Tue Jul 03, 12 7:44 pm

I have a spare E body spool type one if you want to try making that fit

RobTwin · Post by **RobTwin** » Wed Jul 04, 12 2:15 am

Mick70RR wrote:That is a poly mount and it doesn't look as tall as a stock rubber mount
.

The pic on the Schumacher website of the mount that looks like this one says it's polyurethane but ours feels very rubbery. Would a poly one be much more rigid?

I agree tho, their 'standard' rubber one looks a bit taller than their poly one

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Wed Jul 04, 12 7:53 am

Poly is much more rigid and long-lasting. Modern rubber ones seem to last no time at all............

Dave-R · Post by **Dave-R** » Wed Jul 04, 12 9:03 am

Rubber compresses so it has to be made bigger to start with. Ploy only compresses very slightly so poly parts tend to be made to the size you need when fitted.

RobTwin · Post by **RobTwin** » Tue Jul 10, 12 1:23 pm

Thanks for all the input guys

Took the plunge and ordered a new mount from Schumacher last Friday. They dispatched it yesterday and we should have it later this week or early next.

New mount was only $75 as they had a sale on over the weekend (normally $81 - not much of a saving but better than nowt!), plus they offered us free shipping cos the old mount appears to have failed after only about 5 years.

Remains to be seen if I get stung for vat & duty but if not, it'll only be £50 all in.

Shame the old mount didnt last but very pleased with their speed of service and their willingness to help

And the crossmember's been tidied up ready for the new mount, so with a bit of luck the Polara will make it to the Nats too