You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
I am telling you to use them because I know that they alter the position of the motor slightly lower than the later 65/66 style mounts making it easier to install the headers on the motor.
No, they don't, unless they are sagging, or the mounts are modern #2257 replacement types, most of which suck. The stock height of both is supposed to be the same. The later mount was introduced in Mustangs 11/1/65.
There has been a lot out there about the later mounts, convertible lower, yadda yadda. Also not true.
Now, if you want the engine lower for some reason, you could modify the 65 mount easily enough. These were used on Mustangs in 64, 65, and early 66.
I agree completely with you on the FPA's, their FE Tri-Y's are outstanding. I have never seen the 351C/early car headers installed, I'll take your word for it.
This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members. Register your free account today and become a member on Mustang Forums!
No, they don't, unless they are sagging, or the mounts are modern #2257 replacement types, most of which suck. The stock height of both is supposed to be the same. The later mount was introduced in Mustangs 11/1/65.
It's moot point to argue higher or lower this or that so allow me to restate "When I used my 65/66 mounts, I was unable to install my motor in my car using my selected headers. When I switch to the falcon style mounts I was able to do this."
Do you have photos of your installation so I can see what I might have had wrong?
As stated before, Falcon and Mustang had the same mounts.
This is the late 66 style mount, without engine:
Allow me to restate
Do you have photos of your 351c installation in your 65/6 mustang using the later 65/66 mounts you pictured above so that I can see where I might have been mistaken when I was unable to complete the same installation in my own car. I used early 65 mustang/64 falcon 3 piece motor mounts to make it work and was able to install the motor without dented my shock towers as was defined being required in the article you linked previously.
I'll have to agree that those headers interfere with the crossmember, I couldnt get them to fit the Maverick. Thinking about using them in a T bucket too, or building a crossmember that will work with them. I never got as far as the mounts, nobody had the Falcon mounts nor the 64/65 mounts, thats why the Mav doesnt have a 4v in it.
Here's the 65 mount. Don't have a pic of a 351, but since they all mount the same, it should not be an issue. I'd press flat spots in the headers before I'd damage the shock towers.
Your problem is hard contact between the engine and towers. Hard to blame the mounts for that. You need to get an export brace and Monte Carlo bar, and jack the towers back to where they belong. The engine should fit better, then. Loosen the top fender bolts before you jack them apart.
You've managed to completely confuse me...so I'm sure the original poster is confused. If you had less post count at this point I might even thought you were being a troll or otherwise being intentionally obtuse.
I will re-iterate my statements from experience.
Yes you can install a 351c in a 65 mustang, to do it in my own car I used:
64 Falcon/Early 65 3 piece motor mounts
Ford Power Train headers
Drop base air filter
Torque strap
I did not dent my shock towers. This is a proven installation path.
Others may say "Ohh you can't do it" or and this is a first "ohh you can do it just fine with 66 mustang mounts" - my experience differs on both these instances. The mounts are designed different, they physically hold the motor differently. Whether or not the motor ends up in the same location, the mounts hold the motor differently and are lower which enabled me to install it in my car with my header selection without making any shock tower mods.
I won't argue semantics about "specs say this or specs say that" these are the mounts I used to put it in my car. You say I can use others because they are all the same...great...show me. Have you installed a 351c in your car or not? Do you have a picture of it in your car with the 65/6 mustang mounts so I can see it? I had those mounts and I tried to install with those mounts for quite some time, they did not work for me. Then you tell me it should fit better for me, to jack my towers and install bracing? Did you bother to look at my photos where I have an export brace and monte bar already installed in the car? Braces that dropped right in with little effort? I do not have shock tower sag, I do not have some flex rusted out POS that you have to jack things apart to make bolts work, I can change the front and rear tires on my car with a single jack point.
You also answered the original poster's question with a link indicating it would have all the info you need to do the installation. The information contained in that link clearly stated in several locations to 'sledge hammer the shock towers' which is something I opted to clarify for the sake of the original poster, it wasn't until several post of back and forth you have even mentioned something along the lines of "ohh and yeah I would dent my headers before the shock towers". So is the point of this exercise boiled down to:
I say you can do it without denting shock towers but you have use falcon mounts and you say you can do it without denting shock towers but it doesn't matter what mounts you use? If that's the core of the argument I believe experience and documented evidence is the only path to resolution. I've shown my successful installation can we see yours?
I'm obtuse? The 65 Mustang and 65 Falcon use the same motor mounts, yet you insist on calling them Falcon. He already has mounts, therefore he already has Falcon mounts, so stop telling him to get Falcon mounts.
As for the rest, I work on 64-73 Mustangs for a living.
My link was not to the stone tablets Moses brought down, it was further information.
Did you miss the part where I agreed with you on the FPA headers?
I said it doesn't matter whether you use 65 style mounts or 66 style mounts, and I stand by that. A few millimeters higher or lower would have no significant effect on header fit, anyway.
At no time did I recommend bashing the towers- In fact I advocated against that, and stated I'd sooner press flat spots in the headers.
See how that works? You asked me a question and I answered it To expand on the answer I can also state I get even more crabby when I ask direct questions and don't an answer or even acknowledgment that a question was asked. I'm sorry for this character flaw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2+2GT
The 65 Mustang and 65 Falcon use the same motor mounts, yet you insist on calling them Falcon.
Semantics I apologize for confusion if I was not clear enough here:
To give some back story, I generally always refer to them as "64 falcon 3 piece motor mounts and early 65 mustang" I do this because when I attempted to purchase "65 mustang 3 piece motor mounts" the first 2 times I was unable to find anyone who didn't give me a WTF because they failed to understand what I was talking about. When I replaced it with the words "same as 64 falcon" it became easier for all the mustang 'professionals' to help me obtain what I needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2+2GT
He already has mounts, therefore he already has Falcon mounts, so stop telling him to get Falcon mounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenmurphy
Just bought a new built 400+hp 351c. Got a sweet deal (2K, with a lot of extras: msd distributer, headman headers, edl intake and more) I couldnt pass it up. I want to drop it into my mostly stock 65 coupe for a sweet sleeper.
I have heard its possible, with little tricks like 64 falcon motor mounts and shorter intake. Im hoping to find someone who has tackled this combo.
I did some rough measurements, looks like it will be tight, possibly too tight. I would rather not mess with the shock towers. Any tricks or suggestions would be warmly welcome.
The deal also included some headman headers which might not work.
Also, I know the 351c runs a little hot. Any suggestions on a radiator that will work with minimal mods?.
I've read the original posters question several times now...I'm not able to make a determination if he has 2 piece style mounts or the older 3 piece style mounts? Have you gone and looked at his car for him? It would be swell if you did, but until he comes back (if he comes back after this first thread) I have no idea of knowing motor mounts he has in the car. Since I have (what should be blatantly apparent by now) a very strong opinion that you have to use the 3 piece style mounts for this swap (based on my own failed attempt to install it with the 2 piece style) I feel that it is a very important call out to make to anyone who asks me about this swap until such time as someone has showcased success using the 2 piece. At that point in time I will reevaluate my own install and see what I could have been doing wrong because I don't actually like my motor mounts. Right now however based on having installed the motor in my car at least a 10 times as well as providing the advice in this thread to dozens of other people who then successfully replicated my installation, I am thoroughly convinced it has to be done this way. Again another character flaw, I'm sorry...its the whole 'trust but verify thing' that stems from my line of work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2+2GT
I said it doesn't matter whether you use 65 style mounts or 66 style mounts, and I stand by that. A few millimeters higher or lower would have no significant effect on header fit, anyway.
Here-in lies our point of contention, but thank you for seemingly to agree that the mounts in fact may hold the motor slightly differently. (which I know you didn't because of the reading comprehension the nuns beat into me...but I wanted to make a joke)
I have said repeatedly (since 2001 repeatedly) that these are the style mounts I used to install my 351c in my car. Since you work on these for a living you have done this conversion and can prove that it can be done using the later style 2 piece mounts by producing a photograph of the installation; without that, there is already enough information in this thread for readers to make up their own minds what parts to use when attempting this conversion.
Quote:
At no time did I recommend bashing the towers- In fact I advocated against that, and stated I'd sooner press flat spots in the headers.
Yes you correct, you only stated this at the end of some very valid and good advice:
Since that article says this in the first paragraph:
Quote:
Less popular, but still possible with special headers and a little tower massaging, are 351C swaps.
Followed by this:
Quote:
By the time the shock towers were sludge hammered out it looked pretty sad.
and this:
Quote:
It was *not* a happy swap. I had to sledgehammer the shock towers
and you didn't add any additional call outs or caveats I had to assume that you felt the information contain on that page was correct. Since I believe it not to be completely accurate I decided to add a note that if one were to use the same headers and mounts as I do then you don't have to sledge the towers.
Glad to see we are in almost violent agreement.
I am not an expert, I don't proport to be an expert, I simply own my mustang and relate my experience from it anyone who cares to read/listen. I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express so I guess that's good enough.
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company
