Sooooo... I feel like we need Paul Harvey on this one - What's the rest of the story? Don't leave us hanging - when you figure out which way you are headed to fix this one. A lot of people have hacked up their oil pans as the solution to fit over those Mustang II front ends.

Ben in Austin

 

Hang in there Paul. LOL. I don't blame you. I hate when somebody gets into figuring something like this out then never follow through with what the final outcome was. I had a buddy at a machine shop fab up some 1/2" tall x 2 1/2" round shims yesterday. Well......it really wasn't enough. That gave me less than 1/8" clearance between the bottom of the pan and the rack. So I took 2 really big washers and gave it another 1/4" elevation. That gave me right about 9/16" of an inch clearance. But that is with approximately 3/4" of shims. Plus, IF I do that, I've got to find a longer bolt for the biscuit mount (obviously). Here's a couple pictures.






So the way I see it is I've either got to elevate it that much or do a combination of half inch elevation and modifying the bottom of that oil pan.

 

Hey Doc,
Sorry about the Paul Harvey deal - I had to go there. That motor mount picture - it just looks a little unwieldy up on all those washers doesn't it?
You would think someone else on here has plowed this field before - Fitting a 302 over a Mustang II suspension. I've got a 351W in mine fitting over a Mustang II front end - My engine builder ordered a different
pan for it - Let me check what he did just for fun.

Have a great Memorial Day over there! We are setting record temps over here in Texas - it just can't get this hot already - 101 degrees yesterday.

Ben in Austin

 

My 2c, fwiw, I'd pull out one of the two extra washers, weld it up, bolt it down and call it good.

 

Thanks. Yeah I imagine that's what I'm gonna do. The big thick shim on top in that pic looks like it's 2 pieces, but that's only a lathe mark on solid bar stock. At the current height, I'm looking about about 9/16" clearance bw the bottom of that pan and the rack. Do you guys think that is enough, just right, too much, etc? I think I can get my buddy to turn some new shims to the right height for me.

 

Could you take a piece of 1/4 or 3/8-thick flat stock, weld it to the block end of the pieces that go from the biscuits to the block, but make them an inch longer and drill new holes for the block bolts that are an inch further back, effectively moving the engine back an inch? Seems like it would be simple enough, and you'd also gain the thickness of the bar stock in height. I'd reinforce them, ideally.

I think 1/2" clearance under all conditions is adequate.

 

Mountaindoc and I are in the same boat with this problem. Here are a couple of pics I took a few days ago with just a 1/4 and 1/16th of an inch (temporary) shims in between the plates and the top of the rubber mounts. It seems like maybe a 1/8 of an inch clearance with the 1/4 shim so... I figured using a 3/8 shim would give enough clearance but we are worried if that would even be enough due to how much the engine would move "up and down" of course causing damage to either the pan or rack. I know the engine would move/twist a little during engine load. I know the engine crank turns "clock wise" So if the engine twists clock wise I'm thinking we should be ok (even with a 1/4 spacer) because of the way our pans are made (tapers upward towards driver's side). But we wonder about how much the rubber mounts would compress/travel if we were to hit a big bump or something of that sort moving the engine downward causing damage. I'm thinking it wouldn't be all that much due to the IFS coil springs, shocks, and radial tires absorbing the blow too. I think anyways LOL.

First pic is the measurement of the 1/4 and 1/16th shim and the second the space it provided between pan and rack. I agree it is close (only about 1/8 of an inch or so). I agree ALBUQ F-1 that 1/2 of clearance seems it would be sufficient enough. It just sucks that we have to do this shimming stuff and we haven't even got the cabs on our frame yet to see if shimming the engine up will cause any firewall clearance problems. Ah the wonderful world of aftermarket/modifying...

PS: These pics were taken with the rear of the engine angled down 4 degrees making the carburetor mount base on intake level

 

The engine "torques" opposite to engine (crank) rotation, if that matters.

 

Oh shoot my bad lol thought it went the same way

 

You guys make me glad i went with my Jag setup. i originally was going the MII route and did the Jag based on the cost. I kept thinking,"if i had the MII it would have been easier!" i'm not so sure now! i would figure that it would be a simple process when you spend that kind of cash. it would be nice to have a comparison side by side. good luck guys! i will keep watching this!

 

Ok, I think I will have to wind up using these shims due to clearance issues with my block hugger headers hitting the motor mount plate if I were to put the shims above the MM plate where the 2 bolts go in the block. So here is some pics and what rack clearance I wound up with...







Sorry about it being dirty, I took these pics at about 1:45 in the morning so didn't have time to clean up first.

 

Doc, I have a 289 and the Heidt's crossmember. Heidt's told me the pans you mention would kiss the rack and there was only one that would work. The Ford racing products pan. I couldn't find one as easily as the Canton pan. That worked I but had to notch my crossmember to make it work well.



There is plenty of clearance for the rack though.



It's the Canton 15-620 for SBF and it wasn't cheap but it was readily available and I didn't have to go scouring the junk yards. Rear pickup tube and dipstick relocation kit (can't use the stock front dipstick) were extra.

 

Reed, isn't there a dished washer that goes on top of the biscuit? It needs one IMO

What this mount really needs IMO is a third bolt that makes the connection to the block rigid. The stock mount like Grizz has has a hinge in it ( the long horizontal bolt) that eliminates the bending at the block connection, that's how it gets by with two bolts. For the CE mount to really work, it needs to have a very rigid connection to the block, and I'm not seeing it.

Didn't some SBF's have a third bolt going horizontally into the block?

 

I've never seen an SBF with a third bolt hole like you're describing.

 

I think the top plate is wrong is all. the stock mount puts the same pressure on the 2 bolts, at roughly the same distance, and maybe worse cause of the bend angle.

if this top plate were bent similar down and out and buttressed like your drawing to the block it would be fine AND it would take up the vertical space Reed is using the spacer to fill in