Radiator Support Mounts
Thread Starter
|
Posting Guru
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,241
Likes: 2
From: Rockville, Ct.
Radiator Support Mounts
Does anyone have any info on the specs. for the radiator support mounting hardware and rubber bushings?
I'm specifically looking for the rubber bushing thickness and bolt length.
I'd like to make my own.
How do these F'ers sleep at night charging what they do for two pieces of rubber, two washers, a bolt and nut? It's not like they're recouping R&D costs.
I'm specifically looking for the rubber bushing thickness and bolt length.
I'd like to make my own.
How do these F'ers sleep at night charging what they do for two pieces of rubber, two washers, a bolt and nut? It's not like they're recouping R&D costs.
Posting Guru
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 1
From: Barre Mass
Does anyone have any info on the specs. for the radiator support mounting hardware and rubber bushings?
I'm specifically looking for the rubber bushing thickness and bolt length.
I'd like to make my own.
How do these F'ers sleep at night charging what they do for two pieces of rubber, two washers, a bolt and nut? It's not like they're recouping R&D costs.
I'm specifically looking for the rubber bushing thickness and bolt length.
I'd like to make my own.
How do these F'ers sleep at night charging what they do for two pieces of rubber, two washers, a bolt and nut? It's not like they're recouping R&D costs.
. The original mounts have the washers with the threaded collars that sandwich the mounts on the frame. Most of the aftermarket ones use a sleeve between the washers so that you can only tighten them a certain amount. I agree the price is too high but what can you do?
Thread Starter
|
Posting Guru
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,241
Likes: 2
From: Rockville, Ct.
67-71 measurements sound good but there has to be a reason the 72 is different. And as per Murphy, I have a 72.
What is FESM?
Hotshot
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,255
Likes: 199
From: Phoenix, Az.
Front End Sheet Metal. That's how they are listed. I can't see how 72 wouldn't use the same as 67/71. Core supports no different. Frame not either. That 1972 entry has to be wrong. I was just stating what was listed. Note Ford only listed the one for 72. Not an upper and lower.
Trending Topics
Hotshot
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,255
Likes: 199
From: Phoenix, Az.
No there isn't. Other than what I posted above. Note the basic numbers 00154 and 00155 both in Bill's pic. Those are what I posted the sizes for above.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Ford Parts Specialist
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 88,826
Likes: 784
From: Simi Valley, CA
Dueling parts catalog references.Body section 000, page 13 under basic number 00154: Look at D3TZ-1000396-C .. for 1965/71, it sez: 1 3/8" high, but for 1972 .. it sez: 2 5/32" high.
Whiz over to the 1973/79 catalog, it also sez 2 5/32" high.
Hotshot
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,255
Likes: 199
From: Phoenix, Az.
Ford Parts Specialist
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 88,826
Likes: 784
From: Simi Valley, CA
I know what you mean Bill. The trouble is 72/ only shows the one part number. That Dent number you and I have both referenced now and in the past. Not an upper and lower. At least the upper would have to be the same as 67/71. The 5005 frame and 16138 core support part numbers didn't change in 1972 to reflect different mounts as you know. So an upper mount's dimension can't jump that much different. I can understand if that taller D3TZ was then used as the lower. But 1972/ catalog listing makes no sense. Unless "in 1972" they designed the D3TZ mount for the 1973 new body style and it then got slipped in to the 65/72 catalog under 1972 Bumps by accident.
I am shocked no Parts Manager brought this to Ford's attention back in the day to get corrected.
I am shocked no Parts Manager brought this to Ford's attention back in the day to get corrected.
I don't recall ever looking up any of these parts until I showed up here (11/4/2006) on FTE
I called that 800 number at least once a week to report errors in parts catalog. Some were corrected in later editions.
Thread Starter
|
Posting Guru
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,241
Likes: 2
From: Rockville, Ct.
Sorry for the late reply. I see your referencing a manual.
This sucks. I would imagine the height and placement of these bushings might be kind of important for proper body parts alignment. Not something that can be " adjusted as you go ".
Hotshot
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,255
Likes: 199
From: Phoenix, Az.
How many people were replacing cab mounts "back in the day?"
I don't recall ever looking up any of these parts until I showed up here (11/4/2006) on FTE
I called that 800 number at least once a week to report errors in parts catalog. Some were corrected in later editions.
I don't recall ever looking up any of these parts until I showed up here (11/4/2006) on FTE
I called that 800 number at least once a week to report errors in parts catalog. Some were corrected in later editions.
And the hot Phoenix temps dry out rubber.
Because they were originally one in the same.
Thread Starter
|
Posting Guru
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,241
Likes: 2
From: Rockville, Ct.
IF.... the number for the 72 and 73-79 is a total thickness of the two bushings then each bushing should be 1+ 3/16th" approx. Round again and say 1 and 1/4" . That's only a 1/8" difference ( approx. ) between the totals . If we take a 1/4" off of one and add it to the other, then we have one that is 1 and 1/2" approx. ( upper ) and one that is 6/8" approx. ( bottom ). Pretty close to the 67-71 thicknesses.
Until I get info saying otherwise, I'm going to use what you guys confirmed for 67-71.
If I come up with any harder knowledge I'll share.
Thanks guys, Todd.
The most important thickness is the top one since this dictates the height of the front of the quarters, grill, hood and inner fenders. Right?
Until I get info saying otherwise, I'm going to use what you guys confirmed for 67-71.
If I come up with any harder knowledge I'll share.
Thanks guys, Todd.
The most important thickness is the top one since this dictates the height of the front of the quarters, grill, hood and inner fenders. Right?
Hotshot
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,255
Likes: 199
From: Phoenix, Az.
Until I get info saying otherwise, I'm going to use what you guys confirmed for 67-71.
If I come up with any harder knowledge I'll share.
Thanks guys, Todd.
The most important thickness is the top one since this dictates the height of the front of the quarters, grill, hood and inner fenders. Right?
If I come up with any harder knowledge I'll share.
Thanks guys, Todd.
The most important thickness is the top one since this dictates the height of the front of the quarters, grill, hood and inner fenders. Right?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
NMFirstF2504X4
1973 - 1979 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks
7
Apr 1, 2018 10:07 PM
ecidemon
1973 - 1979 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks
5
Sep 6, 2011 04:24 PM
FitchBanjos
1961 - 1966 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks
5
Apr 4, 2008 10:36 AM
29abone
1948 - 1956 F1, F100 & Larger F-Series Trucks
4
Oct 14, 2002 11:38 AM