Well I started working on my motor mounts for my tbird, and it seems both mounts (302 and 400) are cast into the 400 block. On the 400 block, the threaded bosses are at 45 degrees from the oil pan surface, and the 302 mount bosses (unthreaded) are parallel with the oil pan surface. If same distance, one could easily drill the block to accept the 302 mounts...not gonna do that. But here's a question I have: The 302 block's bosses have one side forward an inch from the other. So they aren't parallel side to side, which means one mount where they meet the frame is offset 1 inch. Does the 400 block have one side offset 1 inch as well? My plan is to bolt the mounts into the K-member, and run a straight edge across the tops of them to make them even (parallel with the oil pan surface), and then lower the 400 block on top of them, which hopefully they line up with the unthreaded casting bosses. That would mean I only then have to deal with the 45 degree angle, as everything else is the same. Does this seem logical, Spock?

 

nobody knows off hand if the mounts are offset at all? It's 15 F windchill right now and I really hoped I didn't have to go outside, pull the block from the shed, bring it into the unheated garage, and set the thing into the engine bay, lol. Geez make me do the dirty work, lol. Since the 302 and 400 share the same frame perches in a truck, doesn't it make sense the motor mounts would be located front to back the same as well?

 

Block dims here, at top of sb forums. No idea on the mounts, sorry....

Kelly hotrod - Ford Engines Page 1

 

yes havi the 351m400 block mount is offset. My block is still on the engine stand.

 

Thanks a bunch! I got the heads off, a strap wrapped around the block, and am now waiting for a friend to come over to help lift it off the stand, and drag it into the garage. It's a balmy 12 degrees out, lol. Knowing the offset may be the same brings alot of hope to an easy motor mount fabrication.

 

i put a stuck 351m and the tranny just to see if fit. I had to make modification to the motor mounts. i put a 4"x4" tubing on each side to get extra clearance for my oil pan problem. I make 1 hole on the top and one one the bottom. I bolt the 2 square tubing on the frame then i drop the motor in and bolt the motor support to the tubing. I know the frame from my mustang is comparable to your tbird, hope everyting work and fit well.

Gonna go with tim piston .030 over with aussie head.

 

well it's mocked up with the Chuck W mounts (type 6), and it looks like they line up with the 400 mounting bosses. So that's half the battle. Later I'll put the heads on and see about exhaust clearances. If it's too tight, I may end up having to switch to a tubular K member for a Mustang and new mounts again. Oil pan clearance isn't much, but if notched like the one I seen on the internet, it may work. No heat, so still working at a snail's pace.

 

I finally hauled off my 88 TC carcass. Look just like your pics. I also had my 85 anny model 302 hauled off---couldnt give it away!!

The 85 had a 302 and the K-member had 45deg mount pads on it with a center hole. Looks a lot like the 400 truck mount setup and the late model 5.8 as well. Mounts are 45 deg and so is frame stand. Do you know what, if any, difference in spacing is between 302's and 400's are at the frame pads? Soon as I get my next batch of roundtoits I may send a jpg of both. Maybe I should try to learn to post pics

 

I haven't looked at the Mustang and 86.5 and older tbird k-members. Mine, being newer than 86.5, has the unique flat k-member mounting surface. They are level with each other, one side is wider than the other, and the spacing between the two holes is 16.63".

Truck mounts in the 1970's had the 302 and 400 use the same frame perches, thus the spacing is the same, as well as the angle. The 400 and 302 share a 45 degree V. The mounts are located in the same spot, and the only difference is the 302 goes from 45 degrees on the frame stand to 0 degrees on the block, thus the mounts angle up 45 degrees. The 400 mounts are flat to the block and remain that way at the frame stands, thus they remain at a 45 degree angle. What had me worried earlier, which was the cause of this thread, was the distance between mounting surfaces. There could have been a subtle spacing difference between the two mounts, and since I could only measure the 302, I had to guess on the 400. But the lower half of mount spacing is indeed the same, so all I have to do is create the upper half of the mount to go flat on the block with 3 bolts, instead of 45 degrees with 2 bolts. The block spacing is the same, so I can just measure it how I have it in the pics, and be good to go.

 

From what you are saying, the 85 bird K-member would allow a 400 to drop in if the spacing is the same to the mount pads on the frame.

If that is the case, it would be possible to take an earlier bird K-member (or even a Mustang maybe a fairmont), swap the later bird lower arm, which is supposed to be longer and give better angles, then maybe drop the 400 right in. I have some jpg's of my old birds K-member. If I knew how to post pics I would. Guess I better start reading.

Actually, my 70 Mach I has a 45 deg mount very similar to the 85 bird-----endless possibilities

Now hurry up-----!

BTW, nearly froze all day today, it was in the low 60's damn near all day. May have a hard freeze tonite---that would be mid 30's

 

yeah, the tricky part is how the mounts bolt to the block. That is the difference between Windsors and the 351M/400.

The newer K-member, like what i have, is actually better for handling. The 94 and newer Mustangs follow the same K-member and arm dimensions. However, all this work may end up all for nothing, as the tubular K-members allow more header clearance. I see clearance being tight, though I don't think impossible. Switching to a manual R&P might help with oil pan clearance as well. FWIW, my original plan wa to get a tubular K, but being on a shoestring budget won't allow it right now.

 

I wonder what a turbo 4 weighs with all the plumbing---.
I know that the supercharged 3.8 in the supercoupes weighs about the same as the 302 engines. The 302 is shown to weigh ~ 500 # in the official 91 bird spec book. A 400 with alum hds and alum intake would also weigh ~500#. Save your money!!

 

I threw the heads and such on. Looks ok for clearance all around. I had planned on matching the turbo coupe's hood scoops with that from a 1971 Boss 351 hood, and it appears the air cleaner may make it possible.

 

look like almost the same in my 80 mustang. What kind of exhaust are you planing to used ? I drop the 400 with stock manifold and very tight from steering bar that goes to rack and pignion. Maby gona make my own headers .

 

Making my own headers, and/or modifying a pair of 351C Fox swap headers. And, yes, the steering shaft may need one tube to go underneath like on the 350cid S10 swaps. I'm a ways away from that, though. I'm just doing what i can for measurements before spending money I don't have, lol.