Spring Mounted engine mounts for Model A

[Jim Brierley]

I replaced F-O-M's on my tudor with stock mounts, and could tell no difference in any vibrations, but it helped clutch chatter as it made the whole chassis more rigid.

[Jack Shaft]

Originally Posted by Jim Brierley

I replaced F-O-M's on my tudor with stock mounts, and could tell no difference in any vibrations, but it helped clutch chatter as it made the whole chassis more rigid.

I found you have to use all the floatamotor mounts,front,rear and transmission.I tried with with the Ford stock 'wishbone' front mount and floatamotors on the rear,she shivered like a dog passing peach pits

[Synchro909]

Originally Posted by Jim Brierley

I replaced F-O-M's on my tudor with stock mounts, and could tell no difference in any vibrations, but it helped clutch chatter as it made the whole chassis more rigid.

The original solid engine mounts form what amounts to another cross member. By the time they and the flywheel housing are all bolted up tight, they take a lot of flex out of the chassis.
IMO, this is why flywheel housings crack so readily.

[ryanheacox]

Originally Posted by Synchro909

The original solid engine mounts form what amounts to another cross member. By the time they and the flywheel housing are all bolted up tight, they take a lot of flex out of the chassis.
IMO, this is why flywheel housings crack so readily.

Just want to clarify, you're saying that the housings crack more readily with the stock mounts or the FAMs?


FWIW, I converted to FAMs earlier this year and retained the stock front mount. The vibration reduction was noticeable and clutch chatter is not an issue. I used the transmission mount that was included.



There is a great write up from MikeK somewhere explaining how the vibrations of even a mildly hopped up engine, like mine with a 5.5 head and reground cam, produce a ton more vibration than the stock engine and that the FAMs really do help to alleviate that BUT the rubbers need to be soft for them to do the job.

[Synchro909]

Originally Posted by ryanheacox

Just want to clarify, you're saying that the housings crack more readily with the stock mounts or the FAMs?


FWIW, I converted to FAMs earlier this year and retained the stock front mount. The vibration reduction was noticeable and clutch chatter is not an issue. I used the transmission mount that was included.



There is a great write up from MikeK somewhere explaining how the vibrations of even a mildly hopped up engine, like mine with a 5.5 head and reground cam, produce a ton more vibration than the stock engine and that the FAMs really do help to alleviate that BUT the rubbers need to be soft for them to do the job.

It is my belief that the solid mounts will cause the flywheel housing to crack earlier than with soft mounts.
I have done more to my engine than you have and like you say, vibration is greatly reduced. I didn't use the mount on the cross member and I can induce a slight shudder in reverse but it is not a problem with ordinary driving. I have used the original spring type front mount.