Front float-a-motor mounts

[Del in NE Ohio]

I know these are bording on heresy, but has anyone out there had any experience with the front mount kits?

Tnx!

[Logan]

In my personal opinion, the front float a motor mounts should not be used. I think that they hold the motor in a fixed position, where as the original style mount allows the motor to "flexability". When you hit a big bump in the road, you want the motor to be able to more or less absorb the bumps and jolts from the road. The float a motor front mounts will hold it in a more fixed positsion not allowing it to move as freely. But this is just my opinion, which sometimes doesnt matter as much as others.

I also am not a big fan of the rear float a motor mounts. They cant support the rear of the motor nearly like the stock mounts can, and it causes the rear of the motor to sag. The last time i pulled my motor i switched back to stock mounts, and it seemed to bring the motor back up into the position it needed to be in. With fresh rubbers in between the motor mounts and the frame, and good springs on the front motor mount you shouldnt have a need to switch to the float-a-motor kits.

[pat in Santa Cruz]

It has been my experience, verified by a test John LaVoy did in Model A Times, that the least vibration comes with the original mounts. The other alternatives increase vibration, with the front FOM's being the worst.

[Herb Concord Ca]

On the front use only the original yoke mount. Years ago a club member added the front float a motor and with in a week switched back to the orginal style mount.
Using the front float a motor mount, the motor is mounted too tightly.

[Del in NE Ohio]

I am not contemplating installing these, I talked to a fellow who had installed them and so far his biggest problem is that the motor sits too low with crank pulley only 1/16" clearance from crossmember. Just wondering if anyone else had installed one and had a similar result.

[pat in Santa Cruz]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by Del in NE Ohio

I am not contemplating installing these, I talked to a fellow who had installed them and so far his biggest problem is that the motor sits too low with crank pulley only 1/16" clearance from crossmember. Just wondering if anyone else had installed one and had a similar result.

possibly he switched the rubber donuts or if they are used, they have collapsed. The large ones should be on top of the frame and the smaller ones underneath.. Mis aligned crank pulleys are pretty common on non Ford front mounts of any kind, but usually the engine is too high in front~~~~~ If he still wants to stick with the FOM in front, he could shim it up.

[BILL WILLIAMSON]

NO,
I WON'T get involved with this subject AGAIN! Some folks don't know a good thing when they see it! Go on "SEARCH" for my labourisly typed posts on those things, including how to install the fronts, "CORRECTLY"!! Even Rubber Baby Buggy Bumpers are USELESS if installed WRONG! FAM Bill.

[dave in australia]

Originally Posted by Herb Concord Ca

On the front use only the original yoke mount. Years ago a club member added the front float a motor and with in a week switched back to the orginal style mount.
Using the front float a motor mount, the motor is mounted too tightly.

They can't be tighter than the early 28 front engine mount.

[BILL WILLIAMSON]

O.K. I changed my mind, Purists, forgive me, one statement I didn't make in the past rant about FOM's. This is purely MY thoughts, nothing real scientific.
We all KNOW that the Model A frame flexes GREATLY when going over real uneven terrain, going over curbs, coming out uneven driveways, etc, etc. I feel that the rigid "crossmember" created by the bell housing & the solid motor mounts, contribute greatly to frame rail sagging. FOM's add some measure of "forgiveness" to the frame rails when they flex & twist. Yes, some will say that the stock rubber between the mounts & the frame will allow some "forgiveness", but with those little steel sleeves in the rubber, it's still almost like metal to metal!
Minerva, my '30 Coupe sounded like it was tearin' up it's motor past 45MPH. After FOM rears and FOM fronts, (Fronts installed my way, you'll find that when you search the subject) the car was smoooooth clear up to 80MPH!! (Yes, it would run 80MPH with 3.78 gears, 19" wheels, & NO overdrive!) Bill W.

[Del in NE Ohio]

Bill, I just sent you a P/M!

[willobs]

If you see my car going 80 or even 55 call the police, as some one swiped it!

[BILL WILLIAMSON]

Originally Posted by willobs

If you see my car going 80 or even 55 call the police, as some one swiped it!

Willobs,
If someone reported a Model A doin' 80, the "FUZZ" would DIE laughin' Bill W. (I wanna' go laughin'!!)

[model a mike]

we placed the full float a motor kit on our tudor and couldn't be more happy. took out a lot of the vibrations we had and for us stiffened in areas we thought were lacking. have had any issues with it so far. but to each their own I suppose. from out opinion they've been working great on out 29'

[sturgis39]

I have both the front and back Float a Motor mounts. I changed to them because It was easier to install the engine by myself. I have not had problems. The fan blade has not been pushed into the radiator. The original rear motor mounts where designed to prevent motor movement because there in no slip joint on the drive shaft. The drive line with no slip joint is always trying to move the engine because the rear end tries to move because of acceleration, braking, bumps. turns etc.

The clutch anti chatter rods on the v8 cars were used to keep the motor from moving around because of forces transmitted to the engine from the rear end moving.