Coupling assy

[rob love]

I have installed the engine/xmsn back into the 2VP carrier, and in the nice clear confines of the heated shop, I would like to solve a problem that I have always noticed with the alignment of the coupling at the differential. The angle never seems quite right, and with the one I am working on now, I have to raise the front of the engine almost 5/16 of an inch at the mounts to get the transmission coupling to line up to the differential. The manual states to tighten up the two rods to achieve this, but I can't help to feel that it would be better to have them on the same plane in the first place. While the manual states there should be no clearance between the transmission housing and the differential housing, I recall watching a later Cdn Army video saying there should be .005" clearance evenly all around. This makes sense as the engine must be able to rotate slightly with the torque of the mighty Ford engine. (Chevy would be a different story).

Short of raising the front of the engine or shimming the differential itself (not sure how well that would work) I don't see any other way of achieving this.

I have brand new motor mounts, so they are not the problem. I am really leaning towards making up a 1/4" or 5/16 spacer plate under each motor mount, but wanted to see what others thought.

Or am I worrying too much and should just jam them together tightly, put on the leather cover, and forget about it? Replacement gears may not be so available to the next guy working on it in 30 years.

[Dave Schindel]

I haven't done this, but the only complication to adding spacers would be exhaust and rad connections. Everything else should be capable of handling a 1/4 in. lift at the front of the engine. Just my 2 cents.

[rob love]

I custom make the down pipes with the engine in situ, so they won't be an issue. I am using preformed hose rather than the old heavy walled straight hose, so there is a bit more flexibility to them. Personally, I don't think 1/4 inch is going to have much effect on the radiator.

[Lynn Eades]

Rob, I have removed a few shims from under the carrier engine mount top hat sections. They are 1/8" inch (3mm) thick and just bits of flat bar that locate under the top hat section (one each end)
These are flat bar with rounded sides and cropped ends which I would bet (my left nut) are factory made and installed and from two different British carrier hulls. One from Merriden, Western Australia, and the other from a New Zealand hull.
These two carriers would never have met except at the British factory.
If you add that three mm. under your mounts and then consider that there is probably some variation in the settled height of the currently available engine mounts, then you are probably there. (who made the mounts you have? Are they original Ford? Not likely. Do they squash the same amount as the original Ford ones?
There are various engine mounts made by Ford with different part numbers. (I haven't gone far into it) Do you have the cup washer under the mount?
Do you have the big washer on top of the mount? (under the pump mount) This washer is another 2mm. Total 5mm so far.
At the end of the day the gearbox HAS to be square with the diff extension housing for the components to align. Unless you have a buckled floor or rear hull plate then it has to work. If it isn't right then, well you need to pack those mounts to suit. Thats how I see it anyhow.

[rob love]

Lynn
Interesting to hear about the shims. It is confirmation that there could be some variables.

My mounts are the repros from Mac's. It is hard to judge their over all height and hardness in relation to the original ones as those were well crushed and after 70 years the rubber was more akin to petrified wood. But in general the Mac's repros are fairly accurate.

The frame and floor do not show any serious signs of distortion...pretty sure I can rule that out.

I'm going to give the shims a try in order to get the same clearance top and bottom on the coupling. I'll update this thread with the end results. I'm also going to try and find that video on the carrier. It was almost 25 years since I watched it, and there may have been some information there. I just hope it wasn't in Beta (thinking back I'm pretty sure it wasn't)...I didn't keep one of those machines. No doubt there are shops that will have them and will transfer for a fee.

[Lynn Eades]

Rob, I wondered if the shims were because of a bad manufacture of the steel top hat sections, but there could be many reasons for things not lining up.
I'd suggest though that most likely the problems are around the front mounts (or at least that is where corrections have to be made)
I see in my 1941 to 47 chassis parts catalogue (Ford) two insulators listed;
1. 51T-6038-C
2. B-6038-C this is the same part no. insulator as in the early Canadian carrier parts book.
In FUC-03 the insulator is listed as;
09B-6038.
Macs sell an insulator on its own. 78-6038-S
They sell two mount assemblies:
1. B-6038-S. This one has the big steel cup washer that has the 1 1/8" hole, that is correct for the carriers. (washer part number 78-6048-A)
2.B-6038-C this one is the correct part number (for a carrier) but cup washer is wrong (small hole)
I don't know if the insulators are the same
Lastly the jeep has a similar looking mount supporting the transfer case. This one is part number 74-6038 It is possibly a softer mount.
Dagenham (U.K. Ford made their own mounts as well, but I cannot find any British part numbers. I do have a Ford script one with made in England on it and a patent number.

Do not forget the large dia. flat washer that fits directly under the water pump foot and on top of the insulator. This one spreads the load on the rubber as the insulator is compressed.
At least one of the other big suppliers (Early Ford?, C&G Ford? sells the parts separately. I bought mine there, but forget who it was.
I know Mackays rubber in Australia made these mounts for many years. No doubt many other rubber mount manufacturers copied them as well.
Some of the mounts are made with a steel base molded into the rubber. Some are flat on the bottom, while some have a shallow hollow underneath.The Ford 74-6038 has a deep hollow Some only have the outer ring of steel molded into them.

I guess the whole point of this post is that you have to be a bit careful to try and get the right parts. Many off the various mounts may have been produced with not too much care (or need to care) if a mount they made was an 1/8" too high or low at assembled height. Most Ford cars and trucks have rubber mounts at the rear and were / are more forgiving, by design, than the carrier.
At the end of the day, an extra washer between the water pump and the insulator will likely fix any discrepancy.

[rob love]

The problem with merely trying to space a washer in the mount is that the bolt really does not have much room for variation anyway. By the time you get the cotter pin through the hole for the castellated nut, you will still be at the same height no matter how many washers are put on top.

I compared the over all length of the new bolt with the original carrier bolt, and the original is a little longer, but not enough to make the difference. The original motor mounts were well squashed like a turtle on the freeway.

I was trying some different thicknesses today and I think I am going to go with a 5/16 plate underneath the motor mount bracket. I made up a pair of 1/4" plates, and it reduced the variation from the top to the bottom to about .006 thou. I think another 1/16 at the mounting bracket is going to make it perfect.

You are right about the difference between mounts on a car or truck, and the mounts on a carrier. The carrier is much more particular about the overall height. The male/female coupling gears are a reasonably tight fit, and everything in that area is quite beefed up and sturdy, so there is very little allowance for variation without causing undue wear or breakage. At least that is my take on it.

[rob love]

Well I tinkered some more today with the alignment issue, and using the feeler gauges between the coupler and the transmission, decided to go with a whopping 3/8" thick spacer plate under the front motor mount brackets. This actually takes me a touch high (I had .003" more clearance at the bottom of the coupling than the top) , which I expect to be able to correct by snugging up the motor mount bolts and extra turn or so.

I'll be keeping an eye on the aligment issue with other carriers I am going to work on, and see just how true they are. Time will, of course, tell if I am making the right decision with these plates.

[Lynn Eades]

Rob, that seems massive! I know you have said the rear plate looks ok, but here's a few thoughts;
Put a straight edge against the rear hull and check it. Then if it does't look perfect,tighten up the tie back rods, pulling the motor back square, into the coupling, and then crack off the bolts holding the brake backing plates to the axle to see if anything moves? (I hope you have the drums off)
A quarter inch up at the front will likely mess up the exhaust pipes,the crank handle alignment, and probably worst of all, the fan blades under the radiator header tank.
Maybe when the motor was pulled the diff rotated up? With the coupling tight and the front mounts out, will the weight of the motor move it down?
As I said all just thoughts that might help
The Australians cleverly put a rubber mount at the rear with a flexible coupling.

[Petr Brezina]

Sorry for hijacking this thread, but what is the overall height of the engine mount support (please see photo - Kevin's picture -thank you )?
Would be anyone so kind to measure it for me? Thank you in advance!

[Michael R.]

Originally Posted by Petr Brezina

Sorry for hijacking this thread, but what is the overall height of the engine mount support (please see photo - Kevin's picture -thank you )?
Would be anyone so kind to measure it for me? Thank you in advance!

You should be clear with 40mm. Depends on the thickness of the bracket you bend. You need to clear the inside isolator and still be able to get the wrench/spanner on the hex.. Watch which aftermarket engine mount kit you buy. Get the right diameter (1-1/8") and check assorted manufacturers for slightly different inserts. Look for the 78-6038 series. Some suppliers sell pairs about $20.00, others sell a single assembly at $16.00.

Speedway:
http://www.speedwaymotors.com/Univer...-Kit,1199.html

Mac's:
http://www.macsautoparts.com/early_v...rd-375561.html

[Petr Brezina]

Thanks a lot Michael! Very helpful as always

[Lynn Eades]

Petr, Look for the correct truck mount, as michael R says. There are mounts and mounts and I believe some will collapse more than others right from the start. I have found the top hat steel mount, one carrier in New Zealand and one in Western Australia with steel packers underneath. These were both British built, and I think they were there from new, to fix a production error. Both lots of packers being cropped rather than cut from the same round edged stock steel.
I started to repeat what I have already stated further back in this thread, so will stop here.
I am not able to give a measurement, but will in the next 24 hours.

[Petr Brezina]

Thanks Lynn, will keep it on my mind!

[Tony Smith]

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

I see in my 1941 to 47 chassis parts catalogue (Ford) two insulators listed;
1. 51T-6038-C
2. B-6038-C this is the same part no. insulator as in the early Canadian carrier parts book.
In FUC-03 the insulator is listed as;
09B-6038.
Macs sell an insulator on its own. 78-6038-S
They sell two mount assemblies:
1. B-6038-S. This one has the big steel cup washer that has the 1 1/8" hole, that is correct for the carriers. (washer part number 78-6048-A)
2.B-6038-C this one is the correct part number (for a carrier) but cup washer is wrong (small hole)
I don't know if the insulators are the same
Lastly the jeep has a similar looking mount supporting the transfer case. This one is part number 74-6038 It is possibly a softer mount.

I guess the whole point of this post is that you have to be a bit careful to try and get the right parts. Many off the various mounts may have been produced with not too much care (or need to care) if a mount they made was an 1/8" too high or low at assembled height.
At the end of the day, an extra washer between the water pump and the insulator will likely fix any discrepancy.

The MB/GPW mounts are very similar, and these are still being made today for Indian made Jeeps. While not technically a "repop" part (they are a factory Jeep part), they are being sold by a few sellers in the States as replacement for WW2 Jeep (OK) and Early Fords (Probably not OK). Example. The reason that the Jeep mounts are softer is that they are hollowed out under the large cone. I'd be wary of their installed height under the weight of an engine, and their compression rate.

Series 1 Land Rovers also used the same mount for the Transfer Case, and these are also being sold new through various UK LR specialists. Like the Jeep mounts, these only support the weight of the transfer and are also significantly hollowed out.

[Mike Cecil]

I purchased engine/transmission mounts from Macs: their part 64-17641, Motor Mount Kit, Large Hole (1-1/8), sub-part number 78-6038-S, is the entire mounting assembly, not just the insulator/rubber block - bolt, washers, split pin, rubber insulator, large cupping washer for the underside of the insulator, etc.

The rubber parts look to have the exact same dimensions as the ones I pulled off the GP and from the F15 I restored some years ago. I also checked the Ford Master Parts catalogue SNL G568 (Feb 29, 1944), and these insulators etc are common to most Ford passenger cars & trucks built for the US Army, including the Ford GP. It is listed as a part not exclusive to US govt vehicles.

The insulator, transfer case support for the GPW and GPA is listed as a 74-6038, and is also a part not exclusive to US Govt vehicles. I remember when I restored my GPW, I used an insulator sourced from Land Rover Australia - again, it had the exact same dimensions as those on the F15(Ford V8) and the GPW insulator I had removed during disassembly.

Mike

[Lynn Eades]

I am at this point with my carrier and find I have a small gap at the top of the coupling housings.
I have tried insalling an extra thin washer under the pump on each side and as Rob previously mentioned, this just stops one from fitting a split pin into the mount bolt.
I am going to install a set of (4) shim plates under the mount saddles to see if they bring the coupling into alignment.
I put a 0-1 g cramp on the salvaged shims that I previously mentioned. They are a nominal 1/8" (0.125") thick.
I am interested to hear from anyone who has heard of these in any publications and also from you Rob, about the training film.

[Lynn Eades]

Here are the packers that I have salvaged from two carriers.I used 4 of them under the top hat engine mount brackets. These lined the coupling up very nicely, in my carrier. Onwards! (to quote the Inf.)