Guest Mike Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 DAVY... No offense to Mike but, umm... have you ever seen military engineering projects? At times they scare the crap out of me due to faulty design and cheap materials. This isn't always true but all too often. Mike Knell fabricated/designed brackets for military... so I'm pretty sure that the kit is designed well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 kuntry... I think the spirit of your post is proper. You're suggesting a remedy to what you feel is a fault in the JTR mounting scheme. So you drill the holes where you want them? Do you trim the excess plate material? Have you already done yours... any pics/diagrams? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuntry Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 I havent done mine yet, as Im still in the process of running the frame rails. But yes, you can mount it anywhere you want in the frame. Its basically attached with 2 pieces of angle iron welded to each framerail (like bookends), and then a bolt thru all of it. I dont have a way to make a diagram on the comp, and my scanner is broken so I cant even draw and scan one. You can trim if you have alot of excess, but make sure to leave enough so that you dont compromise your strength, remember its only 1/4" aluminum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 kuntry... Thanks for sharing your ideas. If I was ten years younger, I could tackle this easily. I'm just not the man I was. I need exact specs so I can have the parts made or modified and installed for me. If I haven't changed my setup by the time you've mounted your engine, maybe I'll see where you've posted some diagrams and pics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuntry Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Ill see about getting something drawn up or get some pictures of my friends mazda setup. He has a ford (ewwwwww) 289 in his, but the setup is the same. Maybe someone else here has done the motor plate and would post pics. If not Ill try to have them in the next couple days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paz8 Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Too bad that the JTR mounts for Z cars are NOT made like the JTR mounts for ZX's, they are adjustable front to rear, left to right with the engine and trans in the car. Something along these lines would make engine position changes easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Paz8... Now THAT is a great idea!! Anyone up for the challenge? I'll buy a set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeJTR Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Too bad that the JTR mounts for Z cars are NOT made like the JTR mounts for ZX's, they are adjustable front to rear, left to right with the engine and trans in the car. Something along these lines would make engine position changes easy. I have been following this thread, and many people have brought up some good questions and good ideas. The primary reason to move the engine rearward was for the shifter position with the T5. This required modifying the hood latch bracket for distributor clearance, and the engine had to be positioned low enough for the distributor to fit under the modified hood latch bracket. Another reason I positioned the engine low was because in the late 1980's, electric cooling fans and 4-row radiators didn't work very well, so I used an engine-driven cooling fan with a 4-row radiator. By positioning the engine low, I could run a 19" engine-driven clutch fan and a fan shroud from a Monte-Carlo. Modern plastic/aluminum radiators and modern electric cooling fans do a great job of cooling the V8 Z, so there is no need to run an engine-driven cooling fan. I agree that when using an automatic transmission, the swap would be easier if the engine were positioned more forward. It may be a good idea to raise the engine, as this would also help with header clearance. I believe the JTR ZX engine mounts will work in the Z car -- they won't allow the engine to be moved as far rearward as the Z mounts, but they do offer adjustability. I am currently working on different transmission crossmembers for the Z cars that will be similar to the one in the ZX. The new crossmembers will accommodate the T56 and offer more room for the exhaust, but they will be more difficult to install. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 MikeJTR... Please let us know if the ZX mounts will work in the earlier models. If they requiire tweaking, please offer specific technical information. For those of us using automatic transmissions and who want to use full-length headers, this is the best compromise. THANKS!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pop N Wood Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 There have been a lot of people who have runs bunches of HP through JTR type motor plates. You may not like the look of them but if you look at their proven track record it would be very hard to argue they are inadequate. Put in solid motor plates if you want, but IMO you are attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Just make sure you reinforce the frame rails properly since that thin sheet metal won't take much. As for fore-aft location, if you simply redrill the holes you can easily move the engine a half foot in any direction, other obstructions not withstanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuntry Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 I dont know what the JTR plates look like, like I said, I was given the MSA mounts with my 73. Im not questioning the kit as much as questioning the factory towers that the mounts bolt on to. Its a whole "weakest link" thing for me. I may be wrong and that thin metal might hold a ton of tourqe, but I just dont see how. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
240zV8 Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 I thought i read that the Scarab position resulted in cooling problems with alot of people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 POP... Check out the scans in post #13. I don't see how the holes can be redrilled more than a couple of inches laterally plus there seems to be no room for longitudinal movement at all. Am I missing something? I probably am because I really DON'T know what I'm doing with these. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowrider Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 I thought i read that the Scarab position resulted in cooling problems with alot of people? my z is scarab mounted and doesent go over 180 degres(sp) on an 90* day.the other people that have the scarab mount may not have the right set up to keep it cool.just my .02 since i have a scarab mounted 350. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbo Meister Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 Put in solid motor plates if you want, but IMO you are attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Just make sure you reinforce the frame rails properly since that thin sheet metal won't take much. Since I have the engine out for repair:fmad: , I thought I would post this. I use a plate, but I need it. The subframes have 3/16" channel iron welded on top and 1/4" straps on the bottom. Strut towers are reinforced with 1/8" sheetmetal. Two brackets and 2 bolts, per side, hold plate in position. Urethane trans mount gives some flexibility. Thus engine may be mounted in any position deemed necessary. Stock front springs and struts and adjustable rear shocks make ride pleasant. Camshaft is not very radical and thus minimum vibration transmitted to driver due to plate mounting. Hanns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewis Maudlin Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 My 2 cents. I think the rearmost position is the best. You suggest that a daily driver would benefit from a farther forward engine: However with the JTR setup: The weight distribution is better. The car turns much easier. The engine is easier to cool with a big radiator and big electric fan. Just my opinion having done a couple of swaps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 Turbo Meister... So the plate mounts to the front of the engine? Does this increase stress on the transmission-to-block mounting bolts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakeshoe Posted October 23, 2006 Author Share Posted October 23, 2006 My 2 cents. I think the rearmost position is the best. You suggest that a daily driver would benefit from a farther forward engine: However with the JTR setup: The weight distribution is better. The car turns much easier. The engine is easier to cool with a big radiator and big electric fan. Just my opinion having done a couple of swaps. Even with the Scarab setup I could use the JTR radiator setup and the large electric fan I have. I think a daily driver wouldn't notice any real difference in even the Scarab position compared to the JTR as far as steering and handling go, especially when using a SBC with alum heads, intake, and headers. This is a pretty light package. I wold much rather reduce expense and trouble by moving the engine forward 1-2". The JTR it IS well engineered, I will attest to that. Anytime you can buy a kit, and mount an engine on the stock frame mounts, and it line up perfectly with the mounting holes, it is engineeered properly. I didn't initially elongate the holes in the frame mounts, I did however do it for additional trans dipstick clearance after the test fit. I've use the JTR stuff on an S10 conversion I did as well. Excellent stuff and info. Just in this case, if I were doing it again, except in specific instances, I would mount it further forward. If it wasn't for the driveshaft, I would modify it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakeshoe Posted October 23, 2006 Author Share Posted October 23, 2006 Turbo Meister... So the plate mounts to the front of the engine? Does this increase stress on the transmission-to-block mounting bolts? Mike, The "stress" on the trans to engine mounting bolts is a non issue. GM (and almost every other OEM) has mounted billions of powertrains this way. Side mounts on the motor and a rear transmission mount. There is no stress to speak of. If it was an issue, there wold be more mounting points on every production vehicle Chevy produced from ~1962 on. I believe Chevy went to the rear mounted trasmissions in the passenger cars in 1962, and around 1967 in their truck, rather than the bellhousing mounts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbk240z Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 I have used the JTR kit more than once and like it. However, I did move the engine/trans slightly forward via the slotted mount towers for trans dipstick clearance. On another note, I was helping a buddy swap a SBC into a trawling boat once, and his frount mount was a marine motor plate type mount that used the engine mount holes on the front of the block ala '57 Chevy. The frame attachment points had a biscuit type rubber mount for vibration. I think this could work with a few mods. He got it at a marine type salvage yard. He also said he saw various other types of mount systems that could work. Maybe check ebay for SBC marine type mounts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.