Engine: 66 Daytona Engine Mounting Brackets

[dangrdan]

I pulled the engine (283) about 10 yrs ago, overhauled it and the auto transmission, and reinstalled them last fall. I am now nearing completion on the project and have a major problem: The fan/radiator interface is too tight. The fan would actually hit the radiator if I could get it together. While the original radiator was out during initial phase of the project, I had a local shop refurbish it and he talked me into adding some extra cores (I think that is what the heat transfer tubes are called). The shop is now gone so I cannot find out if adding the new cores would have made the radiator thicker or just wider or if the new cores made no change on the external dimensions. I do know that the radiator mounting u-shaped bracket (on the car) is fixed; there is no slack to shift the radiator frame towards the front or back. And, looking at the radiator top and bottom reservoirs, it does not appear that the fins/cores section could be shifted either. So, I have concluded that the most likely situation is that I mounted the engine/transmission too far to the front of the car.

The transmission mount has slots and I see that the bolts are setting as far to the front of the slots as possible. We installed the engine and transmission bolted together. As I remember, we installed the motor mounts first, while the transmission was supported with a jack, and then installed the transmission mounting bolts. So, I think the transmission mounting bolts just naturally fit into the slots - I don't think I moved them to the forward position in the slots on purpose, they just fit there. I cannot tell, by looking, if the motor mounts are slotted and I do not remember them being slotted when I installed them last year. If they are slotted, it might be possible to loosen the engine mounting bolts and the transmission mounting bolts and then slide the whole assemble to the rear (the drive shaft has several inches of forward/backward slop in the transmission rear housing). If that is possible and if it gives about 1/2" shift to the rear, this would give the fan some clearance.

Neither the shop manual nor the parts book show a picture of the motor mounts. I can see that the upper (engine side) of the mounts are not slotted but maybe the frame side is; I can't see. So, do any of you know if the motor mount frame side is slotted?

On the other hand, is it possible that the refurbished radiator cooling section is thicker than the original radiator? Or, maybe did the shop simply solder it too far the the rear (if that is even possible) in the radiator frame? Also, does anyone know what the minimum fan-to-radiator clearance should be?

Thanks for any information you can give.
Morgan

[Dick Steinkamp]

Is it possible that you installed the later "long" water pump as a replacement when you rebuilt the engine rather than the stock "short" pump?

[wittsend]

As you can see in the pictures ('64 Daytona/350 Chevy/factory Studebaker 283 mounts) I have at least 3-1/2" between the radiator and the fan mount point (I have an electric pusher fan on the front of the radiator). I've included a wider shot of the area. The core thickness of my radiator is 2-1/2".

What is baffling me is that you would either have to have a 6"+ radiator core, a 3-1/2"+ longer water pump or the motor mounts are reversed (If that is even possible???). But if the motor mounts are reversed I can't see how the oil pan would clear the center pivot bellcrank on the crossmember??? My engine is from an '85 Corvette and the front sump area is about 1" further forward than a stock, generic pan. I had to indent my pan for clearance. So, I know the oil pan can't go forward even an inch. There is not enough movement in the transmission slots to get 3-1/2" forward. If it is reversed, then maybe. But again there is the oil pan issue. Can you provide pictures? It would help us to help you.

[dangrdan]

Short vs long water pump

Is it possible that you installed the later "long" water pump as a replacement when you rebuilt the engine rather than the stock "short" pump?

Good suggestion but I think not because the fan tip misses the power steering pump (original pump and mounting bracket) by 1/4". A shorter pump shaft would bring the fan blade too close to the PS pump. Also, the alternator belt rides on the WP pulley and it lines up correctly with the crank and alternator pulleys. Since the WP pulley misses the WP itself by only about 3/8", I can't move the pulley/fan back (towards the engine) at all, plus if I did, the alt belt would be misaligned and the fan would hit the PS shaft. So, the WP, WP pulley, the spacer between the pulley and the fan, and the fan itself all seem to line up correctly on the engine, such that all belts fit and the fan is as close to the engine as possible.

This car had a factory AC system that I have abandoned, but I cannot conceive of how that could be the problem since the alt belt lines up perfectly with the crank and WP pulleys, and the PS pulley lines up with the crank pulley. There is an unused slot in the crank pulley (between the inner alt and outer PS belts) that held the AC compressor pulley but again, I cannot see that this is a problem. I throw this out because, well maybe I'm wrong and that is the problem?

[dangrdan]

Thanks, wittsend. Your picture #1 shows my problem - the tip of your tape is the tip of the fan blade on my car. The spacer and the fan fill this distance entirely and the fan is right against the radiator.

As I replied to Dick, the water pump must be the correct one because it brings the fan tip to within 1/4" of the PS pump - it couldn't be much shorter.


My picture #1 shows that the core is centered directly in the middle of the radiator frame - it does not extend beyond either side of the 2" part of the frame that necks down from the top reservoir. The radiator core is slightly under 2" thick.

Picture 2 shows something that I did not notice before: The engine is tilted slightly with the nose of the engine higher than the rear. Note that the bottom of the fan actually intrudes slightly into the "U" shaped radiator mounting bracket. The fan is not bent anywhere and when you spin it it runs true and does not wobble, so the water pump shaft appears straight. I checked the motor mounts and they fit perfectly with no obvious stress on them. These are new mounts that I got through Meyers so I assume they are the correct ones (the boxes were trashed long ago so I do not know the part numbers). Question: is it normal for the engine to tilt up at the front or could this be caused by the wrong motor mounts? It looks like if the engine was not slightly tilted, the fan might just barely fit (might) but then there would be almost no clearance between it and the radiator core.

I had the cross member in place but had not yet installed it so I did that just now and the member fits exactly between the transmission oil pan and the bellcrank (picture #3). Actually, it looks like, with it in place, the engine would only go back about maybe a 1/4" before the bell housing would hit it. This answers my original question about sliding the engine/transmission back so the fan would fit - nope!

As for the other question, if someone knows if the radiator core can be shifted towards the front of the radiator frame more (it is dead center right now), pls let me know. It sure doesn't look possible bit if it can be done, I'll have a shop re-solder it.

[57pack]

Question...could you have possibly installed the wrong fan blade spacer? Yours appears to be longer and of a different type of construction than the one on my 65. Also looks like you have the HD fan blade, maybe a stock fan blade may help?

[Dick Steinkamp]

I agree with 57Pack. Here's the SBC I installed in my 63. I used all 65-66 parts to do the installation, so it should be the same or very similar to a stock 65-66.

Here's the right side motor mount that you can compare with yours for holes used, etc...



Here's the pulley and fan. Note no spacer...



Showing the radiator installation...



Finished engine compartment...

[wittsend]

Is the spacer even needed to clear anything? While my car is a '64 the 283 that came with it was a McKinnon for sure. There was no P/S or A/C and I had a single pulley up tight to the crank mount.

Anyway, if this is of any help to you I measured from the front corner of the fuel pump boss straight across to the radiator. I get 9" there. I also measured from the end of the water pump shaft, back to the block. I get 6" there. While my water pump and balancer are standard issue for an '85 Corvette it was pretty close on the belt alignment. The alternator (mount fastened to the exhaust manifold bolts) and the water pump pulley aligned perfectly. So, based on that I'd assume a 6" water pump depth (measured at the end of the shaft, not flange) is common. The lower pulley I had to use three standard washers (per bolt) to space it off the balancer.

I'm including few a pictures of the McKinnon engine I received with the car. When I sold it, the fan was included (but not the pulley). While I have no measurements perhaps there is a visual that will be helpful. If you will notice there is no large external balancer like Dick's and my Corvette engine have. Note though, that there is what looks like a good 1-1/4" to 1-1/2" fan spacer. So, this just seems to adds to the mystery.

[Dick Steinkamp]

Is the spacer even needed to clear anything? While my car is a '64 the 283 that came with it was a McKinnon for sure.

My guess is that the OP has the long pump. The short pump is 5 1/4" from the face that mounts to the block to the face that the fan or spacer mounts to. The long pump is 7 1/4". If you use a short pump you do want the spacer like came originally with the 65s and 66s. If you use a long pump, you must eliminate the spacer. In the pics of my installation, I used a long pump.

[dangrdan]

Dick - Thanks for the great pictures. I could not get as good a shot of my motor mount and yours but my pictures #1 and #2 are side shots and #3 is a top view. As you can see, the section that mounts to the frame looks different than yours; where yours looks like it is a straight shot from the frame to the engine section, mine is angled towards the rear of the engine. However, it could just be that your photo just doesn't show the angle. I did not remove the frame section of the motor mount when I removed the engine so that part of the motor mount is stock. Studying your photo does show the same bolt patterns I have on the frame and engine sides so, visually they look the same to me.



Looking at your 2nd and 3rd photos I see that your power steering pump (if that is what it is) is dramatically different. Also, the alternator bracket is different. Your arrangement allows you to have one belt driving everything. If you look at my #4 & 5 photos you can see that my PS unit (stock) has a much longer shaft. Also note that the spacer on the fan pulley is what allows the fan to miss the PS shaft (the fan/PS shaft gap shown in the photos is 3/8"). The fan and spacer and PS unit are all stock and as you can see, the spacer is absolutely necessary and does not appear to me to be too long; the most I could shave off it would be about 1/8". I have installed the fan without the spacer and the fan hits the PS pump pulley. If I had your setup, my fan would be positioned more to the rear and probably be missing the radiator like yours.



What is confusing to me is that the only thing in the equation that is not stock is the radiator core but, since it is only 2" thick, that does not seem like it is the problem. However, it is centered in the radiator frame, maybe that is what is different. Note that the radiator frame bolts onto the "U" frame in the car just like it came off - there is no room to move the radiator frame farther to the front of the car. My earlier idea of moving the entire drive train to the rear is shot because the cross member would prevent that. So, at this point it would seem that my only option is to find a PS pump that is 1/2" shorter - that would put the belt into the middle slot on the crank pulley. Then I could shave the spacer down 1/2", which would (maybe) allow the fan to just miss the radiator. Or, If I could find a PS pump that was 1" shorter, that would put the PS pulley the same distance as the inner crank belt slot. This would allow me to shave an inch off the spacer, then with a longer belt, the inner slot would drive both the alternator and PS pump. Hard to tell for sure but I think that doing this would give about 1/2" clearance between the fan and crank pulley and maybe a 1/4" to 1/2" fan-to-radiator clearance.

Regarding 57pack's question about the fan - this car had a factory AC system and this is the original fan. It is 18-1/4" diameter, tip-to-tip. Does anyone know if the non-AC fan is smaller? If it is, then maybe it would miss the PS pump and I could shave the spacer down or even abandon it. I do plan to install a modern AC system to replace the factory one some day, so I'd like to keep this fan. However, if the other fan fits, I can deal with the fan issue later (maybe even install one of those electric pusher fans like wittsend has).

Not sure what the root cause is but I will do whatever work-around needed to get it running again. Of course, if I knew the root cause it would be preferable to fix that instead.

[Dick Steinkamp]

No PS in my car. The engine is turning the water pump and the alternator, hence the one belt. I am using the forward pulley on the dampener, however.

Can you measure your water pump? That will give a little more info.

[joncon]

Here is a couple of pictures of my 66 it's all original. Maybe they'll help

[StudeRich]

The only thing I CAN tell you about the Studebaker Radiators, is every one of many Larks & Lark Types I have had Re-Cored with 3 Rows of Tubes in a 2 Row Tank, they ALWAYS go Forward in front of the Radiator, so NO added thickness is toward the Rear.

[wittsend]

Dangrdan,

I think at this point we can assume that your motor mounts are correct. There is very little play between the transmission and the bellhousing where the batwing crossmember passes through to have the engine installed - and be wrong.

I also think we can assume your recored radiator is at least close enough to stock to be correct. My actual core depth is 1-5/8" The radiator frame is stepped. The core is 3/4" back from the frame edge at the top, and 1" at the bottom. I noticed in your picture that the core seems to be offset slightly towards the front of the car. While mine is the opposite, the situation with yours should only increase the room you need, not decrease it. BTW, the offset is minimal..., maybe 1/4."

This leaves the mystery to the fan, water pump, alternator, power steering and A/C positioning. While Dick stated he sourced 65-66 parts (and they may very well be) they are not like the Canadian/McKinnon items that came on my engine. I searched a few hundred Google images and the few engine compartment pictures I found look like the images I have in post #8. In particular the alternator bracket affixed to the exhaust manifold bolts. Dick's images have a dual "V" lower pulley, a shorter water pump pulley (why he uses the forward "V") and an entirely different alternator mount. So, while we both don't have matching examples to yours, if you have a stock McKinnon engine it will be closer to mine. Regardless both Dick and I have the 5-1/4" deep fan/pulley flange to block water pump and neither of us has the clearance issues you are encountering. Hopefully you can solve this soon.

[Dick Steinkamp]

dangrdan...your pictures don't work...at least on my computer.