Transmission / Overdrive: Rear Transmission Mount

[Studebaker1962]

I have a 1962 GT Hawk with a 4 speed manual. There are threaded holes in the transmission tail stock directly over a frame cross member slightly before the u-joint. I have studied the manuals and can find no reference to a rear mount. There are no corresponding holes in the frame member.

Am I missing a rear mount? or is it as designed without one?

Thanks,
Jim

[StudeRich]

No, that Tail Housing was ALSO used on Fords, AMC and GM Cars etc. that use a rear Mount. Studebaker Engines all mount on the bell Housing.

[Studebaker1962]

OK, So Ford, AMC and GM used the same Tail Housing WITH a rear mount but Studebaker did not use these threaded mounting holes. Comments on adding a rear trans mount to the cross frame member for added drive train stability on a high torque launch or shifting?

[Dick Steinkamp]

OK, So Ford, AMC and GM used the same Tail Housing WITH a rear mount but Studebaker did not use these threaded mounting holes. Comments on adding a rear trans mount to the cross frame member for added drive train stability on a high torque launch or shifting?

Bad idea. You can either mount off the front of the engine and at the bellhousing like Chevrolet did up until about 1958 and Studebaker did until 1964, OR you can mount mid engine and under the transmission like Chevrolet (and most other RWD's) has done sine 1958. If you mount in all 3 places (front of engine, bellhousing, under trans) you are sure to break a major casting.

[Studebaker1962]

OK , Good point. A rookie Stude question.

[SN-60]

OK , Good point. A rookie Stude question.

I'll bet MANY people have eyeballed that tail housing mount location over the years and wondered the same thing....'Did someone FORGET something here'????

[Skybolt]

Bad idea. You can either mount off the front of the engine and at the bellhousing like Chevrolet did up until about 1958 and Studebaker did until 1964, OR you can mount mid engine and under the transmission like Chevrolet (and most other RWD's) has done sine 1958. If you mount in all 3 places (front of engine, bellhousing, under trans) you are sure to break a major casting.

Dick, how can you be so presumptuous. I have used rear cross members to mount the rear of the transmission on my Studebaker before and over the past 30 years have not had a so called casting failure. How did you come to your conclusion? I have experience with this so that is where I am coming from. My current build has a 1965-6 Studebaker rear cross member in a 59. My Studebakers before that had Ford cross members modified to fit and support the rear mountings. Never a problem. What failures have you experienced or is it just folklore?

[junior]

Dick, how can you be so presumptuous. I have used rear cross members to mount the rear of the transmission on my Studebaker before and over the past 30 years have not had a so called casting failure. How did you come to your conclusion? I have experience with this so that is where I am coming from. My current build has a 1965-6 Studebaker rear cross member in a 59. My Studebakers before that had Ford cross members modified to fit and support the rear mountings. Never a problem. What failures have you experienced or is it just folklore?

I believe Dick is saying it is not wise to use 3 linear mount points...and he is correct, and why would one want to in the first place? In other words, engine mount, and bell housing mount, and no trans mount....or engine mount, trans mount, and no bell housing mount...but NOT engine mount, bell housing mount, and trans mount. Futher, if you use tail shaft trans. mount, its best to use side engine mounts as opposed to front engine mounts. cheers, junior.

[Studebaker1962]

OK OK

In summary pick 2 mounts but not 3. Sorry to get the forum worked up.......

Just a confused Studie owner. (Those threaded holes in the trans tail looked so tempting)

Jim

[Alan]

This is on my 63 T Cab. The secret to keep from breaking things is to have a slight gap between the mounting surface and the mount. Use aircraft bolts and lock wire, run the bolts up until the bolts start to pull the tranny down to close the gap then lock wire them.

[/URL]

[Skybolt]

I believe Dick is saying it is not wise to use 3 linear mount points...and he is correct, and why would one want to in the first place? In other words, engine mount, and bell housing mount, and no trans mount....or engine mount, trans mount, and no bell housing mount...but NOT engine mount, bell housing mount, and trans mount. Futher, if you use tail shaft trans. mount, its best to use side engine mounts as opposed to front engine mounts. cheers, junior.

So these sort of products are no good? http://www.jegs.com/i/Quick-Time-Bel...rentProductId=

I personally like more cross members and frame braces as can be allowed by the design. Even if I never used the rear cross member, 1965-6 style, as a transmission mount it would still be there. As it does not support much weight at all unless the engine is removed. I still don't understand the comments about not using it. Its easy to say stuff but please give me an example it being a disadvantage. There are products available to add extra mounting points but I can't find anything about not using three points.

[StudeRich]

That is a center Mount, I do not think anyone is talking about adding one there, as all Stude. Engine Bell Housings use one anyway.
And the '65-'66 Larks with GM Engines do not need one with the stock Trans. Mount.

No one said that would not be good, you would just remove the Trans. Mount per Dick's 2 not 3 Theory, it makes sense as all Factories use it.

[Dick Steinkamp]

Skybolt, if you have mounted engine/transmission in all three places in the same application (front of engine, bellhousing, under transmission tail shaft) and have not broken anything, then more power to you...but I think you have dodged a bullet.

That will work if there is absolutely no flex in the frame. With things bolted up that rigidly and with a little flex, something has to give.

I have never mounted in all three places so I have no personal experience, but chassis building manuals and hot rod manuals advise against this. You can also check over at the H.A.M.B. for more info.

Again, if it works for you go for it.

[Skybolt]

That is a center Mount, I do not think anyone is talking about adding one there, as all Stude. Engine Bell Housings use one anyway.
And the '65-'66 Larks with GM Engines do not need one with the stock Trans. Mount.

No one said that would not be good, you would just remove the Trans. Mount per Dick's 2 not 3 Theory, it makes sense as all Factories use it.

The point I was making with the center mount product was that it is a product used for vehicles that have engine and transmission mounts and it is added for a center mount location. Also, "all" is a big word. Just because the factory, or factories did it does not make it law. Most procedures are developed over time to save time and money. Not because it is better. I would like an example of how it failed with three points or the math showing it not working. I can see some of the reasoning but does it play out in reality.

Sort of like people removing factory installed items for what they think is better. Who is right? Many don't like the factory radius rods and say they are no good. So did the factory know what they were doing or was it a compromise? I like the idea of Overrider traction bars but may not need them or if I did I would go a step further but that is another story.

[Skybolt]

Skybolt, if you have mounted engine/transmission in all three places in the same application (front of engine, bellhousing, under transmission tail shaft) and have not broken anything, then more power to you...but I think you have dodged a bullet.


That will work if there is absolutely no flex in the frame. With things bolted up that rigidly and with a little flex, something has to give.

I have never mounted in all three places so I have no personal experience, but chassis building manuals and hot rod manuals advise against this. You can also check over at the H.A.M.B. for more info.

Again, if it works for you go for it.

Thanks Dick, I will look at some of my chassis books.

I understand that flex would make it a problem but even my friend who has done this in a Hawk has not, to my knowledge, had any issues. That is why I brought up the subject of paper vs reality. Many of us don't do things because on paper it does not work. I work in an industry, even the last industry I worked in, where we can do things the same way each time and get a few different results. About a %75 success rate, but we still keep going. Some people stumble across things and find it works quite well that others have not considered because they were told it doesn't work.

I have the same situation with solid bushings in the front of the leaf springs. Does it work, to what point, when will it cause a problem, will I ever get to a point that I will notice? Some use them others will not.

I will look into the books.