Dismiss Notice

Welcome To CK5!

Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon.

Score a FREE t-shirt and membership sticker when you sign up for a Premium Membership and choose the recurring plan.

A Ford solution to the strut rod

Discussion in '1973-1991 K5 Blazer | Truck | Suburban' started by Leadfoot, Aug 16, 2002.

  1. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot 1/2 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Posts:
    3,112
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Western Massachusetts
    I had a problem with my 350/205 adapter cracking. I was at a buddy's house who is building a Super Stock (500HP+) truck. It is a Ford with divorced t-case. I noticed that the case was mounted to the frame with an angled brace. There were two holes in the side of the case (similar but not exactly like the ones Chevy uses for the strut rods), and they used these to tie it to the frame. I was wondering about doing the same (but using some sort of bushing to "give" a little). I have enough room to fabricate a bracket to tie to the case and get around my exhaust pipe and tie to the frame using poly bushings. Does anyone think this is a good idea? I am worried because I have a 700 mated to the 205 and since this was not a stock combo, there is no brace available, and I don't think lengthening it will do much especially when I'm truck pulling. Right now I have poly t-case mounts and ORD's offroad motor mounts and don't get much drivetrain flex, but I figure every little bit helps (I don't feel like twisting the 700 case apart).
     
  2. 45acp

    45acp 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2001
    Posts:
    695
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tucson, Arizona
    Chris, Take a look at my Gallery Photos and maybe you will get some ideas. I am using a Ford NP205 and while I am not using the threaded holes you are talking about I am using Poly mounts similar to engine mounts to hold it all in place. If you have questions I try to answer them.
     
  3. dyeager535

    dyeager535 1 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2000
    Posts:
    26,979
    Likes Received:
    189
    Location:
    Roy WA
    Not a bad idea to use those holes..they are already there! : )

    I thought that GM used those holes very early on too, but I could be mistaken...I know GM used a crossmember that actually wrapped up the side of the frame in some applications, and I've seen that personally, but not a t-case to frame mount.

    Someone needs to make solid (and not cast) adapters...
     
  4. m j

    m j 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2001
    Posts:
    4,606
    Likes Received:
    0
    tying it to the flexy frame in an oddball spot seems to cause more troubles then it solves IMO
     
  5. Grim-Reaper

    Grim-Reaper 3/4 ton status Author

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2000
    Posts:
    7,385
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Some of the stick shift trucks had the set up form the factory in the 70's
     
  6. 70~K5

    70~K5 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,032
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    sillycon valley
    pre '75 chevy's use those holes and a mount to the pass side of the frame with bushing too.
     
  7. Seventy4Blazer

    Seventy4Blazer 3/4 ton status

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2001
    Posts:
    5,634
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Escondido, CA
    it is like that on a few trucks i have seen in the bone yard with 205/350
    but the 203's are the same . angle iron on the frame and T-case
    grant /forums/images/icons/grin.gif
     
  8. 70~K5

    70~K5 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,032
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    sillycon valley
    That's was stock on my 350/T350/205 '70 K5 and I was able to reuse the mounts when I switched to a 465/205. A 90* angle off the Tcase and one off the frame
     
  9. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot 1/2 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Posts:
    3,112
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Western Massachusetts
    M.J. Granted the frames on these rigs flex, but considering the relation of the t-case, crossmember, and frame rails, I can't see it being a big problem *In this particular spot on the frame*. If it were closer to the front or rear I could see it being a big issue as the frame tends to lift/lower compared to the opposite side, but the center of these vehicles stays more stable (less deflection from stock geometry). I know there will be some flex (inevitable), but I'm hoping the poly isolation will account for that. It seems it has been used in the past and still used on some rigs, so I'm assuming there is some merrit behind it. Just trying to brainstorm here, so I'm glad to hear varying opinions. /forums/images/icons/cool.gif
     
  10. dyeager535

    dyeager535 1 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2000
    Posts:
    26,979
    Likes Received:
    189
    Location:
    Roy WA
    Not that I disagree with tying it to the body, because I don't, but you praobably shouldn't compare our trucks frames to other applications, as most anything newer, and even some our vintage (thinking 1 tons for instance even) had/have a lot stouter frames, that simply don't flex like ours.
     
  11. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot 1/2 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Posts:
    3,112
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Western Massachusetts
    I totally agree that these things flex, which is actually an advantage in "some" instances. My point was that the amount of flex at that particular spot on the frame (especially in relation to the t-case/crossmember) is negligable. I am going to tie the case to the frame with a cushion of some sort and let people know how it goes. /forums/images/icons/confused.gif
     
  12. dyeager535

    dyeager535 1 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2000
    Posts:
    26,979
    Likes Received:
    189
    Location:
    Roy WA
    I say screw frame flex. Tie that thing solidly together, and let the suspension do its job : )

    When I have nothing better to do on my truck, I'll probably start looking at ways to reduce frame flex, poly body bushings will be first. Actually should do that now, while they are still relatively rust free : )
     
  13. m j

    m j 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2001
    Posts:
    4,606
    Likes Received:
    0
    the engine/tranny/tc all have to act as a single unit, the frame may be 'flexy'(a very bad thing IMO) but the drive train cannot be
    the front motor mounts are attached to the spagetti frame rails that are all over the place with the tranny mount being centred, this 3 point allows the drivetrain to avoid being twisted
    bolting another off centre point cant be helping
     
  14. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot 1/2 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Posts:
    3,112
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Western Massachusetts
    Makes sense to me! Guess I have to give some more thought.
     
  15. m j

    m j 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2001
    Posts:
    4,606
    Likes Received:
    0
    just do what chev did, add braces from the tc to the motor at the mounts
    (how to trivialize hours of work)
     
  16. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot 1/2 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Posts:
    3,112
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Western Massachusetts
    </font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
    just do what chev did, add braces from the tc to the motor at the mounts

    [/ QUOTE ]
    When did Chevy do that?

    The ones I've seen are the ones that Chevy put in from the bottom of the flywheel/torque converter cover on an auto tranny to the motor mounts (but not on the 700 like mine) and the strut brace that went from the t-case to the bellhousing. Neither were made for my app (700/np205). I could make a t-case to bellhousing brace, but it would need to be extra long (and seemingly less effective), and the inspection tray on the 700 is nothing like the ones used on the 350 or 400 (pretty much tinfoil thickness) and I don't have the skills or tools to machine one out of aluminum or steel. I was hoping to stiffen it up a little, but a little more than just a lengthened strut brace to accomidate the extra length of the 700.

    I had a brace on the 350 to motor mount, and the strut brace from the 205 to bellhousing when I first got it, and that was the combo I was using when I broke the 350/205 adaptor. Now I have more length/leverage, with less bracing (although I do have stronger mounts....ORD's engine mounts and HES poly t-case mounts). I'm just looking for a more rigid design. This is a truck puller and not a flexy trail rig.
     
  17. 70~K5

    70~K5 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,032
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    sillycon valley
    I'd go with the "75 down side mount from the Tcase to the frame on your setup. I'd bet that chevy got away from this setup to reduce noise/ vibration.
     
  18. DieselDan

    DieselDan 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2001
    Posts:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Vermont
    Hey LeadFt, My '89 Jimmy (6.2 w/700R) has strut rods that run from the engine mounts to the converter cover. And IIRC a rod that runs from the trans to the tranfer (700R to NP241). /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
     
  19. m j

    m j 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2001
    Posts:
    4,606
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would bet that chev was having warrantee problems with busted tranny cases,
    they started adding all kinds of bandaids to stiffen the drivetrain
    chev doesnt beef anything unless they absolutely have to
     
  20. DERBINATOR

    DERBINATOR 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2001
    Posts:
    196
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    YANKTON,SD
    Rather then running it to to frame why not run the brace to the crossmember. Less flex there????
     

Share This Page