What's new
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.

A Ford solution to the strut rod

Leadfoot

Leadfoot

1/2 ton status
 Premium
Joined
Nov 28, 2000
Posts
3,122
Reaction score
3
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).
 
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.
 
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...
 
tying it to the flexy frame in an oddball spot seems to cause more troubles then it solves IMO
 
Some of the stick shift trucks had the set up form the factory in the 70's
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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 : )
 
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
 
just do what chev did, add braces from the tc to the motor at the mounts
(how to trivialize hours of work)
 
</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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Posts

Top Bottom