On the first page of Ted Aschman’s “Tinkerin Tips” Vol. II, he shows a way to protect the crankcase arms from breaking. He takes the block out and puts a longer bolt up through the frame and the crankcase arm, topped off with a radius rod ball cap spring and a cotter pinned castle nut. Tightened with some compression, the joint now allows some flex. He says that it makes for a much better engine mount. I am wondering if adding a small piece of rubber between the frame and the crankcase arm might reduce noise and further cushion that mount. Modern engines use hard rubber mounts. Any ideas as to the efficacy of such a joint and what material could be used between the arm and the frame?
I bet a piece of rubber under each side would help, at least a little. If you go to all that trouble it would seem worthwhile to put a piece the same thickness under the front mount too. It would be interesting to see the results.
Of course a T should rattle and shake a little.
Don't think you can improve on Ford's method of three point suspension of the power-plant. A bearing up from at the engine mount, and wood block frame support on each side.
The wood blocks increase greatly the contact areas for relieving all the stress and strain of the twisting of the engine in the frame, the twisting of the frame sides in road dips and side way hill climbs over gullies too.
Remember, the fixation of the power plant at front and both side needs to be secure, all forward thrust is put though the mounts, along with all braking forces passed up the torque tube.
And for reading about the wood block, John Regan posed this great research a little while back on the forum, Ford used the wood block from the first, some changes but not much. That wood block needs to be a tight fit between the frame and the ears on the pan, most times you have to press or hammer it in with a drift, otherwise it's not doing its job!
The block in question (F/N 890) changed a few times by small amounts. What is interesting is that it was adopted very early on 12/21/07. It must have been used on the prototypes from the very beginning. In the very beginning the thing had rabbets on both ends. The rabbet that eventually gave way to the bevel was for Gas Lamp Tube Clearance according to the record of changes. What hurts is that in the record of changes there is a missing card. It must have been missing very early on because card#1 covers changes from 12/21/07 (Adopted) through 8/30/17. While then card#2 (labeled as card#2) starts out at 12/14/23 and runs through 4/20/26. Card#3 simply has one entry on 10/11/26. There must have at one time been another card between 1 and 2 but the cards themselves do NOT have a missing number???
There were in fact changes on 9/21/20, 10/14/20, 11/18//21, 7/26/22, 9/8/22, 12/11/22, 3/13/23, and 6/9/23 according to the drawings themselves. I have researched this block in the past and have figured out the various changes and their dates since not all of the above changes actually resulted in any dimensional changes but each year there is at least one of the "specified for 19xx" type changes to the drawing but no change to the part necessarily on that date. The Block was 1-7/16 thick for a long time (1907 to 10/25/25) but got thicker starting on 10/26/25 when the thickness was changed from 1-7/16 to range of 1-1/2 -- 1-17/32. They diddled with the thickness again on 2/26/26 and changed it to 1-15/32 -- 1-1/2. Then on 4/20/26 they changed it to 1-7/16 -- 1-15/32 which is about where it started out.
One constant was that it was NEVER made from anything but HARD MAPLE. The rabbeted edge gave way to bevel edge on 4/11/13. Bevel made a bit bigger on 4/25/14. Hole was 9/16 diameter after 10/4/09. Bevel was done away with on 7/26/22 and this was the beginning of the SMALLEST block since it was now only 2" x 1-7/16 thick and thus totally rectangular now. That must have been bad news since only a month or so later (9/8/22) they changed it from 2" wide to range of 2-9/32 -- 2-5/16. Then on either 3/13/23 or 6/9/23 they changed it to final dimension range of 2-5/32 -- 2-3/16 where it remained. Thus starting on 7/26/22 the block was always rectangular without any bevels or other alterations to its perimeter.
Thus 2 of the dimensions on the block were subject to lots of changes but ONE of the dimensions never varied - it was 1-3/4" and this was probably because the pan ear width didn't change either. The hole was also not always in the exact center of the block and it is unclear or not marked EXACTLY which side is up and down and which side is left and right. The only side that is clear is the thickness since the bolt goes through that dimension.
Unfortunately many of the Tinkerin Tips are not improvements, and this is a glaring example of a really bad idea. The motor mount must not flex on the frame, because in fact the frame flexes, and the engine rotates on the forward engine bearing mount.
Adding springs or rubber makes the pan out of alignment with the front mount, leading to either breakage of the arms or crankshaft failure.
I read or was told that the bolt through the wooden block was to be firm but not tight. The top bolt was to be tight. Are you saying that the bolt through the wood block should also be tight?
I agree with Royce and Dan. The block is there for a reason. One thing not mentioned, is to not over tighten the bolt going thru the block. Tighten the nut till finger tight. Then turn enough to get the cotter key in. It is just supposed to be tight enough to not rattle. Some people use nylon lock nuts instead. That is OK. Its easier than trying to get the cotter key in ...
I would think the wood block should be used to control side to side motion. The thru bolts loose. How would you do the front mount? It controls fore and aft forces.
The top bolts should prevent the engine from bouncing on the frame when you hit the unexpected speed bump. Maybe a piece of "rubber" would be better than the suggested spring.
Just my thoughts!
See paragraphs 98 through 100 of the service manual.
If you change the original design you may void the factory warranty on your Model T.
Don't use rubber at the engine mount, it will decay, rot, and compress and then you have a loose mount.
The wood block must fit snug. Note the imprint of the crankcase arm boss on the inside where the block contacts. Ford wouldn't have done the design work to add the flat boss section of the arm if it was not intended to provide wide support of the stress of frame / engine racking.
See the imprint 'ghost' of the ear boss on the wood block.
For the front of the crankcase, the mount of the spring clip cap secures the pan nose, can't go forward or backward, but add a tab of grease on surface prior to install, so it can rotate so slightly on twist, prevents frame troubles.
Every time you start out in low or reverse there is sideways torque on the crankcase at the rear. When you apply the brake it also puts torque on that part. The long bolt with a spring might possibly quiet down some vibrations, but it would cause other movements of the rear of the engine. As stated above, the wood block is for side to side movement and the bolt should not be over tightened. It is just there to keep the wood block in place.
When I got my '14 touring someone had mounted the rear pan arms with a spring as described in this thread. It was unnerving to say the least the way the whole drive train twisted. I could not wait to get it off the car and back to the original Ford set up. I might add that it did not seem to make any difference in the transfer of vibration to the frame and in fact it seemed to me that it made it worse.
The winged pyramid in the early Ford logo is significant. Model T geometry depends on the structural rigidity of the triangle almost everywhere you look - in the suspension and the engine mounting for certain. I'd also reckon the rear engine tie-in to the frame is an important factor in frame stability, yet the whole chassis is capable of amazing flexibility, necessary for the travel conditions of the day. For all practical purposes The Model T is really a very capable ATV, something folks who only drive on pavement are often oblivious to.
Here's a demo of flexibility:
I would not attempt this if you have a lacquer paint job….
Pure hogwash. Put the blocks in there where they belong.