So, I made new blocks tonight to the drawings. Then I read that the improved cars use different blocks. How do I get the drawings for those. I could not find them. Also, are the blocks painted? Black, I would guess.

I believe that the Wood Engine Mounting Blocks for the improved cars are the same. The body mounting blocks and the hood shelf blocks are different.
Don't know about the paint, but I suspect that they were unpainted.

My '25 coupe has what appears to be the original wood block in it and it doesn't look like it was painted. One of my TT's had one in it that I used for a pattern to make a new one and it didn't have any signs of paint on it either. Just my .02. Dave

My 25 has the original blocks and I can't tell whether they were painted or not. They're a dark brownish-black so that may have been a black-wash or 80+ years of age, dirt and oil. Figure 87 of the Service Manual indicates the blocks were unpainted but it may be to simply show up in the drawing. I'd coat 'em with varnish so they don't soak moisture/water and split. They probably had some kind of oil wash or preservative like the floorboards.

What's the consensus on whether or not the rear engine mounting wooden blocks are worth installing at all on a Model T that's intended to be driven? I've read in past issues of the Vintage Ford publication that there's a problem with the rear engine brackets breaking off, over time, due to the lack of movement allowed with the blocks installed and even more so if the bolts are installed too tightly. Some people have installed springs and cotter pinned bolts instead of the blocks, others mentioned fitting rubber pads, is there a recommended or preferred retrofit? Does the installation of the later type front motor mount allow for enough additional front suspension flex to reduce this tendency for a broken rear engine bracket?

Thank you.

Dennis,

I firmly believe that the absence of the blocks is indeed what breaks the motor mount arms. The lack of lateral support allows the engine to vibrate, side-to-side, eventually cracking the arm at its 90 degree bend.

Do you need to use the wooden blocks when you are using the rather sturdy APCO accessory engine mounting brackets ?

So late model and early are the same blocks?

The wood blocks will prevent the mounts from breaking off. They limit sideways motion. The problem is that when the long bolt is tightened too tight it tends to put pressure on the mount right where the bolt goes through. Put the blocks in and tighten the bolts just snug and install the cotter pins. Don't over tighten the bolts. I dipped my blocks in boiled linseed oil. That will preserve the wood but leave the color of natural wood.
Norm

Doug,
I have original wood blocks for my 26, they are a different size than the dimensions in the MTFCA engine book for making new wood blocks. It is not rocket science, they are shorter than the height of the frame chanel to allow room for the bolt head of the upper fastener and wide enough to touch both the frame rail and the engine mounting ear. It has a small chamfer on the bottom edge to clear the inside radius of the frame. Make them out of a hard wood like maple, birch, etc. Mine are black from 93 years of dirt and grime, but they are almost impossible to see. The drivers side of the transmission is bigger due to the starter, that one was fun to put in.

My motor mount arm broke last weekend, (Bee Zero Bee is sending me new one) and I discovered I don't have the wooden blocks. My neighbor's '27 roadster is missing them also. I can get them from one of the venders, but I have a shop full of woodworking tools and a bunch of ash and oak. Where do you find the drawings for the blocks? I'd just as soon make them as buy them.

Here is a picture of the information from the engine book.
Norm

You don't really need those wood blocks. They were for cars the way they were originally designed in that they drove over roads that didn't exist. We drive over such nice smooth pavement these days that if your pan ear does break it is probably because it had a crack from long ago. Look at the later model Ton trucks for example. They have no provision for the side bolts at all.

"Look at the later model Ton trucks for example. They have no provision for the side bolts at all."

That's because Ford added the two brackets on the back of the engine for 26-27. These reduce side-to-side motion. Also, they keep the engine from falling through the frame when the pan brackets break. The parts book still calls for blocks on cars through 27.

If you want to run without blocks, go ahead. It's like anything else you do to YOUR car. It's simply a matter of owner choice. But running without the blocks on pre-26 cars will crack the pan brackets.

nah

oh and I do the same thing to all customer cars as well. I think maybe you are too much the purist. You also didn't take into account the much improved road condtions today. I would also venture to say that you would not take your car on roads of the same condition as when your car was new. I abuse my car because it is just a car and I can rebuild it. If it were a trophy I guess it would need the blocks but not for support, for looks only.

Whether or not it's a trophy (mine aint), and having a mount break and strand me on the side of the road without the blocks, I reckon I will put them in. I guess maybe I could be accused of wearing both a belt and suspenders, but blocks will be easier than repairing the mount again.

One of the articles I read was from the Vintage Ford, Volume 27 , Number 6, November-December 1992. On Page 40 in "Tinkerin Tips". The author suggests that this is a common failure among T's assemble with the wooden blocks. The article contains drawings, and identified the typical failure point on the crankcase part #3073 when assembled with the stock wooden block. He offers a diagram for his recommended "New way" of assembling the crankcase arm to the frame with a bolt and spring like the later radiator mounting system (post 1919) and he implied that this new way as a relatively common practice among his local (San Jose) T hobbyists. He suggests that the blocks do not allow enough movement which causes a localization of stress leading to failure. I'm sure I've seen other articles with similar recommendations but would have to look through my other issues to find them. This is what brought me to question the stock installation.

On my 1936 Buick Roadmaster the rear mounts are rubber and allow for movement side to side and up and down. On my 1923 Buick chassis the bell housing bolts solidly to steel blocks mounted in the frame with no allowance for movement. Neither use the hanger bracket system that breaks as on the T.

I don't claim to have a strong belief in either installing the wood blocks or leaving them out since my T is likely to be a couple of years away from being road ready and I have zero Model T driving time. That's why I'm hoping for and seeking some concensus, if any, to help me make an intelligent decision for my T's mounts.

I do appreciate all of your comments and find your experiences with this issue interesting.