MTFCA Forum

I just ran across an article that recommended installing a leather pad between the top of the frame and the rear mounting brackets. Is this a good idea?

That would make the angle of the pan higher at the rear, so I would add another pad under the front. Then you will need a good-sized ground strap.

No, Ford didn't do it. The horizontal bolts will not line up if you raise the ears

They work best the way Henry did it. Remember that the engine also locates the front and rear axles. The flywheel housing portion of the oil pan and the rear pan arms double as a frame crossmember to which the front radius rods and rear axle torque tube and radius rods are attached.

Thanks. Good advice. I will not use a pad there!

I would use insertion rubber rather than leather, if I wanted to use anything.
Many frames will be sagging more than the thickness of the rubber, so adding the pads will likely restore pan/ driveshaft alignment, if that really matters.

Allan from down under.

What was the reason for putting pads on the engine mounting points in the first place? Was the idea behind it to reduce body vibration?

I’ve cut out rubber from old truck mud flaps and inserted them under the pan arms. It greatly reduces vibration and changes the geometry not a whit of the front/rear axles or the wishbone and radius rods. Also, the 2 horizontal pan arm bolts perfectly line up.

When Ford decided to make an effort to reduce engine vibration transmitted to the frame, they went well beyond just putting anything like a leather or rubber washer under the pan arms. Take a look at how Ford modified the rear engine mounts on the first Model As, and soon after A production began, they modified the front engine mount, also. It didn't help much. If you want to see a more effective anti-vibration engine mounting arrangement in a Ford chassis, examine the Model B 4 cylinder Ford arrangement. That was a real improvement. Illustrations are available online. The T chassis design does not lend itself to softer motor mounts. For one thing, the frame flange at the rear mount is not wide enough to allow installing an isolated pan arm mounting bolt. An isolated mounting bolt would have rubber or leather under the head and washer, around the shank, and under the nut and washer. Another problem is that the engine also serves as a crossmember to which the front and rear axles are attached. Movement of the engine independent of the frame will allow the axles to wander slightly, which will make the steering less stable. Movement of the pan mounting arm bolt within the bolt hole in the frame will tend to wear the hole in the frame larger, further weakening an already weak and highly stressed point. If you want a smooth running Model T, balance the engine and transmission rotating parts. For best results, add a counterbalanced crankshaft. The front engine mmount on a T is also a good pathway for engine vibration to reach the frame, and it is not easily modified, either.

At one time, spring loaded struts were available to put between the frame and the upper part of the engine. (Western Auto Cataloge, 1927) I don't see how they'd do much good, but it looks like a pair could be fabricated. A good way to reduce perceived vibration in a T is to get rid of squeaks and rattles, so far as is possible. A T will ride better and feel tighter with passengers aboard.

Introducing pads only under the mounts will not isolate vibrations as the solid path via the bolt head and nut remains.
And rubber in compression is virtually solid so if you put them above and below, it won't do much.
i certainly wouldn't bother.

The important thing is not to only just 'nip' the horizontal bolts that pass through the wood blocks.