Re: Float-A-Motor

Posted by Mike Flanagan on November 25, 1997 at 15:45:06

In Reply to: Float-A-Motor
posted by Bill Pursel on November 18, 1997 at 21:11:37

I have heard much discussion on both sides of the Float-a-Motor issue as it regards strength. From my perspective neither type mount imparts any structural moment into the frame. The rear of the engine is supported by the mounts which are supported by the frame. The only differance I can see is a slight tortional component being added by the Float-a-Motor by its design. The connection of the original mount to the engine, by design, resisted the tortional movement in the frame by a bolted moment connection between the flywheel housing and the motor mount. The only way to adaquately determine the amount of importance to give to this difference would be to conduct a failure analysis of the two systems. My opinion is that with the addition of the support on the mid crossmember the Float-A-Motor is an adequate alternative to an otherwise rigid connection that definately transferred vibration into the frame. Another consideration is that steel, when subjected to continous vibration, becomes somewhat weaker over time. I doubt if this would be a factor and again would require destructive testing to determine the validity of the theory.
Some would say my car undergoes enough destructive testing as it is without adding any scheduled routine....
God Speed Under 50.
The Model A Fool.
: I just this week started work on restoring my 30 Tudors frame and drivetrain,and found that the frame to bellhousing mount box's are broken.This being my first A and not having driven it much I was wondering about the Float A Motor setup.With the original setup used the bellhousing as a crossmember,with the floating motor setup does this weaken the frame? Any comments from the veterans?

E-Mail Comment to Webmaster