The Stovebolt Page Forums Home | FAQ | Forum | Swap Meet | Gallery | Tech Tips | Events | Features | Search | Hoo-Ya Shop
Work those trucks!




Share what you're up to this summer!

Stovebolt Site Search
 
Old Truck Calendars
Months of truck photos!
Nothing like an old truck calendar

Stovebolt Calendars

Check for details!


Who's Online Now
12 registered members (Hotrod Lincoln, 5 Window 9434, Brad Allen, 59 fleet, BC59, Homer58), 379 guests, and 3 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums48
Topics116,251
Posts927,831
Members42,591
Most Online940
Apr 5th, 2017
Image Posting Policy
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Motor Mounts for 261 in '53 3100 #1314035 Wed Jun 12 2019 02:26 AM
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 131
L
lynngrove Online OP
Shop Shark
I am planning to put a 261 in my '53 3100, using the original bell housing and SM420 transmission that were on the 216. I am converting to open driveline.

Should I use the front engine mount and the original rear engine/transmission mounts?

Without the torque tube, does the transmission need additional support?


'53 3100 5-window
'57 Mercury Monterey 2-Door Sedan
Tim H
Re: Motor Mounts for 261 in '53 3100 [Re: lynngrove] #1314057 Wed Jun 12 2019 04:57 AM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,526
F
Fox Offline
Shop Shark
Lynn,
I have a 62 261 in my 51 truck. I used the 216 bellhousing and clutch setup, sm420 transmission, original 6 volt stomp starter, I modified the original 261 front plate but modified it to be a 216 plate so it bolted right up (so I assume using the 216 plate is what to do) and I also used the stock rear cross member. I do not have any additional support for the transmission. It is just hanging from the four 1/2”Bolts off the back of the bell housing. I have 770 miles on my truck since rebuild with no issues.

I didn’t have to figure out driveshaft stuff because my truck is a 1 ton and it had a bolt in shaft already.


In the Stovebolt Gallery
More pictures here

1951 GMC 9430 1 ton dually—-Shiny!

1970 Chevrolet C10 - Grandpa’s- My first truck.—in progress to shiny
1972 Chevrolet C20- rusted
1970 Chevrolet K20 Suburban—rusted.
1950 Chevrolet 1300- in progress to shiny.

Parts trucks-
1951 GMC 9300
1951-GMC 9430
1951- Chevrolet 1300
Re: Motor Mounts for 261 in '53 3100 [Re: lynngrove] #1314065 Wed Jun 12 2019 11:12 AM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 9,134
G
Grigg Offline
.
The 4 speed needs no additional rear mount.
Mount the engine as original at front and bellhousing.


1951 GMC 250 in the Project Journals
1948 Chevrolet 6400 - Detroit Diesel 4-53T - Roadranger 10 speed overdrive - 4 wheel disc brakes
1952 Chevrolet 3800 pickup
---All pictures---
"First, get a clear notion of what you desire to accomplish, and then in all probability you will succeed in doing it..." -Henry Maudslay-
Re: Motor Mounts for 261 in '53 3100 [Re: lynngrove] #1314086 Wed Jun 12 2019 01:24 PM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,500
S
sstock Offline
Shop Shark
There was a thread on this many months back. It was determined that 1/2 ton torque tube trucks with 3 and 4 speed transmissions had the rear cross member installed from the factory.
Now you want to go open driveshaft, ok not a problem, you have the open yoke now, just need the rear bearing retainer for the sm420 to accept the open yoke and rear seal. There is not a reason in the world to remove your cross member, unless you want to purposely weaken your installation. My thoughts are that sm weighs over 160 pounds and now you want to remove the rear cross member and cantilever that weight off of 4 bolts . Like Grigg says the engineers of the time said it didnt need one but I will add those trucks that didn't have one also had a propeller shaft support bearing installed mid ship, that you do not have. There lies the difference IMHO.

Last edited by sstock; Wed Jun 12 2019 01:35 PM.

1953 Chevrolet 3100
261 cu inch, sm420, 3.55 rear, omaha orange, still 6 volt, RPO green glass, side carrier spare, all done
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bli...n05i04t1aokgm4p04jiwgffwhyyih5xbk0h00410
1964 GMC 1000
305 Big Block V6, sm420, the next cab off restoration
Re: Motor Mounts for 261 in '53 3100 [Re: lynngrove] #1314088 Wed Jun 12 2019 01:34 PM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,500
S
sstock Offline
Shop Shark


1953 Chevrolet 3100
261 cu inch, sm420, 3.55 rear, omaha orange, still 6 volt, RPO green glass, side carrier spare, all done
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bli...n05i04t1aokgm4p04jiwgffwhyyih5xbk0h00410
1964 GMC 1000
305 Big Block V6, sm420, the next cab off restoration
Re: Motor Mounts for 261 in '53 3100 [Re: lynngrove] #1314138 Thu Jun 13 2019 12:29 AM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,526
F
Fox Offline
Shop Shark
Stock,
True. The one ton has the driveshaft steady bearing. 1/2 tons do not. I forgot to mention that. Thank you.


In the Stovebolt Gallery
More pictures here

1951 GMC 9430 1 ton dually—-Shiny!

1970 Chevrolet C10 - Grandpa’s- My first truck.—in progress to shiny
1972 Chevrolet C20- rusted
1970 Chevrolet K20 Suburban—rusted.
1950 Chevrolet 1300- in progress to shiny.

Parts trucks-
1951 GMC 9300
1951-GMC 9430
1951- Chevrolet 1300
Re: Motor Mounts for 261 in '53 3100 [Re: lynngrove] #1314529 Sun Jun 16 2019 06:39 PM
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 131
L
lynngrove Online OP
Shop Shark
From the earlier thread linked by sstock and even the discussion here, I am still wondering about the presence/absence of a rear transmission cross member in a '53 3100 with SM420.

I did find the crossmember in the Factory Assembly Manual (section 7, sheet 3.05) for Automatic Transmission.

My truck had a 216 with the SM420 and torque tube. Front and rear engine mounts. There was no crossmember at the rear of the transmission.

All my agriculture mechanic experience tells me there should be something supporting the rear of the transmission.

Also, the question of a one piece open driveshaft VS a two piece with a carrier bearing. The driveline shop I do business with tells me they can build either, whichever I want.


'53 3100 5-window
'57 Mercury Monterey 2-Door Sedan
Tim H
Re: Motor Mounts for 261 in '53 3100 [Re: lynngrove] #1314548 Sun Jun 16 2019 10:24 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 28,800
tclederman Online
Boltergeist
"I did find the crossmember in the Factory Assembly Manual (section 7, sheet 3.05) for Automatic Transmission."

The reproduction "1947-1954/55" Factory Assembly Manual is actually a 1954/55st FAM.

There was no rear-transmission mount (or rear-transmission frame cross-member) in 1954. The rear-engine cross-member (and motor mounts) changed in 1954, allowing for the elimination for a rear transmission crossmember (unless you had a Hydra-Matic transmission).

It is quite common to find an old 47-53 truck with a missing rear transmission crossmember/mount (it was removed and never replaced). GM installed that cross-member and rear transmission mount because GM thought it was necessary.


Tim
1954Advance-Design.com
1954 3106 Carryall Suburban - part of the family for 48 years
1954 3104 5-window pickup w/Hydra-Matic - part of the family for 14 years
Z-series (54/55) GMC 350 (2-ton) COE - now part of Dave's family
- If you have to stomp on your foot-pedal starter, either you, or your starter, or your engine, has a problem.
- The 216 and early 235 engine are not "splash oilers" - this is a splash oiler.
Re: Motor Mounts for 261 in '53 3100 [Re: lynngrove] #1314565 Mon Jun 17 2019 01:14 AM
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,564
5
52Carl Offline
Master Gabster
I agree that the rear bolted-on crossmember needs to be there, but I t does not need to be attached to any part of a transmission which does not have a torque tube.
It is my opinion that the original wimpy mount bracket which was attached to the torque ball collar was there simply to stabilize the torque ball from undue vibration, extending the life of the cork gasket inside. This mount just was not sturdy enough to support any transmission weight. In fact, when the tiny rubber pad rots away, the two metal parts of the mount remain separated.
Carl

Re: Motor Mounts for 261 in '53 3100 [Re: tclederman] #1314574 Mon Jun 17 2019 01:53 AM
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,272
J
jorb Online
Shop Shark
When braking, there is a lot of down force on the tail end of the transmission, when the drive train incorporates a torque tube.
When braking, there is a almost zero down force on the tail end of the transmission, when the drive train incorporates a Hotchkiss or open drive.

So I would say that the 47-53 truck rear-transmission frame cross-member is not needed when the drive train incorporates a Hotchkiss or open drive.
That said extra support does not hurt anything.
The rear-transmission frame cross-member might aid in preventing the frame from twisting.

Because of the design of the 47-53 rear engine mount cross member.
The engine & tranny weight want to pull the frame rails inward.
Hence the need for a rear-transmission frame cross-member.

GM redesigned the Rear Engine mount cross member in 1954 hence no need for a rear-transmission frame cross-member for trucks equipped with manual transmissions..

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Woogeroo 

Home | FAQ | Forum | Swap Meet | Gallery | Tech Tips | Events | Features | Search | Hoo-Ya Shop
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3