Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: 88 Tbird 5.0 motor mounts needed (Read 2170 times) previous topic - next topic

88 Tbird 5.0 motor mounts needed

Hey guys, I'm deep into my 88 Tbird HO swap and I'm in need of the appropriate motor mounts. I've spoken with Chuck, and he does not currently have any. I'm in Western PA, and would prefer to pick up a pair locally. Please PM me if you have some available.

88 Tbird 5.0 motor mounts needed

Reply #1 –
So do you need the brackets and all like this:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/OEM-Ford-Left-Front-Motor-Mount-W-bracket-For-86-88-Cougar-Thunderbird-5-0L-V8-/232389254626?epid=1695889305&hash=item361b7a9de2:g:~V8AAOSwXY5ZUwMv&vxp=mtr

Or just the mount like the one from Anchor:

https://www.amazon.com/Anchor-2661-Engine-Mount/dp/B000CFUFXK

83 351W TKO'd T-Bird on the bottle


93 331 Mustang Coupe - 368 rwhp

88 Tbird 5.0 motor mounts needed

Reply #2 –
Do you have the plates that bolt the mount to the engine? They are '86-'88 specofoc and are NOT included in the top pic Darren posted via the ebay link. You can find the mounts all day long, and the brackets that bolt to the K member, the plate that bolts the mount to the block are hard as hell to find, and aren't sold in the parts stores. No idea if the Mark 7 has them, I've never yanked a 5.0 out of one to personally verify.

The Pre 86 cars all used Mustang style mounts. Won't interchange with the '86-8 cars.

You CAN used a '94-95 Stang K member, which will work with the control arms you currently have, and would allow the use of standard Mustang mounts. Probably a PITA over locating those plates, but since the Chuck's mounts are SOL for now at least, it may be a workaround....
'98 Explorer 5.0
'20 Malibu (I know, Chevy, but, 35MPG. Let's go brandon, eh)

88 Tbird 5.0 motor mounts needed

Reply #3 –
I knew there was something that was basically unobtainium with those mounts.

Why not just snag an 83-85 K-member and swap that into the car and use the 5.0 Fox Mustang mounts? You will need to use Fox Mustang lower control arms as well.

83 351W TKO'd T-Bird on the bottle


93 331 Mustang Coupe - 368 rwhp

88 Tbird 5.0 motor mounts needed

Reply #4 –
Quote from: Aerocoupe;462471
I knew there was something that was basically unobtainium with those mounts.

Why not just snag an 83-85 K-member and swap that into the car and use the 5.0 Fox Mustang mounts? You will need to use Fox Mustang lower control arms as well.
But who actually WANTS Fox Mustang LCAs?

88 Tbird 5.0 motor mounts needed

Reply #5 –
That's why I said use the 94-95 K....it uses the '86-8 Tbird/Cougar length front control arms.... :D
'98 Explorer 5.0
'20 Malibu (I know, Chevy, but, 35MPG. Let's go brandon, eh)

88 Tbird 5.0 motor mounts needed

Reply #6 –
Either way works and to your point I like having the Fox length control arms on my 83.

83 351W TKO'd T-Bird on the bottle


93 331 Mustang Coupe - 368 rwhp

88 Tbird 5.0 motor mounts needed

Reply #7 –
I was finally able to get them from a junkyard. I appreciate the help. I am transplanting all parts from a 95 mustang GT covertible. I tried the k member, it fit well enough, other than the rear tabs needing cut and reamed to line up with the holes. The problem I saw was that the T-bird k member control arm mounting points are just a little narrower than the Mustang. The Mustang k member pushed the wheels out by 1/4 to 1/2". I would be able to get away with it, but I'm also switching to the Mustang spindle as well. I am using the 17" OEM Mustang split 5 spoke wheels, so every little bit counts.

88 Tbird 5.0 motor mounts needed

Reply #8 –
Okay, so I am going to go out on a limb here and post up some data on track widths for Mustangs, T-Birds, & Cougars.  I spent a bit of time gathering this info up just because the track width issue has always bothered me and I figured why not research it and post up factual data.  Now I say factual data because I got all of this from the Manufacturers Motor Vehicle Specifications or MVMA's.  You can readily Google this and find all this info scattered on the interweb.

1979 - 1987 Mustang Track Widths
Front: 56.6"
Rear: 57"

Exception is the SVO Mustang:
Front: 57.8"
Rear: 58.3"

1988 - 1993 Mustang Track Widths
Four Cylinder Cars:
Front - 56.6"
Rear - 57"

V8 Cars:
Front - 57.9"
Rear - 57"

The data I could find on the 94-98 and 99-2004 cars was limited but I managed to find a few:

1994 - 1998 Mustang Track Widths (I found data on the 94 & 95 cars only)
It was interesting they listed the non-GT cars having a wider track width but remember this information is based off of the center of the tire to it takes into account the offset of the wheels.
GT Cars:
Front - 60.1"
Rear - 58.7"

Non-GT Cars:
Front - 60.5"
Rear - 59.2"

94 & 95 Cobra:
Front - 60.0"
Rear - 58.7"

1999 - 2004 Mustang Track Widths (I found data on the 02 & 03 cars only)
Again, it was interesting they listed the non-GT cars having a wider track width.
GT Cars:
Front - 58.9"
Rear - 59.3"

Non-GT Cars:
Front - 60.2"
Rear - 60.6"

We all know that the evolution of the Mustang axles length as they pertain to the model:
•79-93 Mustangs - 29 3/16" long rear axle.
•94-98 Mustangs - 29 31/32" long rear axle.
•99-04 Mustangs - 30 11/16" long rear axle.

Interesting to note that the track widths in the rear do not necessarily reflect this in the 94-98 and 99-04 cars so again I am thinking wheels had a lot to do with this as the bodies were physically wider.

The Fox Thunderbird/Cougars took more time as they are less common and well old cars.

1983 - 1988 T-Bird/Cougar Track Widths]
This is a mix of Birds and Cougars to cover all the years and I found no differentiation between the TC's and regular cars.
Front: 58.1"
Rear: 58.5"

I did find the track widths for an 82 T-Bird so here is that info:
Front: 58.1"
Rear: 57.0"


I also found the track widths for an 84 Mark VII so here is that info:
Front: 58.4"
Rear: 59.0"

With all of that data I would be very curious to see what an 79-87 (except the SVO) or 88-93 4 cylinder Fox K-members would do with the SN95 lower control arms in one of our cars.  I would give those cars a 57.35" wide track width due to the SN95 control arms being about 0.75" longer than the Fox control arms.  This would mean that combo should move the same wheels on a Bird or Cougar inboard 0.375" per side.  I could get into another conversation here about wheel offsets to take advantage of this as well as using the Fox control arm to narrow the track width wheel in even further which could be offset again by wheels and maybe even get a deep dish look.

Wish I would not have tossed the K-member out of my 93 Coupe as it was a 4 cylinder.  Again, all of this is based off of track widths and the only real way to prove any of this would to physically try the different combos.

83 351W TKO'd T-Bird on the bottle


93 331 Mustang Coupe - 368 rwhp

88 Tbird 5.0 motor mounts needed

Reply #9 –
This needs to be a sticky.
Quote from: jcassity
I honestly dont think you could exceed the cost of a new car buy installing new *stock* parts everywhere in your coug our tbird. Its just plain impossible. You could revamp the entire drivetrain/engine/suspenstion and still come out ahead.
Hooligans! 
1988 Crown Vic wagon. 120K California car. Wifes grocery getter. (junked)
1987 Ford Thunderbird LX. 5.0. s.o., sn-95 t-5 and an f-150 clutch. Driven daily and going strong.
1986 cougar.
lilsammywasapunkrocker@yahoo.com
 

88 Tbird 5.0 motor mounts needed

Reply #10 –
We also have THIS THREAD on K-member/suspension dimensions.
Long live the 4-eyes!  - '83 Tbird Turbo - '85 Marquis LTS - '86 LTD Wagon