Engine to far forward?

[Michiel]

Dear all,
Is this accepted (photo). The mounting rubbers are as far forward as the holes in the towers allowes. The towers themselves off course bolts to the chassis legs and tie plates through pre-drilled holes, so their position on the chassis legs is pre-determined. Same with the gearbox cross member.

IMG_20200611_103044.jpg (223.75 KiB) Viewed 3003 times

The story is, I fitted 2 new chassis legs, tie plates, new centre cross member, floors, inner wings et cetera. I could have welded the chassis legs 1 cm to far backwards, but this is unlikely as I wrote down a lot of measurements to known good points and in addition marked the possition of the old cross member on the (not renewed) inner sills. A clue of correct fitment could also be the correct position of the new tie plates (photo) relative to the (not renewed) Bulkhead-to-Toe-Board panels.

IMG_20200611_103130.jpg (408.24 KiB) Viewed 3003 times

The orientation of the gearbox mount brackets is correct (photo) with its longer 'lip' rearwards. Otherwise the whole thing would extend forward even further . The gearbox is as far back as the holes in the brackets allowes.

IMG_20200611_103008.jpg (314.71 KiB) Viewed 3003 times

If I look at the possition of engine and gearbox rubber mounts then I'm missing a total of 1 cm.

[panky]

Try swapping the towers side for side.

[Michiel]

Panky I could. But that would over-correct it and their orientation is now as should be I assume, so I'm realy looking for causes of the forward placed engine.

[panky]

Ah sorry I thought they might be the wrong way round but just check mine.

[philthehill]

The engine mount towers are the correct way round. The engine rubber mounts are too far forward on the towers.
There are only four mounting points for the engine and gearbox. If the front two are correct in that they are sitting on the right way round towers therefore the rear two must be wrong.
You could try pushing the gearbox cross member rearwards.
The gearbox mount plates (41 & 42 in the illustration below) appear to be the right way round.

img042.jpg (1.72 MiB) Viewed 2985 times

It is best to start at the front by getting the front mounts/towers right and then sorting out the gearbox mounts secondly.

[Michiel]

If I turn around the rear two the engine would go forward even more.

[philthehill]

Yes you are correct.
I am sure that if you start with correcting the front engine mounts/towers the rear will all become clear.

Check that the gearbox cross member is the correct way round. Later cross members were marked FRONT.
Only the later Minors had the gearbox steady wire. The gearbox steady wire was a production modification where you had to drill the cross member to fit the steady wire kit (see wksp man for details). Check that the modification has been carried out correctly and to the right side of the cross member.

[Michiel]

Yes you are correct.
I am sure that if you start with correcting the front engine mounts/towers the rear will all become clear.

What should I correct there. the towers?

[Michiel]

The towers themselves off course bolts to the chassis legs and tie plates through pre-drilled holes, so their position on the chassis legs is pre-determined. Same with the gearbox cross member.

[philthehill]

Remove the gearbox cross member - get the front rubber mountings set up correctly on the towers and then go to the gearbox cross member and set that up as it should be. It is just a matter of trial and error and fitting.
Everything is predetermined but only approximately. There is enough wiggle room for adjustment. It is not unknown for the gearbox cross member to be fitted the wrong way round especially before the steady wire modification was fitted.

[Michiel]

Sorry Phil, I forgot to mention it is from 1967 with a cross member marked 'front'. The CM is attached to the chassis legs through pre-drilled holes. The four holes in the legs are slotted yes, but the four bottom ones are not and in caged nuts.

I would like to check if the engine should go backwards or is good as it is. So I could correct either front or rear mounts. Photo top of engine and bell housing.

IMG_20200611_124911 1.jpg (3.9 MiB) Viewed 2975 times

[Michiel]

It would help me if anyone could take a measurement on their car so I could verify the position of the engine. Cylinder head or rocker cover to bulkhead distance?

[philthehill]

The gearbox cross member has fixed captive nuts on its top underside which feed though slots in the top of the chassis rail and the cross member has slots for the bolts that go into the chassis rail captive nuts.
So there is plenty of scope for wiggle room with the gearbox cross member.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/MORRIS-MINOR ... Sw11Je2T-T

[Michiel]

OK. Thanks Phil.

[kevin s]

1969 1098
I measured 23mm between the rearmost part of the head just behind the heater tap and the bulkhead crossmember.
I do not have the cable fitted though.

[Michiel]

Thanks Kevin! I measured 43 mm at my Car. So that's 2 cm more forward. That's a lot!

[kevin s]

The 2 brackets that come off the gearbox and fit too the mounts are if I rememer correctly asymetric, could they be on the wrong sides?

[Michiel]

No, they are correct, with the longer lip backwards. If I turn the around the engine will go forward even more.

[kennatt]

You could probably adapt the fitment of the front mounts so that the engine sits on the towers properly,the only consideration would be if there is enough room between front of engine and rad,and if the prop slides far enough onto the gearbox. It may have been like this prior to rebuild,unless you measured the engine to bulkhead gap first,not something I would have thought to do.The prop to gearbox fitting could be resolved by shimming the flange to diff.The distance to rad would be the problem.Don't have my moggy at present but someone will have the measurement to help you decide if there is enough room not to worry about 2cm.

[ManyMinors]

Thanks Kevin! I measured 43 mm at my Car. So that's 2 cm more forward. That's a lot!

Looking at your picture Michiel, Kevin's measurement from his cylinder head to bulkhead is about the same isn't it?
You are taking your measurement from somewhere else entirely