[64speed]

Can you get to them with the motor jacked up enough to put a shim under them? My centerlink is just barely touching my oil pan on the passenger side. If I can’t I’m just gonna slight clearance the pan but would rather not do that. We are talking a 1/16 of an inch.

[TB1]

Originally Posted by 64speed

Can you get to them with the motor jacked up enough to put a shim under them? My centerlink is just barely touching my oil pan on the passenger side. If I can’t I’m just gonna slight clearance the pan but would rather not do that. We are talking a 1/16 of an inch.

Yes you can do it with the engine in the car, I did mine a couple years ago and used the plate/shims sold by Butler. Not a hard job just time consuming getting the 6 bolts back into place.

[chuckies76ta]

I also did the shims on our 68 Firebird. I use the engine hoist to support each side of the engine. did one side at at a time.

[steve25]

The need to do such means your cradle has bent over the decades since it was made.

If you have a air tool and a cut off disc just buy some USS washers to stack up to act as a shim, but with the cut off disc cut out a slot in them to just allow the bolt to pass thru.
In this way you do not have to remove the bolts fully.

[chrisp]

Originally Posted by steve25

The need to do such means your cradle has bent over the decades since it was made.

If you have a air tool and a cut off disc just buy some USS washers to stack up to act as a shim, but with the cut off disc cut out a slot in them to just allow the bolt to pass thru.
In this way you do not have to remove the bolts fully.

Body alignment shims work well .

[grivera]

I think the replacement oil pans slightly deeper at the front. My original 69 oil pan had ample clearance in my Firebird but not the replacement pan, which is based on a later model engine.

[HWYSTR455]

I'm convinced the reason it's lower is due to the engine mounts. I've been dealing with this for years, and the Anchor mounts are not correct. I believe they consolidated the A and F body mounts, and that's why the A bodies have an issue.

I just did a pair of the Torque Lock ones from Ames, problem solved.

Wish I would have taken before pics, but I can say for sure they are about or more than a 1/2" higher mount of the engine.

The only other thing that could impact the clearance between the pan and the centerlink is the trans mount. I know I've tried the poly ones on the trans side and it is taller than the OE replacement ones.

It's not the pan.

I also wonder if the lower type mounts impact pinion angles, but I haven't dug that deep yet. Makes sense that it would if it's a 1/2" or more difference.


.

[grivera]

In my case it’s not the mounts - the new engine was installed with same mounts. I have since upgraded to poly mounts.

[JLMounce]

Originally Posted by HWYSTR455

I'm convinced the reason it's lower is due to the engine mounts. I've been dealing with this for years, and the Anchor mounts are not correct. I believe they consolidated the A and F body mounts, and that's why the A bodies have an issue.

I just did a pair of the Torque Lock ones from Ames, problem solved.

Wish I would have taken before pics, but I can say for sure they are about or more than a 1/2" higher mount of the engine.

The only other thing that could impact the clearance between the pan and the centerlink is the trans mount. I know I've tried the poly ones on the trans side and it is taller than the OE replacement ones.

It's not the pan.

I also wonder if the lower type mounts impact pinion angles, but I haven't dug that deep yet. Makes sense that it would if it's a 1/2" or more difference.


.

Had the same issue with the mighty mounts I just installed in my 69 Firebird. The engine now sits about a 1/4" lower. I think any of the offshore mounts made are just shorter in general. I've heard the poly mounts are accurate, but then you deal with heat degredation of that material.

[64speed]

I have the Torq Lok from AMES. I mean this is such a slight rub that it could very well be a centerlink defect. It doesn’t touch at all on the drivers side. I can’t adequately explain how small a rub it is. Just for the record it’s the canton road race pan.

[NeighborsComplaint]

Originally Posted by chrisp

Body alignment shims work well .

This. Most auto parts stores stock them.

[72projectbird]

Originally Posted by chrisp

Body alignment shims work well .

X2

I use them for motor mount spacing a lot

[HWYSTR455]

Originally Posted by 64speed

I have the Torq Lok from AMES. I mean this is such a slight rub that it could very well be a centerlink defect. It doesn’t touch at all on the drivers side. I can’t adequately explain how small a rub it is. Just for the record it’s the canton road race pan.

I have the Canton Road Race pan too.

Which trans mount are you using?

The same Anchor part number is listed for F and A bodies, I believe across the board. Maybe it's just hit or miss, but I'm fairly certain it's the mount.

As I mentioned before, it can also be affected by the trans mount.

I had the issue with the Mity Mounts too, maybe they are modeled after the Anchor mounts?

F bodies don't appear to have the issue as frequently as A bodies. My 2nd gen F never had an issue.

.

[HWYSTR455]

Originally Posted by grivera

In my case it’s not the mounts - the new engine was installed with same mounts. I have since upgraded to poly mounts.

You mean you used the exact same physical mounts on both engines, and the second engine was lower than the first install? Then what changed? Are you suggesting it's with the block?

Did you change trans mounts?

I don't see how it could be the centerlink, because for me, nothing else changed and with the 2nd set of mounts (Torque Lok) and the engine sat higher.


.