Hot Rods Please tell me about Hurst motor mounts.

Hello,
I see them advertised on occasion. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using a Hurst motor mount for a SBC? Thank you.

 

The advantage for a hurst mount on a sbc is the mount bolts to the front of the block allowing room for your exhaust to coexist with your steering and starter.

also it just generally makes it easier to adapt the engine to most any vehicle

 

Hurst front SBC engine mount uses the four water pump bolts like a C-1 Corvette.
I used one in 1957.

 

But there is interference with the stock mechanical fuel pump and you have to go electrical.

 

Not a disadvantage, but a mid mount of some type would normally be involved. The transmission tail shaft mount is pretty far away!

 

No it doesn't. All Hurst SBC mounts I've seen bolt to the 1955-57 mount holes on either side of the timing cover.

 

The Hurst mount bolts low on the block either side of the timing cover. They come with spacers that go between the mount and the block so it clears the fuel pump. You absolutely do not need to run an electric fuel pump.

 

The advantage is it's a gotta-have if you have an early block sans side mount capability.

 

A Hurst mount makes an SBC into an early Ford swap a lot easier because it mounts to the factory flathead mounts on the frame. And, as has been said, the early Ford steering box is generally in the way of a side mount.

And yes, you can use a mechanical fuel pump. The mount just needs to be shimmed forward a little. I’ve had a 39 and 40 Ford with this setup.

 

Hurst front engine mounts were popular because they allowed a variety of engines to be swapped with little to no chassis modifications. The main problem is extra loading/stress through the bell housing area with the normal single rear transmission mount. Most factory front mount engines had some kind of side mount or stabilizer at the engine's rear or bell housing (like '55-'57 Chevys) to minimize/eliminate potential stress or torque related problems, something to consider.

 

Here is the spacer mentioned:




And you can see without side mounts you have header and steering box space. However, you can't run a lower alternator.

 

I was wondering what those spacers were for? Sorry for the misinformation.

 

There are also "U" shaped risers / spacers. This, a 283 in a '37 Ford. Also using the spacers at the block.

 

The "U"-shaped spacers were made specifically for '35-'40 Fords. There was one set of engine mounts for each series of engines (SBC, Olds Rocket, Chrysler Hemi, etc). These were all designed to mount the engine directly in '41'-48 Fords. Hurst also offered frame adapters for other cars ('35-'40 Fords, '49-'53 Fords, '49-'54 Chevrolets, etc.) that made them analogs of the mid forties Fords. The engines sat a bit lower in the late thirties Fords than the mid forties models and so the spacers were offered.

If you look at Hurst ads from back in the day, you will see the engine mounts listed in one group and the frame adapters in another.

 

As Brent showed in post 11 and Pass the Torch did in post 13 they were damned simple and allowed a lot of guys to bolt an engine. I never used one but had a couple of buddies who did sbc to Ford swaps using the stock Ford box using the Hurst mounts who didn't have a great deal of mechanical knowledge but did the swaps no problem (swap wise, we won't discuss transmisison repairs) back years ago.

Good stuff that wasn't expensive at the time but those way in the front mounts don't work well if your rear mount is at the back of the trans especially with an aluminum case automatic as that causes the trans bellhousing to want to flex and that is attributed to a lot of front pump seal failures and broken automatic trans bellhousings. Drive like a woosie and you may not ever have a problem but hammer on it a bit once in a while and you may have issues.

 

Thank you everyone for your knowledge.

 

This happened with my son's '54 Chevy. He cracked the torque converter. We ended up making side mounts and the problem was solved.

 

FYI, there is a person on the HAMB making replica Hurst mounts for Oldsmobile, Cadillac, and Chrysler engines.

 

Of course, when Hurst first designed the SBC mount, everyone was transplanting early engines that used a cast iron bell housing with a mount on either side. If they adapted the engine to the stock Ford transmission, it was a very short cast iron unit and didn't pose a problem.

 

Not true there are spacers or put a bend in the mount ,lots of pictures on the hamb,the one I took of my model a had spacers.

 

The down side of the hurst mount is that distance from the front mount and the trans mount . the Corvette setup used a cast iron bellhousing some automatic units my be hard the hold

 

Anybody have some installed pictures with a mechanical pump?

Fooled around with a Hurst mount and found that while you can bolt the pump on there is interference with the mount cushion. With the original spacers the mount hits on the pump, with addition space about 1/2" total, it will clear the cushion when slid to the front of the slot; but does not leave room for the frame mount.

I tried adding the U shaped spacers which lowered the cushion enough to allow room for the frame mount; but doesn't look the best. Still had 1/2" spacers on the mount.

@-Brent- 's pictures have some kind of mini-cushion, any more info on what it is?
Maybe have to look back at his build thread again.

We did one with the U shaped spacers and Jeep mounts to get the mounts between the rails. Had to grind a decent notch in the back of the U to clear the pump without using thicker spacers between the mount and the block. Still like the Ford biscuits better.

I didn't bother turning the bottom housing of this mock-up pump as the fitting boss didn't interfere with the fooling around.

 

barely a 'rch'

 

I'll get a pump and mock it in. I'm on the fence on what type of pump I am running. Still, it would be nice to see if it fits.

My biscuit mounts are homemade since the off the shelf ones made the engine sit at the wrong angle due to a mismeasurement/difference in biscuits.

I didn't have the U-spacers. I think most people who had to fab all the mounts front and back likely tossed them.

 

Just mount the electric pump in the trunk and forget all of this Mickey Mouse engineering. You can even set up a separate switch for the pump so that you can shut off the pump to prevent the guy who is going to steal your car only go a short way. unless he or she has a trailer. But remember, my car has been apart for more than 30 years, maybe it is best not to listen to me.

 

Yep, that’s how my Hurst mount was bolted to the block.

 

So; no pictures of a Hurst mount and a mechanical pump.

 

The mid mount issue is why Pete and Jake's and Chassis Engineering made the side mounts in the 80s.
That's when we switched.

Truth be told it worked from 60 to 85 without issues with a Saginaw 3 speed

Running a glide with the new mounts

 

Lots of confusion here. True, Hurst may have made the horseshoe type mount kit that hung the engine by the front bolt holes, and then used the bell housing side mounts to hang the rear, with the transmission hanging in the breeze. They also made side mounts for the tri five Chevy that allowed (or required) a tail shaft transmission mount.

the side mounts eliminated bell housing cracking common if front mounts were used with later transmissions that didn’t have bell housing mount provisions.

 

I meant Hurst for early Ford with SBC