Engine placement Mustang 2

64 Ford Galaxie with Mustang 2. 460 with a Canton rear sump oil pan & Kasse oil pump. When I built this in my head the rear sump pan was going to straddle the Mustang 2 crossmember perfectly & my engine was going to sit low & happy in my chassis. Yes the pan straddles the crossmember OK but the rack pushes the engine up & forward. My hood is not clearing the distributor & I am going to have radiator clearance issues. I don’t mind cutting up my firewall but it’s at least 8” before I gain anything. I’m going to have to have a cowl or something on my hood anyway for carb clearance. If I go back 8” I can still get to the rear plug ok but it will take major firewall trans tunnel mods. I guess I think I know what I am going to do but just looking for input in case I am missing something.

Regarding engine setback one thing to look at is modifying the rack mounts to move the rack backward/closer to the crossmember. Can't tell from the angle of the pics but doing that might move the engine back another 1.5" (maybe even 2"). Another thing to look at for engine setback is if you can modify the back of the front sump (side facing the rack) by shortening it to gain more horizontal rack clearance (without getting into the oil pump of course).

As for engine height look at/inside the oil pan again and see if the area between the front & rear sumps (that sits over the rack/crossmember) can be modified/shortened to gain more vertical clearance (without getting into the rotating assembly of course).

If it's a drag only/non street use car another possibility is going with rod-ends on the rack instead of the factory tie-rods. Using rod-ends & a bump-steer kit will allow you to lower the rack (and lower or trim the crossmember) vertically for more engine height clearance while giving you a way to adjust out the unwanted/increased bump-steer geometry that happens when you lower just the rack by it's self. I guess you could lower the rack even if it's street driven/using the factory tie-rods. But you would also have to modify the spindle's steering arm height vertically/down a given amount in relation to the amount you lowered the rack to keep bump-steer in check.

Another option is switching to a rear-steer rack and placing the rack behind the crossmember. Doing that would require you to swap the spindles side-to-side so the spindle's steering arms would face the rear of the car. But it would also require you to again modify the spindle's steering arms, this time horizontally/inward a given amount. Modifying the steering arms horizontally/inward is done to correct the ass-backward Ackerman geometry that happens when you swap the spindles side-to-side.

It's not ideal for a street driven car but you could also look at moving the rack forward a bunch placing it in front of the oil pan with the rack tie-rods pointing backward a given amount (like what's done on some Pro Stock/full chassis cars). It's not ideal for street use because of the increased front suspension travel a street car has/needs. Even if you get the rack's vertical height correct (for bump-steer control) some bump-steer (or other wonky steering geometry) might still happen the further forward you place the rack, or the more you increase the suspension travel distance. It doesn't cause as much of a problem on Pro Stock/full chassis type cars because they have a very small amount of front suspension travel distance.

That is a common problem/complaint of Mll swaps (up and forward). It gets worse when people use some "universal" kit from ebay because they want to save a few bucks. You can't swap spindles without fabricating new steering arms. Your Ackerman will be all jacked up if you do. Can you lower the rack and use a bumpsteer kit to correct it at the steering arm?

Mine is set where the mid plate/ bell housing is sandwiched to the firewall and the rack sets between the balancer and the oil pan about a 1/4” under the crank snout. It is tight and the oil filter gave me fits working the steering shaft around it but it works. But I have the center cut out to get it low.

is it possible to just get a rear sump pan, the front has that small kick down and drain plug that is your problem if it continued flat at the front wouldn't it clear?

litshoot wrote:is it possible to just get a rear sump pan, the front has that small kick down and drain plug that is your problem if it continued flat at the front wouldn't it clear?

That is a rear sump pan, the small front sump section is where the factory oil pump is. If he went with a dry sump setup he could get rid of the oil pan's small "front sump".

Eh who needs an oil pump. Right kinda importanr. Just move the engine back 2 feet, sit in the back seats, amd hope your sectioning body doesnt notice.

These are all reasons why I stayed with the stock front frame and used a rack n pinion kit that mounts behind the engine crossmember on my ‘64.

wickettoby1 wrote:These are all reasons why I stayed with the stock front frame and used a rack n pinion kit that mounts behind the engine crossmember on my ‘

Whose rack did you use?

I used the Unisteer Kit

wickettoby1 wrote:I used the Unisteer Kit

How is the turning radius? That seems to be the biggest complaint about rack swaps. I was just going to do the Borgeson box in my Galaxie but Unisteer also makes a kit for my 56.

Well I haven’t drove it yet with the rack installed but I didnt noticed anything major different compared to the original steering box setup.