I'm not an engineer but I feel like you'd be destroying motor/trans mounts or u-joints long before you'd have to worry about cracking the bell housing. With 5 bell housing bolts, each bolt carries 20% of the load and with 4, 25%. That's inconsequential in my opinion as long as you're using quality bolts. If they're torqued correctly, the load should still be spread evenly across the mating surfaces for the most part.

This reminds me of when I first got into the fox Mustang ('79-'93) scene and "experts" were warning that the OEM 4-lug wheels/hubs weren't adequate for elevated performance levels and a 5 lug conversion was the only way to go. They were eventually proved wrong because the cars just aren't that heavy. My point is that I don't think a loaded F-250 is going to create the kind of stress loads that would cause problems with one less bolt holding the engine and trans together. An F-800? Yeah, that might be concerning.

I am ok with 5 bolts. I was talking about only running 4 like yours has. Yours has the dowl about 4" outside the nearest bolt. Lincoln might have seen an issue with the 5 bolt automatic transmissions. In 1966 the 462 received a sixth bolt below the starter. This was done by casting a bolt on ear that housed the sixth bolt below the starter.

Inline with the Mustang analogy a man told me he ran a four speed Ford Toploader behind a 4 bolt MEL for 15 years without issue.

Welcome on board Stewart and thanks for sharing

srm351 wrote: ↑

Thu 2. Jul 2020, 13:36

Here we go:

Hello Stewart,
Is your starter a stock FE starter design or a high torque aftermarket design? Reason I asked my 59 430 engine/transmission core has that exhaust manifold design.

I have run both actually. I was using a 70's Motorcraft starter but found a good deal on a Powermaster unit and switched to that. Unfortunately, the Powermaster doesn't have any better clearance in this application than the OEM starter did. It just created it's own set of clearance issues and I'm still running the passenger side exhaust manifold spacers to clear the starter mounting position on the FE bellhousing.

The only way I see the mini-starter having a possible advantage is by using a center dump Mercury ramhorn style manifold and those are hard to come by in my experience. Going out on a limb, I think the FT bellhousing may have the starter in the same position as the MEL bellhousings since I've read about people swapping MELs into super duty trucks, but I could be mistaken.

FT is the same pattern but bulges out to fit the 15" flywheel. That moves the starter out an inch.

I don't have my MEL stuff in front of me. I was wondering why the manifold and starter didn't work like in 59. I bet the 65 manifolds dump at more of an angle than the 59.

Stewart,
I've been looking at exhaust manifolds trying to find your issue to see if I can avoid it. My 59 575XXXX manifolds are scrap. The 65 likely has the C2VE casting. If found an Ebay ad advertising new C6VE castings that APPEAR to be the same. as the C2. What castings do you have?

I have the C2 castings as well but the passenger side has spacers between the manifold and head to clear the starter.

I can't imagine how it would work with the FE bellhousing otherwise.

Two people have told me they ground off the ear and ran it with 4 bellhousing bolts. I'll bet using an early right hand MEL Lincoln manifold was one detail they left out. Or they ran the Edsel E475 exhaust.
Thank's, for getting the casting number.

By chance do you have the larger diameter FT bellhousing? I can see that starter position being in the way of everything but center dump exhaust.

srm351 wrote: ↑

Tue 30. Nov 2021, 12:50

I have run both actually. I was using a 70's Motorcraft starter but found a good deal on a Powermaster unit and switched to that. Unfortunately, the Powermaster doesn't have any better clearance in this application than the OEM starter did. It just created it's own set of clearance issues and I'm still running the passenger side exhaust manifold spacers to clear the starter mounting position on the FE bellhousing.

The only way I see the mini-starter having a possible advantage is by using a center dump Mercury ramhorn style manifold and those are hard to come by in my experience. Going out on a limb, I think the FT bellhousing may have the starter in the same position as the MEL bellhousings since I've read about people swapping MELs into super duty trucks, but I could be mistaken.

I dug out some old parts and figured out why your starter side exhaust has a spacer. The B9 exhaust manifold I had dumped exactly like the C2 manifold. The difference is the 58-60 used the old style starter without the abendex. The old starter continued until 63 or so till the abendex hump appeard. With the starter already tucked closer to the block the newer style starter clears the 61-68 MEL engines. The motors are the same diameter.
EDIT: I have 4 more photos that are too big to attach. When I figure out how to cut them down I'll post.