Okay, so Monday I got my T back after switching to a nicely built 350SBC. When I left the guys shop, I stomped on the gas for hot rod reasons. The engine rocked over and the fan cut the upper radiator hose. I went back to the guys house and the mount had broken. It's the factory style that's mostly rubber. Well, I figured it was just it's time, as it had been on the car for a while. So, I replaced it. So, today, I'm scooting along and while rolling from a stop light, I stomp into it and same thing. Motor mount broke and I cut another hose! Now this was a brand new mount. I went back to my friend and we concluded that the amount of torque, combined with a lite weight car is causing the problem. He had a set of steel mounts, I swapped them and that solved the problem. My question is, will the metal mounts cause undue stress on other components or will they be fine? I'm aware solid mounts can vibrate, but being that I have a dropped axle and buggy spring suspension, and it rides rough anyway, I didn't notice any vibration.
You'll probably be ok. The old method I used to fix mine is to bolt a chain from the frame to the block. There are lots of ways to solve the problem. Some guys run a solid mount on the left side only.
Hmm... I thought about the chain idea, but I didn't want my car to look like a drag racer "poser". It's quick, but not "I have to chain the beast" quick. I may switch the right solid mount back to the rubber one. It may help the vibration that I don't feel. Might help the rubber transmission mount, as well.
If it's mounted solid, there are added stresses on stuff when the frame flexes (as they do normally). One solid and one rubber will let things move around to relieve stress, but won't let the engine lift
Your solution may be found in the O/T 4x4 world. There are several places that make mounts with a urethane or rubber bushing captured in a tube like a rear leaf spring eye. They allow flex of components but keep everything captured in case of failure. I'll be damned if I can remember who sells them but they are out there. There is also a sbc motor mount with lock tabs to keep it from tipping if the rubber comes apart. Again C.R.S. disease has me. Good luck. I used a chain on an O/T Camaro till I put in the lock tab mounts.
A couple years ago I bought a built-up early Nova for a real good price with the intentions of a quick flip. The vibrations with solid motor mounts made the car almost unbearable to drive. I replaced the mounts with stock units and used a turn buckle as a torque strap. The car then became a nice yet quick runner. Solid mounts are for the racetrack only...don't do it for the street.
I'm imagining the setup in my head and that seems like the way to go. I don't get on it that often... , so using one on the right only should be okay. Thanks, guys.
I thought they redesigned the motor mounts years ago to eliminate this problem. The redesign had steel fingers that wrapped around to hold the mount together. Before that the factory fix was a steel cable that wrapped around the right mount. A short piece of chain will also work, and will not transmit vibration. I'm sure if you get genuine mounts from your Chev dealer you will not have this problem. Quality aftermarket parts should be the same.
...OR, use rubber on both mounts, and drill the mount on the side that lifts and put a nut/bolt through it. That way you have the vibration damping of the rubber mounts, it will only torque to the limit of the bolt, and nobody will notice. I had to do this on my Tempest. I used a Nyloc nut, and left a quarter inch slack...enough to take advantage of the rubber mount, but not enough to allow the engine to "cut hoses"...
Well, the rubber ones were factory replacements. Honestly, when I looked at the broken pieces, the part that bolted to the engine is a metal plate that seems to be just bonded by rubber to the part that goes on the frame. It was made in Korea. So, go figure.
The replacement mounts for the later model cars have this feature, but not the mounts for the early cars. And many times hot rods are built using a tube with a bolt thru it to retain the mount to the frame, this will let the mount twist when it breaks. The factory method has a flat square surface that the mount sits on, it can't twist. Like I said, there are lots of ways to solve this problem...we've seen half a dozen so far.
I'm thinking someone like Lakewood use to make motor mounts called mussel mounts. They had the rubber in them but had the metal fingers that stoped the rubber from pulling to far. You would think someone still makes them. JC
I have had my 289 Studebaker bolted directly to the frame (with a standard rubber transmission mount) for the last 20,000+ miles. Quiet, and vibration free. . .
Energy Suspension makes great urethane engine and transmission mounts. I run them on my 3W and have yet to break one, and I flog it hard. Solid mounts should only be used on race cars. No reason to use them on the street when good American mounts are available.
I think the Energy Suspension motor mounts that Fogger is talking about have interlocks built into them.
The steel cable and brackets are probably still scroungable. Any '65-68 Chevy should have them. I used solid mounts in my last Chevy stock car until I saw another racer crash hard with his solid mounts and it tore a piece out of the side of the engine block. I changed it over to the older Chevy pick up mounts and attached a chain to hold it down. Bob
I got in a bun-fight on another thread when I suggested that the factory way was the 'proper' way to do it. Apparently a rod builder has used the 'bolt through a tube' set up for 'years' on motors he's mounted for many clients and as far as he was concerned that's all it needs. Well it wouldn't p*** tech inspection (certification) here in NZ!!
I just drill a hole down through the top through the rubber and put a bolt in . tighten it finger tight and bur the thred so it won't come undone .will let the mount do its job and the bolt won't let the mount pull apart.
^^^ we do this on the 4x4s I build. Helps with the keeping it locked down and allows you to drive (limp) after a failure
energy makes a good urethane mount.or you could use chevys quick fix and use a cable and braket made just for that.i saw a block that a freind used solid mounts on.it was a hard hitting sbc.tore the mount bosses off the block.never would have thought that was possible.but i saw it with my own eyes.
The redsigned gm mounts work great but I thought that we're talkin' "Hot Rod" here ??? In my opinion the redesigned mounts are just plain ugly. They work fine tucked under the headers in a full bodied car but who wants to look at a big 'ol ugly wart on the side of their dressed up engine block??? We used solid mounts on Willy's g***er for several years without a problem. You do have to use the correct length bolts though... The urethane mounts work great, but I chose CE Inc. mounts for the sweet little small journal in my coupe this time. I believe that they're the best of both...
I had same problem with breaking left side mounts in my '54....a solid mount on the left side fixed it and I get a slight amount of engine vibration but not enough to borther. Been runing with the solid mount for 2 years with no problems.
I ***ume you're referring to the later clam shell type mounts, not the earlier style. The earlier style with interlocking ears look very much like the very early non safety type, and not bulbous like the clamshell type. I think they went to the clam shell in around mid 70's, but the safety mounts were a replcement for the earlier non interlocking style, and smaller. Clamshell: Safety style:
Personally, I have NO problem with solid mounts, but them I like 4.10s...Try these. http://www.summitracing.com/search/Product-Line/Lakewood-Muscle-Motor-Mounts/
3x on the Energy Suspension mounts, I've used them on just about every car I've built recently. It is a captured style mount, even if it ripped, it won't separate. They make them for lots of makes.....pun not intended!
The Jalopy Journal
