I'm helping a friend update his '56 Chevy 210 wagon with a new SBC crate engine. I've read many posts discussing the side motor mount vs. front motor mount setup, but there are conflicting opinions so I thought I'd ask for specific advice for my situation. Old Setup: Stock 265 mated to 700R4 transmission. Stock front mounts with Eckler's 700R4 Conversion Kit, which has steel adaptor plates for the bellhousing mount, and a rear transmission cross-member. This setup used three mounting points (front mount, bell mount, trans tail mount). New Setup: Mild 350 or 383 crate engine, an 87 octane daily driver, with the same 700R4 transmission. Also going to try to find some inexpensive headers. #1) Do we need to replace the front mounts with side mounts to handle the higher torque? Really? Those bell housing mounts look nice and sturdy. Alternately, are there inexpensive headers that can be used with the bell-housing mounts in place? If there are no headers, then this may decide the issue. #2) If we keep the front mounts, is it typical to use all three mount points (front, bell, tail). I've seen many posts debating between front-bell and side-tail, but not much mention of front-bell-tail. #3) If we really need side mounts, which bolt in set are best (welding is not really practical). -- Eclker's -- POL -- TCI -- Danchuck -- Other? By "best", I mean the easiest and cleanest to install. I ***ume they all do the job. Ideally they would be easy to correctly position and align, and require minimum modifications to the frame. Also, the Eckler's mounts are a different style than the others (where the engine plate and frame horn join). Is this configuration (vertical bolt and rubber donut) any better or worse than the other style (horizontal bolt). Thanks!
Headers should be no problem, because if they are made for your car they will clear the bell-mounts. My buddy has some shortys on his and they look like they'd clear even the side mounts. My thoughts on the mounts; keeping what you already have would be the least expense and least h***le. The trans. crossmember should not be necessary, but does add strength, and as long as there were no weird drivetrain vibrations or resonances before, then there is no reason not to put it back in.
I put the horizontal bolt side mounts in my 55, I think it's the way to go with an auto trans. The aftermarket bellhousing mounts are a kind of mickey mouse setup, although they do work. The Danchuck or POL type mounts are what I used, they seem to me to be the best way to go.
I used a ch***is enginnering kit a couple of years ago on a 55. side eng mounts. I think they just bolted in with no real problems.
It's a much "cleaner" setup to us modern side mounts and and standard cross member. If you do you will not need the bell housing mount and you can cut all that original factory mounting junk off the frame and clear the way for easier exhaust. Probably the most common method for a shoebox today.
Using side mounts allows you to cut the bell housing-area frame horns off, which in turn, allows you to use full length headers that tuck up under the car nicer for better ground clearance. I ran a 327/Muncie 4 speed in my 55 for many years, with the stock mounts, and used a pair of ****** headers. They hung down so low to clear the bell housing area mounts, that they were always dragging on something. I now have a 454/Muncie 4 speed in the car, but with side mounts, my full length headers tuck up nicely, for plenty of ground clearance. I used CPP bolt-in side mounts, but when you order 'em, be sure to specify whether you have the seamless-style frame or the 2 piece type.
Williams Cl***ic Ch***is has the best mounts out there, I have used transdapt, TCI, danchuk and they are not as nice as WCC mounts.... the owner Earle installs what he makes and has done his homework......
If he wants to use power steering it will make everything eaiser to use the side mounts. As the others said it will allow you to clean the old rear mounts off the frame for better exhaust clearence.
If you go with a 383, you're going to have a clearance issue using the front mounts with an 8" balancer. It can be made to work but the angle brackets will need to be cut.
Danchuk style mounts actually have an engine pad to take the weight of the engine; better IMHO than all the weight being on the engine mount bolts. If adding some HP the Energy suspension style SBC mounts have an internal strap to hold it together. I wanted to use OEM style 55-57 mounts in my Olds however they fouled and donut mount wouldn't be sufficient for my 383.
I kept the stock mounts on a 325 hp 327 with a four speed in mine. Headers were easy to find and even with slicks and hard launches, I never had a problem. I do know some who have had to add a chain to control motor twist though.
I just went through this with my '55 210 with a 327, 2 1/2" Ram Horns, and a Richmond 5 speed. I used the stock front mounts, bellhousing mounts, and a tail shaft mount. Believe me, that engines not going anywhere, and plenty of room for the exhaust.
Hello party people, I just read through this forum and it was helpful. Thanks for the info. I'm researching what options are available because I have a 57 Chevy 2 door that I wanna put a new motor in...not sure what but I prefer a BB, lol...like most I suppose. Take it easy.
I run with the stock front mounts and the original bell housing mounts. I even go as far as using the stock 55-57 bell housing. I do like the side mounts and will use them on my build that is in progress. I like the stock rear mounts because I can unbolt the trans (4 speed), pull, and remove. I like the cast iron original bell housing because I can drop the clutch from the bottom of the housing without removing the bell housing. In all the way of doing this, I feel that the one way you should avoid is using the original front mounts along with the trans tail-housing rear mount. This type of a set up will put stress on that alum. bell housing causing stress cracks or worst.
The Jalopy Journal
