Slant Six Forum
https://slantsix.org/forum/

POLL: '62-'66 A-body upgraded engine mount system
https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12142		 Page 2 of 3
Author:  mightyss [ Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
can straight steel mounts be used? would there be any problems w/tranny or drivetrain vibration??
Author:  edwinjmartz [ Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
yes, and
yes.
Author:  SlantSixDan [ Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
can straight steel mounts be used?
Only if you want to shake the car to pieces in short order -- with luck before the vibration has destroyed all your teeth.

Solid mounts are an extreme-race-only deal, definitely NOT suitable for the street.
Author:  steponmebbbboom [ Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
this $150 is based on how many production units?

I imagine if demand becomes high enough the price will go down? (not that I need them)
Author:  kesteb [ Fri Mar 11, 2005 4:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Quote:
can straight steel mounts be used?
Only if you want to shake the car to pieces in short order -- with luck before the vibration has destroyed all your teeth.

Solid mounts are an extreme-race-only deal, definitely NOT suitable for the street.
I have ran steel mounts on street cars in the past. They are not as harsh as Dan is making them out to be. You will feel the vibration, of that, there is no doubt. But your car will remain intact and your teeth will not fall out.
Author:  steponmebbbboom [ Fri Mar 11, 2005 4:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
but what's the advantage over regular rubber mounts, other than cost?

The second you overstress the powertrain beyond the design limits of the stock rubber mount you run the risk of damaging the welds on the frame and front clip.

Something's gotta give.
Author:  mightyss [ Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:14 am ]
Post subject: 
i had elephant ear mounts in my 383 duster(big cam, headers) and it was quite liveable..........................ss
Author:  Todd360 [ Mon Mar 14, 2005 12:51 am ]
Post subject: 
I was able to purchase a right side factory replacement mount from Jack Koziol at Central Jersey Motor Parts (732-446-3738) for my 66 Dart. You can also e-mail him at SIXPACKJAC@AOL.COM. He was very prompt and courteous and my mount was on my doorstep two days after I ordered it from him. Jack deals with obsolete factory parts.
I would also be interested in the Schumaker system as I had a terrible time finding the above mentioned replacement mount.
Todd
Author:  kesteb [ Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
but what's the advantage over regular rubber mounts, other than cost?

The second you overstress the powertrain beyond the design limits of the stock rubber mount you run the risk of damaging the welds on the frame and front clip.
There are several good reasons to use something other then the stock rubber mounts. A set of steel motor mounts is a quick, easy way limit engine travel. Another way is the aforementioned "elephant ears" and torque straps.

The stock rubber mounts are designed to do 2 things. Locate the engine and dampen vibrations. Any high torque engine can easily break the motor mounts.

If you desire the stock dampening, you can use a torque strap to limit engine movement. If vibration is not a concern, then you can use the steel motor mounts. If the engine is not original to the chassis, then you can use the "elephant ears". The "elephant ears" were originally designed to drop the 426 Hemi into A-bodies.

The reason to limit engine movement has to do with clutch/bellcrank binding, shifter binding, headers smacking into stuff and broken tranny mounts. All of this is undesirable in a racing vehicule.
Author:  steponmebbbboom [ Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
The reason to limit engine movement has to do with clutch/bellcrank binding, shifter binding, headers smacking into stuff and broken tranny mounts. All of this is undesirable in a racing vehicule.
Point taken, but on the street....

Try not to take this personally. I have seen lift trucks used in rough applications where the headguards were tightened down to the point of destroying their rubber mounts, and despite never being flexed to the point of breakage, the simple transfer of normal flexion and vibration to the cage which is not designed to handle such stresses, and we're talking minimal flexing here, led to huge cracks forming in the stress points. Simply a graphic example here. You don't need to launch full bore from every stoplight to crack your frame. And on the strip, this doesn't always happen. But that vibration the mounts are designed to absorb can crack your welds over time and for a simple street car, I don't see the point in circumventing a good engineering idea.

Money? Ok, if youre dragging your street car enough to where clutch/bellcrank binding, shifter binding, headers smacking into stuff and broken tranny mounts are part of your daily reality, a $150 engine mount system cant be that big a percentage in your operating costs. Bagdriving your car costs money. So does cracking your frame, and personally, I'll take a busted mount and lose a little face over ruining my car any time.
Just think, that car has been around for forty years and but for a little forethought and a little more money, it could be wrecked in a fraction of the time... why not take the time and money to do it up mint.
Author:  kesteb [ Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
I would believe that a forktruck is much more rigid then the front end on the typical A-body Mopar. A rigid frame is more susceptible to fracture then a less rigid frame. Compare a 1917 Model T frame to the latest C6 Corvette. I doubt the Corvette could transverse the same roads that the Model T was designed to handle with ease.

The late model mount system that was proposed has nothing to do with engine movement, all it does is contain the engine if the motor mount fails. A big differance.

The vehicles that I used steel motor mounts on, were high horse power V8s with good traction. And yes, clutch binding, shifter binding and broken tranny mounts were a problem. And yes, they were daily driven vehicles. I was young once and the stop light grand prix is nothing new.
Author:  steponmebbbboom [ Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
I would believe that a forktruck is much more rigid then the front end on the typical A-body Mopar. A rigid frame is more susceptible to fracture then a less rigid frame.
You are correct. A lift truck is capable of handling much larger stresses than a passenger car. By the same token, even a lift truck frame is designed to be flexible under all normal stresses that it encounters, just like a car. It bows, twists, bends just like a car does. Even a lift truck uses rubber mounts on its powertrain. Just like a car. just like a motorcycle, just like a 250 ton rock truck in an open pit mine. As soon as you defeat the mount by using a steel mount, you are not only transferring damaging vibrations to the front clip, you are also inhibiting the front clip's ability to flex independently of the very rigid engine/transmission (a point I should have made earlier). Doing this will transfer stress to points not engineered to handle such stresses, and in some cases intensify such stresses, effectively nullifying the design of the entire front framework. Im sure if there were any CAD/CAM designers here with access to OEM drawings for a car could punch in the numbers and show you the consequences, but Ive never seen any machine other than a log splitter or mixer bucket with a rigidly mounted engine. Theyre not strictly a luxury/ergonomics item. Heck, stationary generators, irrigation pumps, compressors all have rubber mounts, and no one even sets foot near some of those other than fiddle with the controls and change the oil once in awhile.

I just dont see any logic in risking so much to save so little.
Author:  SlantSixDan [ Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
The late model mount system that was proposed has nothing to do with engine movement, all it does is contain the engine if the motor mount fails.
"The new spool-type engine mount system offers much better control over engine movement compared to the 1972 sandwich-style mounts; roll is now limited to 3°."
——1973 Chrysler Corp. engineering overview
Author:  DusterMunster [ Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
I know nothing about engine mounts, but today I read in another topic by argentina-slantsixer that there are some new plastic materials that can be suitable for engine mounts... he mentioned a polyamid called "Grilon", that he even used to machine a great carb spacer... you can check it here:
here, Dan was there...

Ed
Author:  steponmebbbboom [ Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well actually he didnt mention what material that shop offered those biscuit mounts in, Grilon or otherwise, but if they are any stiffer than urethane I would shy away from them.
Page 2 of 3 All times are UTC-08:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/