Solid motor mounts

[4onthefloor]

Anyone using Moroso solid mounts on their street motors ? Any pros or cons ? I recall using them in the 80's and had a hell of a time getting the thru bolts to line up..I later found out there were 2 different heights available and I used the wrong ones....anyone know what Moroso part number is correct for 409 ?

 

[tripowerguy]

I use Poly mounts, while not solid I believe them to be indestructable. Don't you get a lot of noise and viberation with solid? I guess it would be OK with a race only car. Roy

 

[gearhead409]

Bob

if you like noise and viberation on a street car, these babies will get-er-done.

 

[4onthefloor]

It was pretty cool having the car rattle and shake at a stop light !!! Do you use the big block/ small block Poly mounts ???

 

[tripowerguy]

I use small block Poly mounts, I think I paid about $50 for them. Roy

 

[Dond409]

mounts

I had them and took them out. I didn't like how they raised the motor up. Also created some clearance issues with the headers. Plus I really like how the motor shakes on those rubber mounts. Just call me CRAZY!!
BTW if anybody is interested make me an offer and I'll sell the mounts. They are chrome with red poly and have the plate that goes on between the mount and the block. I think I had them on maybe 6 months tops.

 

[bobs409]

It's no good to use both left and right so I've heard. Puts alot of stress on the block. Using 1 on the left side like Bob Walker said would be ok.

Just what I heard. :

 

[4onthefloor]

Dond409 that is the exact issue/problem I had years ago....I will stick to new stock style.

 

[Dond409]

stay with stock

I agree with you. For a street car you don't need the solid mounts. When I go to the track with the wagon. I have a bar that goes from the engine to the frame rail on the driver side.
In the superstock car we do run the solid mount on the driver side and stock mount on passenger side, and a stock trans mount.

 

[jim_ss409]

I thought the poly mounts would allow me to run tighter clearance on my headers. I got the opposite effect. Like Don said they raise the engine about 1/4" or so, just enough to cause clearance problems. I don't find that they transfer much vibration, but if I were doing it again I might try using only one, or maybe stick with factory mounts.

 

[dq409]

We used to run a chain from the drivers manifold to anywhere convenient like the motormount or somewhere on the frame.
I think it was more safty then anything else but it did limit the travel of the engine. dq

 

[Tom Kochtanek]

Out of body?

Dq states: "but it did limit the travel of the engine"

Were you referring to "out of body" travel, or "in the engine bay" travel? .

TomK

 

[rwagon57]

As I remember, the practice of using a length of chain between the cylinder head and the frame was an NHRA safety requirement because of the old style non-interlocking engine mounts. A mount failure could allow the fan to hit the radiator and with rod style throttle linkage cause the throttle to stick open.

 

[jim_ss409]

The first big auto industry call back I can remember had to do with GM motor mounts. They installed a short cable from the frame to the engine. The early mounts didn't have the extra tab on them that would stop the engine from going too far if the rubber failed. I think the recall was in about 1970 or so. My Impala had the old style mounts. One day it let go and the engine rose up, jamming the throttle wide open.:eek:

 

[4onthefloor]

Those kits are on E Bay all the time..I have one and thats a darn good idea !

 

[bobs409]

The first big auto industry call back I can remember had to do with GM motor mounts. They installed a short cable from the frame to the engine. The early mounts didn't have the extra tab on them that would stop the engine from going too far if the rubber failed. I think the recall was in about 1970 or so. My Impala had the old style mounts. One day it let go and the engine rose up, jamming the throttle wide open.:eek:

Jim, I think that was 1966 when the first recall took place. My Impala has this and it appears factory. (or at least 66ish dealer installed) See pic below:

I know all about throttles sticking. I had a 68 Impala in my teen years that had a broken mount. When you gunned it, the gas pedal would stick to the floor! :eek: I had to pop it into nuetral which would "unjam" it. (of course, the right thing to do was to replace the mount but being a teen and needing all the beer money I could lay my hands on, there wasn't much left for "luxury's" like new motor mounts)

 

[jim_ss409]

I did a web search to check this out because I seem to remember all the GMs getting the safety strap during the time I had my first job. (gas station) Sure enough it was Dec. 1971. This was a huge recall. The earliest model I saw named was the 65 Impala. http://www.automotive.com/1965/49/chevrolet/impala/recalls/19626.html

 

[dq409]

I did a web search to check this out because I seem to remember all the GMs getting the safety strap during the time I had my first job. (gas station) Sure enough it was Dec. 1971. This was a huge recall. The earliest model I saw named was the 65 Impala. http://www.automotive.com/1965/49/chevrolet/impala/recalls/19626.html

Right on the money!
I bought a 65 SS Impala in 1970 and remember having the recall and GM installing the cable as in the picture. Didn`t remember when the recall was but 71 sounds right.
It was this that lead to adding them to the go fast cars we had back then.
One use for safety and also thought it helped in keeping the engine torq going to the drive train rather then the engine twist, dq

 

[bobs409]

I stand corrected Jim. It's nice to see mine had the recall done anyway.

Ya learn something new around here everyday.

 

[SS425HP]

Restraint on wrong side?

Bob, in the picture you posted, the restraint is on the passenger side. Should be on the driver side. Unless the picture is reversed, which I doubt, as the writing is correct. The driver side was the side that would raise up and pull the throttle open.
Fred