Author Topic: Engine Power verses motor mounts  (Read 5993 times)

Offline MJB

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Re: Engine Power verses motor mounts
« Reply #15 on: August 01, 2008 - 02:46:11 PM »
I have a 600 HP stroked small block with a 4 speed and a very stiff chassis.  I am running solid mounts with no torque strap.   I am just getting it finished and have not driven it yet....except around the block.   Will the solid mounts be enough at the track with slicks??




nivvy

  • Guest
Re: Engine Power verses motor mounts
« Reply #16 on: August 01, 2008 - 02:58:55 PM »
I have a 600 HP stroked small block with a 4 speed and a very stiff chassis.  I am running solid mounts with no torque strap.   I am just getting it finished and have not driven it yet....except around the block.   Will the solid mounts be enough at the track with slicks??

I would say for a little while.... depending on how good it hooks.... or the driveshat gives out fist  :scared:

just spend another $85 bucks to be safe... Like I said im eventually going with a motor plate .....

Offline Ornamental

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 918
  • Oslo, Norway
Re: Engine Power verses motor mounts
« Reply #17 on: August 01, 2008 - 10:09:22 PM »
Another good ViperMan thread! :thumbsup:
There's a couple of Poly-Lock Mounts, and a Engine Torque Strap to be ordered in preparation for the day my feeble 340 isn't quite so feeble anymore.
Panther Pink '72 Challenger Rallye.
Grey '70 Challenger R/T

-There are two kinds of pedestrians: The quick and the dead.

***Per Arne***

Offline 71chally416

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 3170
    • The Streetwalker
Re: Engine Power verses motor mounts
« Reply #18 on: August 01, 2008 - 10:26:37 PM »
Bob Glidden (I assume everybody knows who he is) doesn't have an engine stand in his shop. He never bolts his motors to them because he feels they distort the cylinder walls.

This begs the question, why go through all the expense of having your motor honed with torque plates to simulate the stress of the head bolts to get round bores, and then use solid engine mounts? What do you think that stress on the side of the block does to the cylinders close to the mounts under full power?

It's rubber mounts only for me with a cable strap from the head to the frame. Of course though, a motor plate is best.  My :2cents: 
Once we had Ronald Reagan, Bob Hope & Johnny Cash. Now we have Obama, No Hope and No Cash!

Offline mopower

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
Re: Engine Power verses motor mounts
« Reply #19 on: August 03, 2008 - 09:39:03 AM »
i have a 340 with 500 hp 615 on nos kept blowing stock mounts on just one launch, sooooooo i put on the poly locs . no problems since. ten inch rear tires

nivvy

  • Guest
Re: Engine Power verses motor mounts
« Reply #20 on: August 03, 2008 - 10:14:11 AM »
i have a 340 with 500 hp 615 on nos kept blowing stock mounts on just one launch, sooooooo i put on the poly locs . no problems since. ten inch rear tires

post up some big pics of your car..... looks like a nice ride and makes power...  :working:

Offline Changin Gears

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1011
Re: Engine Power verses motor mounts
« Reply #21 on: August 03, 2008 - 10:15:57 AM »
Couple problems with the front motor plate on a big block, not a very large area where they mount so they wiggle around some.  After a while you get water leaks.  Also since you are now supporting the motor farther forward, instead of about 1/3 the way back, there is more strain on the bellhousing.  Could cause cracking.  I beleive the 55-57 Chebbies have this problem when a aluminum trans/bellhousing is swapped in.  Mid-plate fixes this.


The goal never changes - Stop the 60' timer with your back tires

Offline 71chally416

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 3170
    • The Streetwalker
Re: Engine Power verses motor mounts
« Reply #22 on: August 03, 2008 - 10:47:51 AM »
A guy used to run at Atco with a high 10 second 65 Belvedere. He had a solid mount on the tranny (Auto) and he carried spare tailshaft housings for when he broke them. It never dawned on him what the problem was.  :D
Once we had Ronald Reagan, Bob Hope & Johnny Cash. Now we have Obama, No Hope and No Cash!

Offline Rob C

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 191
Re: Engine Power verses motor mounts
« Reply #23 on: August 03, 2008 - 10:54:33 AM »
THIS little thing holds high power engines???



 :clueless: :screwy:

I mean - I'll say it again - if they say it works, I'll believe it, but I sure don't wanna!!

Jeff


Jeff, I was ripping up motor mounts with ease and only had a 360 in the Cuda. I purchased the picture engineswaps arm, that thing you question, "This little thing", YES, it'll hold.

I purchased this before they came out with the interlocking motot mounts.
'73 Cuda, 360, 4psd & 4.10's
'79 Dodge Magnum, 360, 727, 9-1/4 W/3.55's

Offline LAA66

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1669
Re: Engine Power verses motor mounts
« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2008 - 11:35:49 AM »
 Where exactly does the strut mount on a small block (340)?

Offline Chryco Psycho

  • Administrator
  • C-C.com Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 36620
  • 70 Challenger R/T SE 70 tube Chassis Cuda now sold
Re: Engine Power verses motor mounts
« Reply #25 on: August 03, 2008 - 01:04:15 PM »
you have to mount the engine with something , it will put stress where ever you do mount it , Mopar puts the mount up near the heavy front wall of the block which is far better than in the middle of the block like Chev does , motor plates front & rear are good but but get in the way of mounting anyhting else , ALt , power strg , clutch linkage , or tranny shift linkage al interfere

Challenger - You`ll wish You Hadn`t

Offline 71chally416

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 3170
    • The Streetwalker
Re: Engine Power verses motor mounts
« Reply #26 on: August 03, 2008 - 02:32:13 PM »
I have the interlocking Mancini mounts on mine and they haven't broke yet.  I've broken the cheap replacement mounts just putting a motor in before. The rubber seperates from the metal because the rubber compound is junk and doesn't bond right. Better off using the 40 YO originals then that foreign crap.

Buying mounts is just like everything else automotive. "You get what you pay for". 
Once we had Ronald Reagan, Bob Hope & Johnny Cash. Now we have Obama, No Hope and No Cash!

Offline ViperMan

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 3989
  • 2017 Carlisle or BUST...
    • JS Custom Cars
Re: Engine Power verses motor mounts
« Reply #27 on: August 04, 2008 - 08:23:02 AM »
Hey I never said I was buying cheapies.  :)

I've added the price of interlocking motor mounts and this strut to my price list.  The only thing I don't see is interlocking mounts along with a conversion kit - you get the conversion kit with cheapy mounts, it looks like.  Then again I might actually fabricate new mount locations in the car instead of using an adapter - too many possible weak points, IMO.

Jeff
2000 Dodge Viper GTS Coupe - 8.0L V10, 6-Speed Tremec
2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited - Trail Rated - 4.7L V8, Auto
2010 Dodge Challenger SE Rallye - 3.5L V6, Auto (Wife's!)

nivvy

  • Guest
Re: Engine Power verses motor mounts
« Reply #28 on: August 04, 2008 - 02:12:56 PM »
I would just find a cheap K member and re condition it when your motor is beign built......   :working:

Offline ViperMan

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 3989
  • 2017 Carlisle or BUST...
    • JS Custom Cars
Re: Engine Power verses motor mounts
« Reply #29 on: August 04, 2008 - 02:41:58 PM »
I would just find a cheap K member and re condition it when your motor is beign built......   :working:

Mmm, okay, help me out - K member, that's what the steering bolts to and such, correct?  Is that what the motor mounts bolt to (honestly I haven't really gotten this far yet.)  'Cause if so, I'm looking at the power steering rack conversion kit, which replaces the K member entirely (if we're talking about the same thing...) but I don't remember reading about options for small or big blocks.  Maybe I'm thinking about two different things...

Jeff
2000 Dodge Viper GTS Coupe - 8.0L V10, 6-Speed Tremec
2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited - Trail Rated - 4.7L V8, Auto
2010 Dodge Challenger SE Rallye - 3.5L V6, Auto (Wife's!)