1963 Motor Mount

[Ray C.]

Hi!

I just lowered the 1963 engine on to the frame. I did not notice the gap between the motor mount and the frame mounts when I removed the engine, but there was a lot of grease there at the time. I have a gap of (1/8 to 3/16")on each side. The frame mount measures 2 5/8". Do I have an aftermarket or a later mount?

Thanks for any help!

Ray

[Joe L.]

Re: 1963 Motor Mount

Ray-----

You have what appears to me to be the later style, locking motor mounts. These should fit just fine, though, and are what I recommend for all 63+ Corvette applications. However, the spacer that is attached to the mount (inside of the through bolt hole) does not appear to be thick enough. I presume the one on the other side is the same. This results in the space to which you point.

It's possible that these mounts are for another chassis application. Or, it's possible that they just were not manufactured correctly.

[Joe L.]

Addendum

Ray-----

The width between the through bolt hole spacers on the motor mount should be 2-21/32". The width of the motor mount bracket (welded to the frame) at the bolt hole should be 2-39/64". Therefore, there should be only about 3/64" of space where yours looks to be about 1/4".

[Patrick H.]

Re: Addendum

This space is a common problem with some replacement motor mounts. It's why I recently purchased a few varieties of motor mounts. I found one real brand new GM one with a part number at Carlisle. I also purchased 4 older US-made replacement mounts from a vendor, and 4 new replacement US-made mounts from a second vendor. Each has a different "thickness" of that spacer, and the newer the mount generally the thinner the spacer. All are better, however, than some imported mounts which have very thin spacers.

The "fix" is to use washers to fill in the space and paint them black to "look" more correct. For a slightly more "correct" appearance you could try adding washers front and back. Once you figure out how many you need (e.g. 1 front and 1 back, or 1 front and 2 back) remove the mount, JB Weld the spacers in place and fill in the edge seams with more JB Weld. Then paint it black so the new washer/spacers look like they're an original part of the mount.

I'd just figure out how many black-painted washers it would take to fill in the space and move on with life.

Patrick

[Ray C.]

Re: Addendum

Thanks Joe & Patrick!

I have approximatly 7/32" of space between the engine mount and the frame mount. With the 3/64 clearance that would leave a space of 11/64" to fill. I have checked a few parts house catalogs and they have over seas replacement mounts. I think I will do as Patrick has suggested and have a friend make me four 5/64" spacers to fill the gap.

Thanks for all the help!

Ray

[Chris D.]

Re: Addendum

Patrick,

Are any of the older US producers in your survey still in business? Sadly, its getting tough to find much of anything made here any more.

I bought mounts this summer for my '63 that had the through-bolt ears spaced to fit correctly without any spacers. It was an aftermarket code 2272, made by Anchor, produced in India. Sold by Vette Products of Michigan.

The 10 yr. old failed part that came off, code 2285, had thick spacers and still required washers to fill the gap. It was from Korea. Both parts are captured style mounts.

Did any of your survey parts fit without the use of spacer washers?

Chris

[Dick W.]

Re: Addendum

"The "fix" is to use washers to fill in the space and paint them black to "look" more correct. For a slightly more "correct" appearance you could try adding washers front and back. Once you figure out how many you need (e.g. 1 front and 1 back, or 1 front and 2 back) remove the mount, JB Weld the spacers in place and fill in the edge seams with more JB Weld. Then paint it black so the new washer/spacers look like they're an original part of the mount."

Patrick, it this the way to "Ballardize" a Bow Tie car???

[Mike McKown]

Who is Ballard? heh, heh *NM*

[Joe L.]

Re: Addendum

Patrick----

Yes, I also think that these motor mounts could be "corrected" and made usable by the addition of spacing washers. However, the existing spacers are not round; they're "oblong". So, there's no way to make round washers look like extensions of the oblong spacers. The spacers need to be oblong, too, since the position of the bolt through them is not exact. In other words, there needs to be the "range of adjustment" provided by the oblong holes. Functionally, the washers should work ok, though, but they need to "float" and not be epoxied to the mount.

Also, when adding the washers, I would add an equal thickness to either side of the mount and not all on one side.

[Patrick H.]

Re: Addendum

Nope.

My Bowtie car still has the incorrect replacement mount on the driver's side. It's VERY obvious it's wrong. I purchased all these to find the most original appearing one to use on the car. As you know, its Bowtie is done, so I can make it more "correct" now if need be.

Patrick

[Geoff C.]

What mounts came closest ? to Ballard ? *NM*

[Patrick H.]

Re: Addendum

Ray,

I'm not sure about your current mounts, but originals and some repros have the spacers convex on the outer surface. So, a flat washer or spacer will therefore have a larger gap at the edges when installed. If you're making one anyway, you could get fancy and make it concave on the side that faces your current mount and convex on the new outer side. You can get real fancy and machine it that way, or just find an appropritely sized washer and use a press to form it.

Patrick

[Dick W.]

Re: Addendum

"Who is Ballard" Everyone knows the "Real Deal"