Engine mount problems on my 67

[Domenic T.]

I bought engine mounts from one of the vette suppliers. They were the ones that were not safe. I was going to install the safety cable but found that when I installed the correct fan it was way to low and will hit the shroud on the bottom. I removed the mounts to install the required shims and found that it was about 1/4" lower than a safety mount I decided to use. The safety replacement mount and shim would put the fan where it needed to be.
The problem now is that the safety mounts are to narrow to fit over the frame receiver where the bolt go's thru. I measured the safety mount against the original style and it is 1/8" narrower. I then measured where the mount fits on the frame and it is 1/8" larger than the mount.
So I spread the safety mount a bunch but it still won't fit. So I went to the auto parts shop and looked at their replacement mounts and they are also not wide enough to fit. They were also a different brand. The repo mounts will fit but are to low and are made with 1/16 metal compared to the 1/8 on the safety mount. Years ago I changed more mounts than I can count and had no problems with fit. The repo original style mount ( new) looks like it would fail on a Briggs & Stratton.

Dom

[Russ S.]

Re: Engine mount problems on my 67

Chinese garbage?

[Mike T.]

Re: Engine mount problems on my 67

Dom - What brand were the mounts they sent you initially? As I'm slowly assembling everything I'll need when I get around to adding the 427 to my 65 Coupe, I've been looking through old threads on the subject of motor mounts and at least for Anchor brand, I've seen the #2283 and #2249 with the #2283 being the safety style mounts. Both numbers appear to be available through the local parts houses but I've also read the issue of them maybe not fitting down over the frame mounts.

[Joe L.]

Re: Engine mount problems on my 67

I bought engine mounts from one of the vette suppliers. They were the ones that were not safe. I was going to install the safety cable but found that when I installed the correct fan it was way to low and will hit the shroud on the bottom. I removed the mounts to install the required shims and found that it was about 1/4" lower than a safety mount I decided to use. The safety replacement mount and shim would put the fan where it needed to be.
The problem now is that the safety mounts are to narrow to fit over the frame receiver where the bolt go's thru. I measured the safety mount against the original style and it is 1/8" narrower. I then measured where the mount fits on the frame and it is 1/8" larger than the mount.
So I spread the safety mount a bunch but it still won't fit. So I went to the auto parts shop and looked at their replacement mounts and they are also not wide enough to fit. They were also a different brand. The repo mounts will fit but are to low and are made with 1/16 metal compared to the 1/8 on the safety mount. Years ago I changed more mounts than I can count and had no problems with fit. The repo original style mount ( new) looks like it would fail on a Briggs & Stratton.

Dom

Dom-------


I can tell you this, for sure: the GM mounts, original style or safety type were interchangeable and either would fit your car with no problem, at all. If the replacements were made correctly, they would too. If they don't, they are NOT made correctly. PERIOD. Forget about having to modify a mount to make it fit. Even if it made it fit, I wouldn't use it.

[Domenic T.]

Re: Engine mount problems on my 67

Mike,
I tried all our local auto parts and all are the same. I am fighting tooth & nail and can't get them down on the frame. The ones I bought (repo) are not safety and they are not as thick as the safety mounts. They did fit the frame OK but again the fan would hit the bottom of the shroud.
I was able to do this whole restoration without a scratch on the parts, except for this.
I even raised the trans off it's mount to help and was able to start the drivers side bolt 90% thru it's hole. The passenger side is not close, about 1/2 ".

Dom

[Edward B.]

Re: Engine mount problems on my 67

Okay, this may not apply since I have a 69, but when I replaced my mounts several months ago, the Auto Zone (Anchor) 2283 mounts would NOT fit. Like you said, they were about 1/8" too narrow and wouldn't fit on the frame brackets. (I had that same issue with my 68 Camaro!) I ended up getting the 2249 mounts. They're the old style "standard" (non-interlocking) mounts, but they fit the frame brackets correctly and were the correct height. But again, I have a 69 L36 so my story may be different.

Ed

[Joe L.]

Re: Engine mount problems on my 67

Okay, this may not apply since I have a 69, but when I replaced my mounts several months ago, the Auto Zone (Anchor) 2283 mounts would NOT fit. Like you said, they were about 1/8" too narrow and wouldn't fit on the frame brackets. (I had that same issue with my 68 Camaro!) I ended up getting the 2249 mounts. They're the old style "standard" (non-interlocking) mounts, but they fit the frame brackets correctly and were the correct height. But again, I have a 69 L36 so my story may be different.

Ed

Ed-------


The frame mounts for C2 and C3 Corvettes were functionally identical. So, any mount that would fit a C3 should fit a C2 and vice-versa.

[Joe L.]

Re: Engine mount problems on my 67

As far as I know, there exist NO engine mounts for C2 and C3 Corvettes which are not foreign made. For quite some time I have had serious concerns about the quality of these foreign-made mounts. In fact, that's why I long-ago stocked up on the GM mounts, enough to last me if I live to be 200 [none for sale].

My primary concerns involved the difference in the thickness of the steel frame of the mounts and the "rough" appearance of the mounts. Their extremely low price also was a cause for great concern regarding quality. The fact that there has, apparently, now developed FITMENT problems with the mounts is a new low that even I had never anticipated. That demonstrates quality control problems beyond the pale.

[Edward B.]

Re: Engine mount problems on my 67

What's interesting Joe, is that the (interlocking) 2283's are listed as being "correct" for 66-69 Corvette 427 and the 2249's (non-interlocking) are listed as being "correct" for 62-67 327. I didn't think there was any difference in the frame brackets for all those years, so I couldn't figure out why there was a difference between big block and small block mounts. Originally, ALL engines used the same non-interlocking mount!

But I ended up returning the 2283's and buying the 2249's because the 2283's just wouldn't fit.

And yes, the Anchor mount boxes had "Made in China" on them. Big surprise, right!?

Ed

[Joe L.]

Re: Engine mount problems on my 67

What's interesting Joe, is that the (interlocking) 2283's are listed as being "correct" for 66-69 Corvette 427 and the 2249's (non-interlocking) are listed as being "correct" for 62-67 327. I didn't think there was any difference in the frame brackets for all those years, so I couldn't figure out why there was a difference between big block and small block mounts. Originally, ALL engines used the same non-interlocking mount!

But I ended up returning the 2283's and buying the 2249's because the 2283's just wouldn't fit.

Ed

Ed-------


The interlocking (i.e. safety) mounts were never originally used on any 1963-69 Corvette, big block or small block. 1970-82 Corvettes, big block or small block, originally used the interlocking mounts. However, beginning in 1970, the only mounts available in SERVICE from GM for any 1963-69 Corvette were the interlocking style. As I mentioned, the frame mounts for any 1963-82 Corvette, big block or small block, were functionally identical and interchangeable.

Any aftermarket cataloging which indicates anything other than the above is absolutely incorrect. Apparently, the quality of their information is about equal to the quality of their engine mounts.

[Patrick H.]

Re: Engine mount problems on my 67

I don't feel so bad buying a few sets about 10 years ago "just in case."

[Domenic T.]

Re: Engine mount problems on my 67

Well,
I got them to work ( not proud of it) after using a rivet set with a drift that I beat the he!! Out of and after about 8 hrs it was done. I had to clean the bolt holes out with a drill. Had to drop the starter, loosen the exhaust, unbolt the trans mounts and beat them into submission.
The problem I found is that the people making the mounts kept the OD and increased the thickness of the steel which made the mounts ID 1/8 smaller.
I now have to do touch up painting as I have scratches and a few beating bruises.

Dom

[Joe L.]

Re: Engine mount problems on my 67

By the way, Rock Auto sells the Anchor locking style mounts for Corvettes for less than 5 bucks, each. Does that price give you any confidence that they're quality pieces?

[Ken A.]

Re: Engine mount problems on my 67

Anyone try the new Corvette Central mounts?

[Donald A.]

Re: Engine mount problems on my 67

Anyone try the new Corvette Central mounts?

Yes, I put them on my '67. I wanted to switch to the safety type and the ones on my car appeared to be cheap repros from long ago. The Corvette Central ones Item# 302005 were 50 bucks, advertised as "correct" and on inspection were thicker metal than the ones I had, and fit perfectly without any need to massage the install. Car is still up on stands so I can get a photo if anyone wants.