I have seen it done several ways....on the street which takes a different kind of chassis abuse to Drag Cars that can be evil.........In my case I built my Truck originally for the street/strip....it has a Model A chassis that is boxed...one crossmember in the front, one in the rear and a removeable trans crossmember with to diagonal tube struts....I guess thats what I will call them......My engine is solid mounted up front because I am using the engine as a crossmember as well...........adding more frame strength to me, I could be wrong....I do understand when under full load the engine and chassis are trying to do something different at the same time........But I judge based on results.......I drag Race the hell out of it.....and its the furthest thing from a ill handling vehicle.............I feel all the movement is moving in concert of sorts.......verses the engine has some movement via rubber mounts and the chassis on top of that or shifts of energy or fighting energy .To me any movement is a loss of power.......I guess you can call it energy?........Good luck...........because the above may only make sense to me............enough pychobable from me....Littleman...solid mounts are not for everyone..........my Divco has rubber mounts...really no reason to have solid in something that does not see the track if your building from square one..
Have built a few things with solid mounts, but these tend to be tubular framed with glass bodies, hence no problems. Some motors don't produce much vibration, others shake so bad you'd swear bits were trying to get out. If I had to make up a rule I would go for steel body equals rubber mounts. but I am known for bending or breaking any rule.
although not "traditional" , i put a 460 in my 88 Mustang years ago and used solid mounts because there was no room for movement. drove it thousands of miles. no problems, i didnt think it rode that hard at all/
I run them in a bunch of cars. But why not use a rubber mount? I bought some out of the Classifieds on the HAMB by Vandetta(?) and like them very much
We have an 89 ranger with solid everything with a 383sbc 6-71 blower, ripped the bellhousing completely of the trans!! I believe no cage may have some to do with it but we have since went with solid motor mounts, polyurethane trans mount and an ultrabell bellhousing, no problems whatsoever and feels great!
I got tired of ripping my factory mounts apart. Upgraded to solid mounts in my stang. Kept the rubber mount for the tranny. Totally drivable. Depending on your version of streetable. I know my wife loved to ride in the car after the stitch.
I have run solid side mounts with a rubber mounted transmission mount with no problems, but it was in a hot rod. If you use a motorplate or an engine mount on the front of the engine, you NEED to use a mid mount (or midplate) around the bellhousing area of the drivetrain. If you don't, there is a strong possibility of the transmission bellhousing cracking because of all of the weight and forces the drivetrain generates. I've seen it happen on quite a few cars. Larry T
Some very talented race car chassis builders insist on using solid engine mounts on performance street cars, because they want the block to add to the rigidity of the chassis. They will also suggest rubber-mounting the transmission. You should have no issues on the street if the engine has been balanced properly and is in a good state of tune. Dave http://www.roadsters.com/
sounds like a lot of these motor are not balanced and if they are there's something else wrong . i have had a lot of street drag cars and never had a vibration problems with solid mounts . if there`s anyway to put a good quality mount in the car i would . i will say this if your going to buy autozone cheap mounts go with solid mounts
In case this helps someone, stock Chevy motor mounts up until at least 1967 were a crappy design where if the rubber rotted and tore away from the metal part, the motor mount would break. They had a problem where if it broke on the driver's side, the whole engine would try lift up and pull up away from the frame. Then the solid arm accelerator linkage would pull tighter and pull back on the throttle linkage on the caruberetor, basically flooring the accelerator whether you wanted to or not. I think a lot of people crashed due to this problem, so GM in their usual cheap ass ways, added a piece of chain to the side of the engine, connecting it to the frame, so that if the crappy motor mount broke, it would hold the enging block down and keep it from going out of control. I guess that was cheaper than redesigning the motor mounts. Then somewhere around '68 or so, they finally redesigned the motor mounts to have an integral interlocking metal piece that would keep the mounts together even if the rubber fell apart. So a lot of you guys with old Chevys, who have maybe replaced engines a few times already, should make sure you have either good new style motor mounts, or use a chain if you're going to use the old mounts. I kind of doubt motor mounts that old are any good anymore anyway though.
Come to think of it, all my pre '65 cars have engine mounts I've modified so they hold up even when rubber looses it's bond to the steel. The rods are 1/2" by the way and are welded on both sides after they've been placed.;
About 40 years ago I had a 69 Mustang that broke a mount on the drivers side. I was aware of the Chev problem and solution so I wrapped a length of chain around the exhaust manifold and upper a-arm mount. When I got on it the engine would rock, tighten the chain and the whole car would vibrate like a king sized "lady's friend"! back off and it would ride down the road nice and smooth. Replacing the mount was on the to do list when I totaled the car. Might have been the windsor but that thing would rattle your teeth out if it had been constant.
The Jalopy Journal
