Register now to get rid of these ads!


Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by Goztrider, Jun 13, 2008.

  1. Universal SBC crossmember type mount

    9 vote(s)
  2. Hurst style front engine mount - uses puck type cushions

    18 vote(s)
  1. Goztrider
    Joined: Feb 17, 2007
    Posts: 3,066

    from Tulsa, OK

    I know asking for opinions around here is like taking my life into my own hands, but I'm looking at options on setting the 350 into my Dubble A as I get back to working on it.

    Basically, I'm looking at 2 different options and am not sure which'd be the best way to go, so I thought I'd ask what you all think.

    Option 1: The tubular type universal crossmember that bolts to the inside of the frame, but you cut it to fit the width the frame itself. Like this one: motor mount

    Option 2: The Hurst style (I think) mount that attaches to the lower front portion of the motor and uses the puck style mounts/cushions where it attaches to the frame.
    Like this one: motor mount

    Basically, I'm looking for opinions, as well as pros and cons to both setups.


  2. I think you would be hard pressed to find a better looking setup than that Hurst mount.
  3. fatabone
    Joined: Nov 3, 2003
    Posts: 1,437


    Buying the mounts may be easier but you could always make them yourself.
    We have used the Hurst with no problems but I'm sure the other one Speedway sells works fine also. You may want to see where each mount attaches to the chassis and see if it works with the rest of your setup.

    Here are some home made ones.

    Attached Files:

  4. Goztrider
    Joined: Feb 17, 2007
    Posts: 3,066

    from Tulsa, OK

  5. Anderson
    Joined: Jan 27, 2003
    Posts: 6,473


  6. Shifty Shifterton
    Joined: Oct 1, 2006
    Posts: 4,964

    Shifty Shifterton

    The hurst style isn't really a full load bearing member of the frame due to the flex at the mounts. Style 1 actually reinforces the frame while mounting the engine.
  7. Goztrider
    Joined: Feb 17, 2007
    Posts: 3,066

    from Tulsa, OK

    Shifty, that is kind of what I was thinking, but I'm open to different experiences and ideas.

    How much will that make a difference being that this thing is going into a Model AA (Dubble A) frame?
  8. tootallrodder
    Joined: Jan 7, 2003
    Posts: 403

    Member Emeritus

    The hurst type mount has the engine being held up by 4 bolts in shear plus you are normally unable to use a standard mechanical fuel pump.

    The cross member type mount allows the use of the furl pump the mounts bolt with 6 fasteners and the cross member adds to frame stiffening.
  9. Dreddybear
    Joined: Mar 31, 2007
    Posts: 5,987


  10. Goztrider
    Joined: Feb 17, 2007
    Posts: 3,066

    from Tulsa, OK

    YOU CAN'T VOTE FOR ANYTHING BUT THE 2 I POSTED! Sheesh.. like a bunch of my 6th graders!

    Seriously though, I'm more up about the 2 choices I posted rather than the other. Although I'm sure it has its advantages, I'm leaning more towards the crossmember type.
  11. Ebbsspeed
    Joined: Nov 11, 2005
    Posts: 5,421


    You really need to determinne where your transmission mount is going to be when making this decision. Typically any motor with the front (Hurst) mount will (Should?) also have mounts at the bellhousing, and the rear of the transmission. If you use a front mount and a rear transmission mount with no "bellhousing" mount, you are putting undue stress on the bellhousing, particularly on an SBC where the bellhousing/motor are basically connected with a half-circle of bolts. The crossmember mount kind of "balances" the engine weight over it, and puts a lot less stress on the bellhousing. I vote for the crossmember mount because 1) Fewer mounting points required. 2) Doesn't block off the original fuel pump location 3) Stiffens the frame 4) is more "hidden"

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!


Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.