jetech

I bought the Anchor brand engine mounts and noticed that the area that bolts to the frame (horizontal bolt) is about 1/4" wider than the stock mount. I can probably shim it using two 1/8" washers. Has anyone else had this problem? Is it something to worry about? Thanks for any help. :confused:

Sigforty

I am not fimilar with the Anchor brand mounts. I went with poly mounts from Energy suspension and they fit perfect. Are those mounts poly, rubber or solid??

mapman

jetech.

Several threads about this in the archives. Do you have ANCHOR 2285 mounts? I think the correct ANCHOR mount is 2249. I purchased mine from a vendor and they sent me pn 2285 for my 1980. A check of an unnamed national autoparts web site indicates ANCHOR 2249 is correct.

I decided to go with the replacement mounts available from GM pn 6258154. Same quality as the originals and available at your local dealer. The New GM mounts fit snug - just like the old mounts.

I would not shim ill fitting mounts.

theandies

:iagree: Thats what I have.
John

jetech

The mounts are rubber. I bolted them to the engine, they fit fine that way. I did notice that the horizontal bolt came with two 1/8" washers. If I put the washers on the outside of the mount then the bolt isn't long enough. I wonder if they are meant to shim the mount on the inside?

mapman

Do you know the part number of the ANCHOR mounts you have?

I do not think the washers are intended to "shim" the motor mount.

This is not a part to "Bubba". The spacing of the engine mounts will effect the alignment of the rest of your drive train (trans mount, etc).

jetech

The mounts are the 2285. Rik's Unlimited said they are the correct mount. :confused:

spica 7

I replaced my engine mounts last year with mounts from the Chevy dealer. $65.00 a piece. Every thing lined up just perfectly and there was no need to shim anything.

UKPaul

Can somebody tell me what the advantage of poly mounts is over the stock rubber ones?
Thanks
Paul

Corey_68

Sure they absorb more energy and vibrations from your engine and are more resistant to cracks and warpage.

:cheers:


[Modified by Corey 68, 11:26 AM 2/25/2003]

theandies

They are also uneffected by grease, gas and oil which will break down rubber over time.
John

UKPaul

Corey & John,
Thanks for the replies. I have, for a change, been giving this a lot of thought! The poly resistance to oil, grease & heat I can fully agree with, but I'm not so sure about the vibration issue. I better explain why! A Norton Commando has the engine, gearbox, swing arm & rear wheel isolated from the rest of the bike by isolastic mountings (rubber). To decrease vibration you can adjust the mounts to allow the rubber to flex more, thus absorbing vibrations from the engine. As the wheel is also allowed to flex more by doing this the handling will suffer, so there's a happy compromise. Tightening the mounts to improve handling will compress them & cause more vibration to be transmitted to the rest of the bike. So, I figured that rubber engine mounts would absorb more vibes than poly ones. Or have I got that completely wrong? Also, if poly engine mounts are used, then shouldn't the trans mount be poly as well for full effect?
Thanks,
Paul

bence13_33

My Moroso solid motor mounts are also resistant to these :D :jester