...

Go Back   Lateral-g Forums > Technical Discussions > LSX Conversions
User Name
Password



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-01-2011, 12:13 AM
Rybar's Avatar
Rybar Rybar is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,190
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Todd is correct, I wrecked two sets of the poly mounts before switching to solid. But the mounts felt fine to me, I never noticed any issues until a buddy pointed it out to me, so maybe the preload plates are needed? But I had the same issue as the OP, the motor wouldn't fit with them.
__________________
1969 CAMARO RS
HKE 383 LS1-T56 Dyno results: 496 rwhp 469 rwtq
Lateral-G Feature Page
Project pics of my '69
Camaro Performers Magazine Feature
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-01-2011, 04:56 AM
ModernMuseum ModernMuseum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 139
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rybar View Post
Todd is correct, I wrecked two sets of the poly mounts before switching to solid. But the mounts felt fine to me, I never noticed any issues until a buddy pointed it out to me, so maybe the preload plates are needed? But I had the same issue as the OP, the motor wouldn't fit with them.
Hrmm...I'm on the fence now

The only difference I can foresee if I don't go with the pre-load plates is the point of contact. Since the pre-load plates have the ridge in the middle, the only part of the pre-load plate that touches the S&P adapter plate is in the middle. The pre-load plate actually gets warped a little when it is tightened down.

However, without the plate, all of the rubber section in the middle will be touching the S&P adapter plate. It will still be crushed a bit (so I'm guessing it will be pre-loaded), but the engine mount's contact surface will be the full area of the surrounding metal as well as the full rubber area.

With the pre-load plates, the contact surface between the engine mount and adapter plate is the ridge in the middle and the outer perimeter where it bolts down.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-01-2011, 06:12 AM
AM.MSCL's Avatar
AM.MSCL AM.MSCL is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 247
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I have been told that the firebirds have a different centerlink then the Camaros and it sits in a slightly different location by about a 1/4" towards the firewall. Due to this fact the Oil pan will sit on it and not allow the engine to fully align with the bolts on the mounts. The Oil pan has to be modified to clear the centerlink.
Hopefully you verified that the oil pan is not hitting something already?!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-01-2011, 06:30 AM
ModernMuseum ModernMuseum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 139
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AM.MSCL View Post
I have been told that the firebirds have a different centerlink then the Camaros and it sits in a slightly different location by about a 1/4" towards the firewall. Due to this fact the Oil pan will sit on it and not allow the engine to fully align with the bolts on the mounts. The Oil pan has to be modified to clear the centerlink.
Hopefully you verified that the oil pan is not hitting something already?!
You are correct. The firebirds and camaros have different center links. The firebird center link is more or less straight and the camaro link has a slight bend in it. I have already taken the center link out and have a camaro center link to put in its place.

I have a champ road racing pan, and I am pretty sure it will clear the bottom cross-member (and hopefully the camaro center-link). I have been told that the 69 sub-frame is the same as a 68 camaro sub-frame.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-03-2011, 01:25 PM
ModernMuseum ModernMuseum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 139
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Ok, I got the "thin" or "regular" mounts in from S&P. There don't appear to be any dimensional differences between them and the Energy Suspension mounts. The "regular" type just have the back plate molded into the rubber as a single piece, but after several measurements, they appear to be the same dimensionally.

I guess my only option is to use the Energy Suspension mounts and leave the back compression plate off. Hopefully this will mate up and not shorten the life of the mount. I don't really see how it would shorten the life since it's mated to the adapter plate though. I just foresee a slightly different loading on the rubber part of the mount, since the rubber will be flush with the adapter plate instead of the wedged back plate being present.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-03-2011, 02:47 PM
Rybar's Avatar
Rybar Rybar is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,190
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Or just run solid mounts
__________________
1969 CAMARO RS
HKE 383 LS1-T56 Dyno results: 496 rwhp 469 rwtq
Lateral-G Feature Page
Project pics of my '69
Camaro Performers Magazine Feature
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-03-2011, 03:35 PM
Vegas69's Avatar
Vegas69 Vegas69 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,692
Thanks: 87
Thanked 215 Times in 120 Posts
Default

This all jogged my memory. Energy mounts are about an 1/8 taller than a factory rubber mount.(That's 1/4" total) 302/350 rubber factory mounts are interlocking as well. Solid mounts have there pluses and minuses.
__________________
Todd
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Lateral-g.net