'67 Camaro E/SA redo - Page 19

Alan Nyhus · 04-20-2014, 11:59 AM

Rich, the frame mounts are also different between small blocks and big blocks. It's easy to end up with a mismatch of motor mounts and frame mounts. And from side to side as things have been swapped around over the years. Generally, the dead give away is if theres a 1/4" spacer or stack of washers between the engine mount and the frame mount to compensate for the motor mount width...but not always. I've seen aftermarket solid mounts that are combinations of both dimensions. Here's some dimensions to help identify what frame mounts you have:

Small block:
Driver's side: 2- 9/16" tall
Pass side is 2- 3/4" tall.

Big block:
Drivers side: 2- 7/8" tall
Pass Side: 2- 1/2" tall

Basically, small blocks use the 'short/wide' setup and big blocks use the 'tall/narrow' setup. The '67-'69 Z-28's supposedly use the big block style (tall/narrow) setup....whew.

Just my understanding of it...... -Al

brent flynn · 04-20-2014, 01:12 PM

I'd say it has to do with the rear end fiasco, when it wrapped up...i could be wrong... Sorry you having so many issues... I havent even gotten my heads off yet...maybe tomorrow eve...

HandOverFist · 04-20-2014, 05:31 PM

This was the qualifying pass which broke the case. Pardon the length...I'm just not into video editing today.

I'm going to install a torque link no matter what motor mount I decide to go with.

chris ok · 04-20-2014, 08:46 PM

sorry about the bad luck you are having.
I use urethane mounts on engine and transmission.
Energy suspendion mounts have a posi lock set up built in so they don't split apart.
I've bent solid mounts on engine 2x. I threw them in garbage.
I've used stock rubber engine mounts with a engine torque limiter on drivers side also.
a turnbuckle set up attached to frame on one side, cylinder head on other. works perfect and used by my friend who welded bracket to frame. He runs and builds stockers and index cars.
This is on A Bodies but same rule applies.

Dion Hildebrandt · 04-21-2014, 01:05 AM

I fought something like this awhile ago, I kept destroying driveshafts and transmission cases.
Long story short the original driveshaft skip roped and one thing went undiagnosed through all repairs.....the transmission crossmember got bent downwards. The third instance we went and measured driveline angles and reset them back into a favorable set of angles. FWIW just my 2 cents

Dennis Banach · 04-21-2014, 12:43 PM

Rich,
Be sure to check the pinion for run out as well.... I`m betting the Driveshaft is the problem . Good Luck!

HandOverFist · 04-21-2014, 04:05 PM

New drive shaft being built along with 1350 yokes.

Dion Hildebrandt · 04-21-2014, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HandOverFist

New drive shaft being built along with 1350 yokes.

The best money I ever spent..

HandOverFist · 04-22-2014, 01:15 AM

I don't know for a fact that there is anything wrong with the drive shaft...sent it to the builder to spin test it as they build the other one. It's about time for an upgrade anyway as there will likely be a hp/tq increase in the near future. I'm just trying to eliminate any weak links where I can...wearisome with all these breakages lately.

New low profile solid mounts ordered along with a tubular transmission crossmember.

Geerhead55 · 04-22-2014, 03:24 PM

Hp/tq increase?? Are you thinking about one of the 396 combos, Rich?
Danny Durham

04-20-2014, 11:59 AM	#181
Alan Nyhus VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Lower Dakota territory Posts: 1,180 Likes: 1,074 Liked 799 Times in 236 Posts	Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo Rich, the frame mounts are also different between small blocks and big blocks. It's easy to end up with a mismatch of motor mounts and frame mounts. And from side to side as things have been swapped around over the years. Generally, the dead give away is if theres a 1/4" spacer or stack of washers between the engine mount and the frame mount to compensate for the motor mount width...but not always. I've seen aftermarket solid mounts that are combinations of both dimensions. Here's some dimensions to help identify what frame mounts you have: Small block: Driver's side: 2- 9/16" tall Pass side is 2- 3/4" tall. Big block: Drivers side: 2- 7/8" tall Pass Side: 2- 1/2" tall Basically, small blocks use the 'short/wide' setup and big blocks use the 'tall/narrow' setup. The '67-'69 Z-28's supposedly use the big block style (tall/narrow) setup....whew. Just my understanding of it...... -Al __________________ "That'll never work....."

04-20-2014, 01:12 PM	#182
brent flynn Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Middletown, IN Posts: 593 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo I'd say it has to do with the rear end fiasco, when it wrapped up...i could be wrong... Sorry you having so many issues... I havent even gotten my heads off yet...maybe tomorrow eve... __________________ 1968 Bird/TRW 455/Home ported 13's, '70 Qjet,Holley Street Dominator manifold, Comp Solid FT, 10.817/122.30/1.440 Workin' on E/SA combo 3119 E/SA

04-20-2014, 05:31 PM	#183
HandOverFist VIP Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Gulf Breeze, FL Posts: 1,651 Likes: 8 Liked 33 Times in 16 Posts	Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo This was the qualifying pass which broke the case. Pardon the length...I'm just not into video editing today. I'm going to install a torque link no matter what motor mount I decide to go with. __________________ Rich Taylor I/SA - 321

04-20-2014, 08:46 PM	#184
chris ok Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Long Island, New york Posts: 592 Likes: 131 Liked 46 Times in 29 Posts	Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo sorry about the bad luck you are having. I use urethane mounts on engine and transmission. Energy suspendion mounts have a posi lock set up built in so they don't split apart. I've bent solid mounts on engine 2x. I threw them in garbage. I've used stock rubber engine mounts with a engine torque limiter on drivers side also. a turnbuckle set up attached to frame on one side, cylinder head on other. works perfect and used by my friend who welded bracket to frame. He runs and builds stockers and index cars. This is on A Bodies but same rule applies.

04-21-2014, 01:05 AM	#185
Dion Hildebrandt Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: calgary alberta canada Posts: 383 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo I fought something like this awhile ago, I kept destroying driveshafts and transmission cases. Long story short the original driveshaft skip roped and one thing went undiagnosed through all repairs.....the transmission crossmember got bent downwards. The third instance we went and measured driveline angles and reset them back into a favorable set of angles. FWIW just my 2 cents __________________ Dion Hildebrandt 6009 STK H/SA

04-21-2014, 12:43 PM	#186
Dennis Banach Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 31 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo Rich, Be sure to check the pinion for run out as well.... I`m betting the Driveshaft is the problem . Good Luck!

04-21-2014, 04:05 PM	#187
HandOverFist VIP Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Gulf Breeze, FL Posts: 1,651 Likes: 8 Liked 33 Times in 16 Posts	Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo New drive shaft being built along with 1350 yokes. __________________ Rich Taylor I/SA - 321

04-22-2014, 01:15 AM	#189
HandOverFist VIP Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Gulf Breeze, FL Posts: 1,651 Likes: 8 Liked 33 Times in 16 Posts	Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo I don't know for a fact that there is anything wrong with the drive shaft...sent it to the builder to spin test it as they build the other one. It's about time for an upgrade anyway as there will likely be a hp/tq increase in the near future. I'm just trying to eliminate any weak links where I can...wearisome with all these breakages lately. New low profile solid mounts ordered along with a tubular transmission crossmember. __________________ Rich Taylor I/SA - 321

04-22-2014, 03:24 PM	#190
Geerhead55 VIP Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Tacoma, Washington Posts: 1,632 Likes: 0 Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts	Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo Hp/tq increase?? Are you thinking about one of the 396 combos, Rich? Danny Durham