What's my best bet for replacing these motor mounts? These are my originals and they've obviously seen better days... I'd love to keep the same style. Do they still sell these? I haven't been able to find them.
69 SS396 w/ born with motor.
No those were all recalled because as you may have noticed they separate. The only thing holding that vulcanized rubber motor mount together was the stickiness of the rubber. It was designed to work with the new high horse, high torque 283 engine back in 1958. By 1965 with the introduction of the high torque 396 (chosen by GM's executive board five weeks after the blocks where cast in 1965) that replaced the short stroke high reving large bore 409 the motor mounts were coming apart in pick-ups and heavy B-body cars.
In 1968 GM was sued by our friend Ralph Nader and faced the very first federally mandated product recall in history to replace those vulcanized motor mounts. Starting in 1969 the motor should have had an interlocking tall and narrow motor mount that won't fit over a 1968 short and wide frame stand. GM gave you a five ton cable to go along with your brand new vulcanized motor mount replaced free of charge at your local GM dealership, that attached to the A frame cross shaft to limit engine torque. Chevy never expected the cable, or the new motor mount to last longer than the seven years that the product was protected by federal law.
That is why corner parts stores always give you the wrong motor mount (the 1969 variety) that won't fit on your 1967-'68 frame stands. If you want one to fit you will have to buy it from a restoration house that reproduces the original un-safe part or buy an aftermarket interlocking polyurethane one.
Wow! Great info/lesson Dave. I appreciate it! So someone apparently swapped out the motor mounts at some point. I guess she'll be getting the poly mounts. These aren't really separating at all, so I'll clean them up and set them aside just because I can't throw out things like that lol.Especially if it was a recall item and they probably all got tossed. Mine were just looking pretty sad and I wouldn't have trusted side stepping the clutch with them in there... Thanks for the links Don.
The first photo is of the drivers side and is actually an interlock type mount...if you will look to the right of the mount you will notice that the bolt passes through a big hole of a bracket that is mounted to the block and then inside the first bracket is the bracket that mounts through the frame stand. So by the bolt passing through both brackets, interlocks the two brackets. This was used only on the drivers side as this was the side that would rise upward with the torque of the engine. This mount style has been replaced by the later interlocking style.
The second photo is of the passenger side and it is not interlocked....not needed because that side didn't rise with the torque of the engine. This was also replaced by the later interlocking style mount.
The recall didn't happen until '71. JerryG, that was the configuration they were in. Like you described. I kind of figured that's why they were different. Thanks.
"On December 4, 1971, General Motor (GM) announced it would recall over 6.68 million 1965-70 Chevrolets with defective engine mounts. The recall covered 1965-69 full-size Chevrolets, 1965-69 Chevy II's and Novas, 1967-69 Camaros, and 1965-70 Chevrolet/GMC light trucks, all with V8 engines. (NHTSA Recall 71-0235, now 71V-235.)
Engine mount breakage causes a self-perpetuating chain of events. When the left-side mount breaks, engine torque causes the engine to rise up, pulling open the accelerator linkage; this causes even more upward movement, and consequently more opening of the accelerator linkage, until the engine's movement is stopped by the closed hood. Moreover, the engine's upward movement pulls the power brake booster vacuum hose loose, thus greatly increasing the force needed to stop the car. Also, the automatic transmission "PRNDL" quadrant would shift itself over one position to the right (e.g., from D to L), affecting all gear positions; this meant that the car no longer had a Park position, and could be started in Reverse.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) received its first report of a broken Chevrolet motor mount in September 1969, and contacted GM a few weeks later. However, even before it received GM's reply that indicated a total of 14 reports on 1968 models Chevrolets alone, NHTSA placed the investigation on "inactive status." NHTSA informed GM of this "inactive status" in a June 1970 letter.
The case (IR 162) remained in abeyance until NHTSA received a second report in late August 1970. Only then did the agency begin to arrange independent tests of effects of broken Chevrolet motor mounts on driver control, but even these tests (in October 1970) were flawed. The test facility used a Chevrolet without power brakes or power steering, thus preventing an examination of brake assist loss. Nonetheless, the tests demonstrated the throttle-opening effect that consumers had noted.
In December 1970, NHTSA sent a second, more comprehensive information request to GM. The company's January 1971 reply indicated a total of 172 reports of failed motor mounts, with 63 accidents and 18 injuries; GM also advised that it had been using the same mount since 1958. Despite this clear indication of a widespread defect, NHTSA did nothing further on the matter until June 1971, when it sent questionnaires to 63 consumers who had reported broken Chevrolet motor mounts. NHTSA sent a third information request to GM that August. On September 1, 1971, Ralph Nader sent an extensive letter to NHTSA about deficiencies in NHTSA's investigative procedures, including the handling of the motor mount defect. Robert Irvin, long-time automotive writer for the Detroit News, took interest in the matter after receiving a copy of Nader's letter, and subsequently wrote over 70 articles about the motor mount case. Irvin's articles, many of which appeared on the front page played a key role in putting public pressure on GM and NHTSA to force a recall.
On October 15, 1971, NHTSA issued a consumer protection bulletin advising motorists of the "potential risks" of broken GM engine mounts. Around this same time, GM President Edward Cole declared that a broken mount was the equivalent of a "flat tire or blowout", and that anyone who could not control a car with a failed mount at 25 mph "shouldn't be driving."
A few weeks later, NHTSA sent two staff members to GM's engineering facilities in Warren, Michigan to witness more tests of failed motor mounts; their findings corroborated the results of the earlier tests. Around this same time, NHTSA Administrator Doug Toms visited GM headquarters and test drove Chevrolets with severed mounts with GM President EJ Cole in the test vehicles, but NHTSA did not place a record of Toms' visit in the public files.
NHTSA sent a letter to GM on December 1, stating that it was close to determining that a motor vehicle safety defect did exist. Three days later, GM announced its recall, but the company refused to admit that the vehicles contained a safety defect.
One irony of the recall is that on over 95% of the vehicles recalled, GM did not replace the defective mounts themselves, but rather installed a bracket and cable to restrict engine movement if a mount broke. By avoiding replacement of engine mounts on all 6.68 million cars, GM managed to cut its recall costs considerably; the cable and bracket assembly cost about $1 per car, far less than the $50 cost of new motor mounts.
For a comprehensive report and materials on the failure of NHTSA to obtain a more timely recall, see Hearings on Auto Safety Repairs at No Cost, Senate Commerce Comm, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. Pp 200-58 (Jan. 30-31, 1973) including Oct. 11, 1972, letter from Chairman Harley O. Staggers, House Interstate & Foreign Commerce Comm. to NHTSA Administrator Douglas W. Toms."
Auh the history of my youth. Yes, the interlocking mount is available in reproduction. One of the very first things I noticed about my new car back in '69 was the cool interlocking mount. No way it could let the engine tilt. When the recall notice came via certified mail I tossed it in the trash. After all, why install an ugly cable that can't work with headers anyway?
Oh, yeah, the rubber goes away. Mine finally did last year. I bought a poly mount but still use the same long bolt and bracket. Works good.
Unless I've got my motor balanced pretty well, I'll proabably end up going with the Anchor syle when the time comes. I think I even have a set still in the box out in my garage... We'll see wether it's poly or not.
A forum community dedicated to 1st generation Chevy Camaros owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, builds, restoration, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, reviews, and more!