Purchesed a set of camaro clamshells. Saw them come off an 87 block. Drivers side fits fine for some reason passenger side does not connect with the metal tabs on my poly mounts. Seems like they are too wide om top top tabs near the fram rail. Checked them with a caliper and thay are bigger than the ones I took off which were not thirdgen ones. Can anyone help me? Thanks

 

You got the poly insert installed the right way around in the frame-side mount? Wouldn't prevent the engine from dropping over it but it'll never go all the way home because it will hit one set of ears WAY before it touches the other.

 

Poly mounts are in correct its not that They were not in correct I had to swap out my clamshells because they were not thirdgen specific. Everything dropped in fine just passenger clamshell where its supposed to contact tabs is to wide there. I measured the tab width end to end and it was right aroud 4.50 inches with a caliper. Now opening end to end on the clamshell was over that right around 4.60. Im thinking the clamshell is bent or warped. Drivers side fits fine. I cant believe my luck, whats the odds of this?

 

If the engine is out (I assume it is since it can't be in at this point) maybe take it off the engine, climb in the engine bay and try to hand fit it over the frame side mount- figure out where the "rub" is and see if it can be easily "massaged" with a few hammer strikes or a little grinding?

Bending an engine mount is pretty rare in normal use. Usually you see that on a car that somebody did a "Dukes of Hazzard" jump in.

 

Im thinking the guy may have layed the motor on the ground with the mount still on. Poly mouny measures 4.50 on the tabs end to end. This mount measured 4.55 until I wacked with a dead blow hammer. All my other mounts that I have even the drivers side measure right around 4.10 with the caliper. After wacking the mount it now measures 4.45 still to me not enough of the tab on the mount. Im ripping my hair out over this though it would be a simple swap. Every single bone yard in my are doesnt have these. Called over 15 and the ones that do are still in the car and they wont pull the motors. Im at a loss here over this bull. I hand placed the mount and it does now sit on the tabs but its just not enough of the tab on there for my liking.

 

i would probably just bend it out a little

 

Pssst..... GM still sells them over the Chevy parts counter. Don't tell anyone I told you. I don't want this getting around.

 

Damon, the passenger side part #is 14039436 which is discontinued from gm. This is the side I need. Drivers side was originally part# 334970 which was then changed to #10213125 which is available from gm. So which dealership are you talking about?

 

Found something today maybe someone can chime in on. Hand fitting it loose the passenger side clamshell falls over the tabs on the side near fram rail. When you hand fit it then tighten the through bolt it seems to pull the ears together on top of the tabs. Anyone verify this?

 

I'll verify it shouldn't be that way. It might pull them in a smidge, but not so as you should notice much. Maybe you just got it to fit right by doing that the first time! It should drop right on and edges of the clamshell should be right on top of the tabs. No overhang. And then you should be able to push the bolt through with no more than maybe a modest tap from a hammer (which could only happen if the clamshell was resting solidly on the tabs to begin with- not falling off the ends of several of them).

Clamshells should be identical left vs. right. Not sure why you are seeing different part numbers.

Maybe someone else could verify this but I've put them on new motors many times with no regard to whether they originally came off the left of right side of the original motor. Motor mounts for truck applications can sometimes be side-specific, but passenger cars will almost always be the same on both sides.

 

There are two part#s. One pass and one driver this has been verified on this board many times. There are physical differences between the two. I just got another passenger side clamshell today and its the same thing. Here is what I did to vertify it. I just pulled a motor from my friends monty this sat so the stock rubber mounts are exposed. The passenger clamshell on the factory rubber mounts drops right on the tabs no problem. Both passenger side brackets I checked. I have energy suspension mounts. The tabs are shorter than stock i measured it. This may be my problem the poly mounts. I may have a bum set. Rubber factory mount tabs are 4.65 wide the poly energy ones are 4.50 at least the ones I have. I tried two passenger side brackets so what are the chances they both are off. Im betting on the mounts. Would like to keep the poly mounts in there but if its going to be an issue Im just going to get factory replacement rubber ones.

I can assure you the thirdgen camaro v8 mounts are side specific. Punch those part#s in a searxh on here you will see what I am talking about. Plus stamped on the passenger side bracket on the inside it says "lsp" meaning " left side passenger". The k member is not symetrical on these cars. Passenger clamshell is about 1/4- 1/2 inch taller than the drivers side. Plus compared to the mounts I took off which were part# as mid 70 350 brackets where the tab sits in relation to the thirdgen mounts is a little different. Lmk what you find out. Here is a link to get you started: https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/exha...dyno-dons.html Let us know what you find out. Take care

 

Yup, clamshells are different from left to right..
except one of my 89 formulas
it has part# 334970 on the dr side and the pass side is part# 334971. Both are the same size! unlike most cars on here where one mount is "taller" than the other.

 

Maybe its because its a convertable? Or maybe someone had changed it before you got the car. Just a thought....

 

Nope not on the vert Formula350, It has the 2 dif ones like most do, the vert started life as a TTop car B4 it went to ASC.
So I guess both of the 89s are orginally TTop350s, one has the correct L-R mounts and one doesn't.. Or maybe both are correct?!?!

 

OK, OK. I'm pleading no-contest on the Left vs. Right clamshell mount differences. You win. I must just be lucky.

Anywho.... so the tabs are different widths on the stock rubber ones vs. the Poly ones. Either one the tabs should extend a fair distance beyond the edge of the clamshell. The thing that stops the bolt from crushing the clamshell inward is the sleeve that the main bolt goes through to tie the frame and engine mounts to eachother. Are the sleeves different lengths as well between the two mount styles?

I fear we're getting to the point where the answer is "those particular poly mounts just aren't going to work." If the clamshell won't drop on the tabs, you're basically done. Pretty much impossible to make it work acceptably without them.

 

The mounts should all be the same width where the long bolt goes thru.
The shells bend fairly easy to open them up and then close up when you tighten them down.

 

The passenger side mount is definatly wider where the bolt hole is. I have 3 sets they are all the same. But this is measured with a poly mount. These mounts suck. The pass definatly closes up when tightned. Called enegy suspension. There solution? Cut the offendind tab off. Ok...anyways. Getting a setof gm mounts tm. You really never hear of anyone ripping factory mounts, yes some might debate this and say they just replaced there mount last year and its crap again. But what did they replace it with? Vatozone 2292 china made cheapies? I was going to go that route but ended up finding out they are manufactured in china. What a surprise. With all the work involved changine the mounts Ill put gm ones in there.

Ive gone over and over the passenger side mount clamshell and the offending poly unit and it is def the poly units tabs. Now I can get it to sit on the tab but it just about touches the metal. Dont feel comfortable with this. A 1/16 and if that is to close for comfort for me. Im not pushing alot of hp to even warrent these poly mounts. And with all the searching on every forum I could find inregards to breaking factory gm mounts its virtually non existant even in higher hp situations. It just doesnt happen from what I have found. Now if you want to debate vatozone mounts.... well I wouldnt trust a 8$ motor mount on my car made in china by someone making in a year what I make in a week. Kind of makes you wonder how they make it is china, materials, shipment here, and cost of transport to store and stocking it for you to buy and you pay only 8$ for it? What does it cost to make? .50 cents? The word quality doesnt come to mind at all. Subpar recycled rubber, subpar steel make for a mount that is one you replace more than once. Will let everyone know how this turns out.

 

Sorry to hear that Energy Suspension gave you such an unsatisfying answer. That's what I would call a "lazy man's answer". Just modify your stuff to match our sub-par engineering! Ummmmmmm...... nah.

I'm guessing they make those same inserts to work with a lot of GM applications- like a "universal" part. Would probably work just dandy on my old 78 Malibu (that definitely uses the same mounts left and right) but on your 3rd gen with the "different" passenger side mount..... not so much.

You won't have any problem with the GM mounts. Unlike pre-1974 mounts the later ones CAN NOT rip in half and send the enging bouncing up into the hood. The rubber biscuit is fully encased in a steel shell.

Over time the passenger side mount will sag because the weight of the engine and the force of engine torque both try to shove it down into the frame. After a few decades of this, it gets tired. Driver's side is rarely a problem since weight and torque forces are trying to push it in opposite directions- they cancel eachother out to some extent.

If you want that sucker "tight" for a right-now hit at the drag strip you can install a "torque strap" between the driver's side head and the frame/crossmember. Prevents the engine from torqueing over when you nail the gas (kind of like having solid mounts) but the squishy rubber biscuit is still there to keep drivetrain vibrations in check when you're just tooling around at part throttle on the street.

 

It's sad to hear that Energy Suspension has fallen like this. I installed their poly mounts on my Beasty 13 years ago and had no issues with fit that I remember. I wonder where they're having their stuff made now. The factory mounts will do better at isolating engine harmonics from the chassis. I did notice this difference right away after the install. One thing to note, while the front engine mounts are of a design that will not tear apart, the rear trans mount is not. You may want to consider a heavy duty mount for that position as I have replaced many of these over the years. I have yet to break the ES poly unit on my car.

 

My experience with this situation.....

The rubber in the factory mounts of old was bonded to the metal.
This new style ones are not.
This allows the rubber to slip down, my answer to this is, use a wooden shim
1"x1/4"x 2" insert it under the rubber on each side and this will prevent the rubber from sliding down and still avoid vibration.
I have used this method for years. It holds the motor in the proper position and eliminates misalignment.

 

Thanks to all the responses here. I dont know what it is with energy supension. I had pre 1980 clamshells on this motor before. Everything sat well and good no issues. It these thirdgen mounts, well the passenger side anyway. It is definatly a one of a kind oddity.

Asedoc, you are right on with that with the tranny mount. When my car was close to stock in 95, first time to the track I broke the tranny mount, it had 50,000 on it but I did rip it after a few trips down the track. I put in the energy one at first with the bracket it comes with. And it sat so high and I was getting alot of vibrations. I took the plate off and can tell you it still sits higher than stock. I did put a poly torque arm mount on it. Do you think this is enough with a rubber tranny mount? If not what do you recommend in terms of mounts besides poly. Dont know if prothane makes one. I think of it this way motor sits higher with motor mounts than tranny mounts lifts the tailshaft. So any ypipe connection will hit if not fit at all under the frame.

I was test fitting my hawks drivers side header after I put on one of the new sets of thirdgen mounts. Before with wrong brackets one of the pipes was against a arm( they run close at this point. Now it dropped a 1/8 or so off it. If I pull the tranny mount I know it will drop it down even more. That tranny mount pushes the tranny tail so far up into the tunnel its not funny. Its definatly noticable over stock. I dont know why energy does this. They should make there mounts exactly like factory, tabs and everything. Tabs are angled funny, not as long. Maybe they cannot use the same design because of copyright infringement or something to that degree Idk. If you know the factory gm rubber motor mounts you can see that they are way beefier in terms of the tabs, and they fit right into the tabs like they were seperated at birth. These turd energy ones look like a monkey put them together. When you think about marketing I guess its good to make solutions to problems that dont exist to plant that seed in consumers heads. They already have poly mounts for new camaros and new zl1, like the factory put subpar mounts on a 500hp motor, wonder what the zr1 has? Energy suspension mounts? I doubt it.So enough of my ranting here is my questions:

Rubber tranny mount. Which one besides poly for heavy duty use that keeps the factory height? I know these tear easily. Thanks all. Take care.

 

One obvious problem with the factory design is using the trans tail housing as the connection point for the torque arm. UMI and Spohn, just to name two options, correct this by producing a rear X-member and torque arm set where the torque arm connects to the X-member, removing this added stress from the trans mount. Otherwise, I don't know of any ready solution. Honestly, if my ES rear trans mount is taller than the stock piece, I never noticed. Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention. I've installed several of the ES rear mounts on various customers' cars as a cure for the broken stock mount because of the high failure rate of that one piece. I have seen several cases where the rear mount had collapsed, losing much of its original height. Obviously, this isn't what you're seeing.

 

The thing that to me throws the moount off is even without the preload plate one the mount from es you still have that poly material from the mount sticking out of the bottom of the mount. I have heard prothane makes the correct height one for our cars with no preload plate. Ill look into that UMI mount as well. Thank you.

 

Can you post a pic of what the problem is??

 

If I can email you a pic can you put it up for me? I just took one one my galaxy.

Here is another shocking find. Stuck my factory replacement transmission mount back in but took measurements on the tranny threw the mount hole to the top of each mount and its quite a difference. Es mount with a dial caliper measures right around 1.91 inches without prload plate and mounted I noticed that the old mark from the factory nut and the es mount screw are in two different spots. About a 1/2 apart. Factory mount is a wopping 1.68 right around there. A noticable difference. And actually after looking at the kmember from the front the actual space between the pan and the k member increased. Meaning the drivetrain laid back down more towards the ground. I didnt measure but it was noticable enough to see just with a glance. Plus trying to squash the es mount by just putting it in a vice was not succesful enough to reproduce the effect of the tranny settling on it. Now the factory rubber on the other hand compresses a little with hand pressure, never mind a vice. So that 1.68 gap is actually wider after compression on the drivetrain on the mount.So I think in my mind the jurys decided on this one. Es tranny mounts are to big even without preload plate and noticably angle the drive train in the, i assume incorrect direction. Im actually surprised just by eye how much the rear of the tailshaft came down out of the tunnel. Next up is the mounts when I get them tm, I should get them in by weeks end. Really disgusted by this whole situation. I always felt the tranny mount kicked the tail up more than factory even without preload plate, but I guess I fell into that trap of drinking the aftermarket koolaid on this one. I can live with replacing this mount if it breaks again, now motor mounts are another story, and those who have done them like me on the car with the a arms in can all agree to that one Im sure.

So who can post my offending es motor mount pic? Thanks all.

 

Here are offending pics taken the best I can this is passenger side front most tab on mount near frame rail.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

Thanks all.

 

Wow, that is way off, isn't it? It's gotta be a "universal" part that fits MOST applications. Those would be applications where the diver's and passenger's side mounts are the same. As soon as you try to use it in a "unique" application like your 3rd gen with different pass. side mount.... you have issues. That's almost certainly got to be the cause of the problem.

Tranny mount.... I've used the ES piece before and I also noticed it was taller. Didn't cause driveline vibrations in my case so I left it on. But there's no doubt it's taller. You're not the only one who's noticed that.

 

Here's mine..
Pass


DR side

 

Yes those are the mounts I had on before same two numbers. They come up as mid seventies camaro units and they fit pisser on the poly mounts. Why does yours look so diff than mine? They are def different than thirdgen specific mounts. Put it this way your mounts ( my old ones) are equal to drivers side on thirdgen.Def pass is taller because it moved my exhaust over a half inch or so from those mounts.Doesnt my mounts look like crap on those es ones? Weird

 

Actually my last two numbers on my mount were 77 not 7 0and 71. Those I heard were also thirdgen mounts two even # was a certain side and odd was another.

 

Both of these clamshells are original to this car!
Both are the same L 2 R as far as the long bolt to the block mount surface measurement.
I'm not sure what poly bushings I have in the car because it was 15yrs ago when i put them in..

 

Ok here are the details everything factory is back in and done and did measurements befor e and after I took the poly mounts out. I measured off the k member to a spot I marked on the drivers side valve cover before I pulled out the poly mount. The measure mesurement on a dial caliper was 1.91. After the factory rubber engine mounts were put back in I got a measurement of 1.63 at the same spot measured the same way. So were are talking about a 1/3 of an inch. So in my mind the poly does raise the drivetrain. My super ram is not hitting my wiper motor anymore as well. Idk what to make of all this. Everything from the tailshaft of the tranny to the engine sit alot better than what it did before. Poly in my mind is not worth the headaches. Maybe its the es brand. Dont know if the prothane is a better quality piece. Wont be using there stuff anymore. Every car is different so making one mount for a bunch of vehicles isnt right in my opinion. If someone made a thirdgen specific mount Im there until then Im just staying with the stock stuff. Take care all.

 

could you please tell me what you did to cure the problem!thanks

 

No comments on this?? Always see post about poly mounts weather they raise engine or not as well as poly trans mount. Would like opinions on this as alot of guys have done the swap. Ttop350 has me intrigued with his factory setup. As does mrz28. Both have told me they have the drivers side on both sides with no ill effects. And I habe also read today somwhere that some camaros came with the #s Ttop350 have for clamshells one ending in 70 and 71, but both physically the same. I have , well a small clearence issue with my passenger side collector. Its up against the floor pan, about 5/16 space wondering if using another drivers side mount may give me some more space. But im real close on the pan to k member so idk. I have an aftermarket hamburger unit. Only thing that has me worried is the torquing of the motor. When reved it kicks to passenger side, but how much it moves is what I dont know. And if there is kick back somewhat when you let off the gas. I know my polys were solid, rubber is a little more forgiving. Opinions appriciated. Btw sorry for any of my spelling, did I ever memtion it a bear to type on a touch pad with big hands, technologys great but I need either a bigger pad than my samsung galaxy or a hand reduction, lol. Take care

 

Let those fresh rubber mounts settle for a few months. They do compess a little. I had a collapsed passenger side mount in my 454SS truck. Since I had the motor out it was the ideal time to put in a fresh (stock) one. After install the new set of headers was almost rubbing on the passenger side floor kick-panel. I actually slightly flattened the offending header tube to gain what I felt was appropriate clearance. I blamed it on the fact that my AFR heads have exhaust ports raised about 1/2" over stock. But a few months later and I realized that procedure was entirely unnecessary- the mount had "settled" enough to open up plenty of space all on it's own. I'm talking probably 1/4" or a little more.

 

Does anyone know if the mounts on the engine block side are third gen specific? I did a v6 to v8 swap on my 88 firebird and the engine seems to sit high. I used a chevy 350 out of a 78 cutlass and Napa brand k member mounts. Thanks

 

Yes they are.

 

 

Read this: https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/engi...ml#post6212802

 

Do you see how the passenger side top is more bowed same mounts es motor mounts

 

 

Is the backing plate missing here?