Solid motor mounts for a 69 W200

[plymsatellite66]

Trying to come up with a solid motor mount to replace the rubber isolators on a 69 W200. Currently running the stock rubber isolators with one stud that bolts to the engine motor mount and the two smaller studs that bolt to the frame on the truck. While it would be nice to find a some already made I doubt we'll get that lucky so does anyone have any ideas for options on making a set? It would be simple to have a block of steel machined to the specs of the rubber isolator and for the studs I've considered drilling holes through the block to slip the proper sized bolts through and possibly having a recess hole drilled for the head of the bolt to sit flush then welding them in place so we can still tighten all three nuts down once the motor is sitting in place. The truck is going primarily see use in competition truck pulls so it won't see many street miles, using a stock cast iron bell housing and will keep the rubber isolator on the transmission.

Any other ideas or thoughts would be great.

thanks,
Corey

[OLD DODGE]

and will keep the rubber isolator on the transmission.

When you use solid motor mounts you must also use a solid trans mount. If you do not you can eventually break the motor mounts by allowing the trans to move. While you did not list what motor you have I'm assuming a V-8. I haven't bought any in 20 years but they used to be availble through Mr Gasket or MoPar Performance. Check with the mail order performance places and see what they have to offer and get the trans mount too.

[Gordon Maney]

Why do we want to use solid mounts?

[plymsatellite66]

The short of the solid motor mounts is trying to add some stiffness to the frame. The long story follows.

The class we were pulling in, which was a pump fuel class, has just been merged with the next class up, which is a race fuel class. I've been using desktop dyno to run the figures on the engine as we've progressed and in it's current state running pump fuel, it shows the engine is around 600 hp and 562 ftlbs-tq. One plan with the engine is to run a thinner headgasket and bring the compression up to 12:1 which shows an increase of 50hp and 30 ftlbs-tq. The other option is to change the pistons and stroke resulting in an increase of 80hp and 80 ftlbs-tq.

While I'm not saying the dyno software is 100% accurate, the numbers atleast give something to go off of. A few engine builders around don't think the numbers would be too far off anyway.

So, just when we about had the chassis and suspension under control running pump fuel, it's time to add more power which will more than likely bring back the hopping. We can now add weight to the front of the truck as long as it's behind the grill, so we're planning on adding another 500lbs up front which should help calm the front end down. The other plan is to stiffen the frame as we noticed a fair amount of flex in it last year which is where the solid mounts come from.


Here's one of the last runs of the year. This pull we had to run the rear suspension, most of the pulls we hit we run blocked rear suspension so there's no travel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJSB7TKShgQ

Here's the run after that in a higher class, but it run alot smoother and actually had better footage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8JO0otxBdU

The runs earlier in the year were pretty brutal and the bounce was in the front end.

[plymsatellite66]

Guess there is an earlier run on there. If you watch close off the line, the front starts bouncing first, then the rear gets out of control too. We actually broke the rear output bearing retainer on the NP205 on this run, going with a billet retainer this year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9332b2mFSA

[Gordon Maney]

What engine and transmission are you using?

[plymsatellite66]

Running a 440 with an NP435 and a divorced NP205