G-Body Rear Motor Mount Needed?

[LaserDad]

I just got done pulling 2 - '93 Daytona K-frames, from a P&P yard. What surprised me was that there wasn't a rear motor mount bracket, on either one. I have never seen that before and was wondering if it was safe to eliminate the rear mounts on my 2.2L T2 cars. Both of them have all poly motor mounts, so maybe they are strong enough to handle the load.

Neither of the '93's were turbos, so maybe that makes the difference. Eliminating the bobble strut would free up some space. Otherwise, I will have to weld on new rear brackets.

[tryingbe]

Auto cars don't come with the rear mount, manual cars do.

[iangoround]

You found Daytonas in a P&P? Where? Auburn?

[cordes]

I would keep them on there for sure. There's a ton of stress on the front motor mount in a 5 speed car without the bobble strut. Especially with a grabby clutch, solid mounts etc.

[LaserDad]

There's an 89 in Auburn and 2 - 93's in Horseheads. All are automatics, but only Auburn has the turbo. I already pulled the '93 K-frames and the '89 rear end.

[Johnny]

Add the mount! That way any auto k-frame will work.

[LaserDad]

I have always hated the amount of space that the rear motor mount has occupied. It seems to always be in the way of doing work behind the motor.

This is my first attempt to improve it, by cutting up the old bobble strut and welding an eye to the trans end. The K-frame end still uses the original Polybushing mount.

Lower Motor Mount - mod_small.jpg

It almost seems too simple, so let me know if you see a problem with it.

So far, it feels fine.

[turismolover22]

The only issue I can see, if it is an issue, is it turns the twisting motion of the engine intoa pulling motion, instead of a pushing motion. Im not sure how the k frame would handle the different load direction, but if it works and doesnt tear it apart, sweet!

[Johnny]

not sure how the k frame would handle the different load direction,

K frame can handle it if the U bracket welds will hold.
Innovative idea!!

[jonnymopar]

When I did my 2.4 conversion, I had the tabs welded to the K-frame because my car was originally automatic. I had planned on using the stock SRT-4 turbo setup and wouldn't you know it, the hot-side pipe travels down right where the bobble strut goes. My setup is as follows:

2.4L bolted to a 555
Polybushings solid poly passenger mount bolted to a TooManyNeons adapter
Polybushngs filled transmission mount
2.4 Caravan front mount that's metal-to-metal with the body

So far, burnouts and wheel-hop in a heavy car haven't broken that setup in 40,000+ miles. I'm not putting down ridiculous horsepower with a stock SRT turbo, but I have been pleasantly surprised at how much abuse this particular configuration has taken with only one actual torque-bearing mount.

Furthermore, my two previous cars were stock 2.5 non-turbo. I was at the age where doing burnouts everywhere is mandatory, even if you have a double-digit amount of horsepower like I did. One car had a very worn bobble strut that you could practically push in with one finger, and the other one didn't have one at all. No engine mount problems with those cars either. Your results may vary of course, but I've had no problems, even under moderate power (250+whp) only using a front mount.

[LaserDad]

OK, I have just finished 2 track days, with the new lower mount, and believe that this is a huge improvement over the normal rear mount. The engine isn't rocking nearly as much as it used to. I have polybushings on all the mounts, including the rear. Time will tell if the frame starts to fatigue, but I'm happy.
Attachment 51605

[GLHNSLHT2]

looking at the pic you posted in post #7 where's the triangular bracket that goes from the back of the block to the bolt you used on the trans for the "bobble" strut? Did you put it back and just have it off for the purpose of the pic? That's a pretty important piece to have IMO to keep the trans and the block together each time you press the clutch. Would also transmit some of the strut forces to the block as well instead of just the trans.

[LaserDad]

I don't recall ever seeing a bracket there. To be honest, there hasn't been one there for the last 8 years. I guess I'll have to hunt one down.

[Dr. Johny Dodge]

it's not so much a mount as it is an antirotational link

manual cars have a bobble bracket
this prevents the top of the motor from rotating forwards and keeps the diff from lifting when the clutch is let out in reverse

a std trans with a clutch can generate a lot more shock at the mounts than an automatic

I know some guys will report they ripped the bracket off their K frames in their modded cars but that dosen't mean so much as it's easy peezy to do with a stock motor in reverse when trying to get outta a snow pile at the end of the driveway as a guy who used to live around the corner from me did

some early 525 84G bodys had a link like an L body one
also some 87 K cars had a link like an L body one too that fits the 520 / 555 trans with a different set of brackets - maybe even fits the 523 and 568's but I don't know that for sure

[bfarroo]

The only thing I would worry about is all the stress is being put on that one bolt and case location instead of the 4? (can't remember off hand how many hold the strut to the trans) This could possibly cause this area to fatigue and crack over time. Maybe make a mount that ties multiple mount points in?

[supercrackerbox]

I don't recall ever seeing a bracket there. To be honest, there hasn't been one there for the last 8 years. I guess I'll have to hunt one down.

If you need one, I have a stack of them.