re 87 era mounts
I like several others have more engine at idle vibration than we want/need. There appears to lots of misinformation out there as I searched this and other forums. My factory mount was installed like "^" which is what most people recommend. At that point, I felt I was still being tenderized for a pig roast. So I needed a different view on the problem. Here is a picture of the "V" in the opposite position from RockAuto.
I collected up my seven passanger mounts (Mopar,polybushings and ukn) and guess what??? The pipe through the rubber is positioned in different three places by over 1/2". WTF. So I read Gary D. statement on Dodge Garage
Makes sense to me that engine level is the important thing to watch here. I measured the distance from the flats on the body (where the mount bolts to) to the centre of the bolt that goes through the mount itself and is rigid mounted to the engine. I lowered both the Sundance and CSX with centre of the bolt at or lower than the body mounting flange and both were better than before, vibration wise. Just for fun, I measured this distance on a newer style liquid mount I removed from a 91 RS Shadow, the distance was 1/4" lower between the mounting flange and the bolt centre but I am unsure if Ma Mopar changed the flange height on the 91+ body.Mount mistake number two- The passenger side mount is directional as well. See the arrow? The insert has been installed upside down. Engine is now ----ed way up in the air AND vibrating like crazy. Just great for the axles. Also there was 2 1/4 thick washers under the mount when you took it off- put them back. Chrysler figured out that they could minimize torque steer by having them there..
What is the optimum distance?