Top motor mount for S Series

Not haveing that model in my stable, I don't know what "factory" was

that is the factory mount,

the mount pictured was made wrong. Motor mounts never rely on the rubber to steel bond to hold the engine, it will fail.

I'm sure International will appreciate that info,,,,,,,,,on an engine they produced hundreds of thousands of from 1950-mid 1960s with that exact mount on all of them.

Placeing rubber between the upper and lower mounting flange and bolting tight will not be good enough. It will transmit viberation into the mount and crack it with time.

good point, it will crack, said no Flathead Ford V-8 engine with a thru bolt mount ever,

I've had a lot of these motors in my stable, and while there is obviously some failure, I've never had a bad one, Lucky? an anomaly? who knows,

but since if this mount fails, the motor basically just sits right where it is ON TOP of the mount, I'd say that is qualified as "fail safe"

I just found something that may be worth looking into...
After posting a link in a different topic I browsed through the site and they "Re-vulcanize Motor Mounts".
They also do many other things people need.

http://www.maritimedragracing.com/then_ ... e___se.htm

Great find and resource! interesting slideshow of how they do it,

looks like they have custom made molds for each mount, I wonder if they have a mold that would accept the SD BD mount? or what the mock up charge would be?

I can understand what both of you are saying about a steel plate on the inside with bolts in it. But the original rubber vulcanized motor mount I took off that was broken in the beginning was designed just like this one.

Here is a picture of the original rubber vulcanized mount I removed with the steel plate top and bottom with the rubber in the middle that came apart. The bolts do not go all the way through the mount

"The original SD220 front motor mount was made like that". That is exactly why every one of them has failed or at least all of them I have seen. I don't have an installed photo but here is what I made to use on front mount of the SV345 I installed in my L122. MM

I guess you would be shocked to see the front motor mount on my R 160. When the previous owner swapped the SD240 for a newer BD 264 he went with the newer BD style front mount. A much simpler design although in this case it looks like he went the cheap route and just used a hockey puck . Seriously, that is what it looks like. And yet this truck works hard hauling gravel around the farm and no sign of failure yet. Not saying it is the way to go but just saying it works. I've had the truck 12 years now.

Not haveing that model in my stable, I don't know what "factory" was

that is the factory mount,

the mount pictured was made wrong. Motor mounts never rely on the rubber to steel bond to hold the engine, it will fail.

I'm sure International will appreciate that info,,,,,,,,,on an engine they produced hundreds of thousands of from 1950-mid 1960s with that exact mount on all of them.

Placeing rubber between the upper and lower mounting flange and bolting tight will not be good enough. It will transmit viberation into the mount and crack it with time.

good point, it will crack, said no Flathead Ford V-8 engine with a thru bolt mount ever,

I've had a lot of these motors in my stable, and while there is obviously some failure, I've never had a bad one, Lucky? an anomaly? who knows,

but since if this mount fails, the motor basically just sits right where it is ON TOP of the mount, I'd say that is qualified as "fail safe"

It is not fail-safe because it doesn't keep the engine in alignment once it has failed, the front is free to move.
Thru bolt mount are fine if rubber is both above and below the steel. IIRC the Ford mount is this way.
The fact that so many find these mounts broken point to a design flaw, the factory doesn't always get things right.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Carrier-Transic ... 270wt_1105
Is a type of failsafe mount I am talking about that looks like it could be adapted to the lower connection.
There are many sizes and configuations of this type of mount commercally avaiable.
This is not the 1st nor the last engineering blunder I've see on a IHC. They made good stuff, but that doesn't mean they always followed acceptable engineering practice. Sometimes their "short-cuts" work sometimes not.

Well whenever anyone starts with I have never seen one and don't know anything about it,,,,,,But.

that sets of my alarm, you did the same thing when giving advice on GRD-214 engines. Then you later admitted you've never seen or owned one.

I myself prefer not to employ the POMA scientific opinion approach,,,,,

Take from it what you want and leave the rest.
Just because the IHC did it doesn't make it right. Providing a solution that follows accepted engineering princeable doesn't require that you know what IHC did or didn't do.

Now, I've NOT had a chance to try to make a replacement front mount for the SD engine. BUT...

Here's a design with rubber in the middle, metal [even if it's just washers] on the top and bottom:
http://www.chassisengineeringinc.com/cushion-set/

Now...here's MY idea on how to make the front mount for the SD/BD:

Start with a center plate, with bolts welded to it in 4 spots, corresponding with the upper and lower mounting points. Above and below this plate, use a rubber pad for absorbing torque and vibration. THEN use another flat plate [or even just a couple of body washers where the bolts come through] on top and bottom, and attach nuts to the bolts to mount to both the engine and the engine mount plate. Using a "sleeve" around the bolts would actually make this a solid mount, and defeat the purpose of the rubber for torque and vibration absorption...IMHO. BUT...as long as the bolts and nuts don't tear up, you have the engine still mounted securely even if the rubber DOES fall apart.

NO, I haven't measured anything as far as how long/short the bolts would have to be, OR how thick/thin the rubber has to be. BUT to my way of thinking, as long as the bolts don't break, it's about as secure of a mount as you can have...AND it will absorb some torque and vibration, which is basically what you want a rubber-type engine mount to do.

Does this make sense to anyone besides me? Or am I way out in left field once again?

More or less what Lloyd and I were adviseing on page one.
A sleeve is used on mounts where rubber passes thru a hole and is clamped with a washer on top. It allows the bolt to be firmly tightened while limiting the "pinch" of the rubber. It prevent clamping the rubber so tight that it shears.
Look in a Atro catalog for common motor mounts or http://www.vibrationmounts.com/