OldIHC

After taking my motor out I realized that the top motor mount was broken again. Not to mention I haven't even ran the engine yet. This is just from the weight of the engine. I am going to question this mount and how it's designed. Your feedback is welcome. Can a person make this top mount connection a solid bolted mount and use a larger and taller rubber motor mount on the bottom of the horseshoe mount? The bottom mount I am thinking of is the mount used on the early ford pickup biscuit style motor mounts such as this one at Dennis Carpenter.

http://dennis-carpenter.com/engine-mount-pad/p/48TR-TD-9314/

I see your top mount, got a question, do you have a "center" metal plate that the bolts come through? If not, I do not see how the bolts would stay in the "rubber". I do not remember who, but I thought that the center metal plate with bolts attached was used by one of the other folks who made a motor mount. I could be mistaken.

Lloyd,
This mount was the same mount that was originally made by the member your thinking of. The first mount broke that I received that was made in the white polyurethane. I remade the same mount using the same metal plates but with different bolts with a larger diameter head and black polyurethane of the same hardness. This one broke just sitting in the garage over a years time by the weight of the engine and not by being pulled apart.

I don't really see why it wouldn't work, so long as everything clears the bracket. Hell, you could probably get away with cutting up some old tires and running a bolt through them for the rubber part. Almost everything else mounted to the frame is set up that way in those trucks from the factory.

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

Not haveing that model in my stable, I don't know what "factory" was, but general engineering knowledge says all engine mounts should be "fail-safe" in that if the fail, they will still keep the engine in position even if they will not dampen viberation.
The one you show does not meet this. You would need a center plate that both the set of bolts are attached to with rubber inbetween the upper are lower plates.
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.
A motor mount must be a sandwitch with rubber on both sides of the connection.
There are many commercailly made mounts that could be adapted that are both damping and fail-safe.

Adding to Cornbinder's post, there should be steel sleeves through both rubber pieces and the steel in between. This allows the bolts to be torqued and not just squeeze the rubber, as one piece of rubber is compressed the opposite rubber recoils, absorbing the vibration but bolts always staying tight.

You are right, Thanks Mike, I forgot that part.

I can understand what both of you are saying, but, that is not how a mount for the 220 is made. the bolts are offset from each other, therefore no sleeve can go completely through from one side to the other. At least on the three that I have taken off. There also was no steel plate on the outside of the rubber(top or bottom) The steel plate is in the middle of the rubber with a set of bolts going to the upside down Y yoke and a set of bolts (offset from the others) going to the motor. the bottom legs also had some square rubber pads between them and the frame.
I would be interested in seeing what that one outfit charged for re-vulcanizing rubber to an original steel piece. As long as your threads on the bolts are good it should work well.
Just my thoughts

Looking at the pictures, I would suggest moveing the damping portion to the bottoms of the "legs" where they bolt to the frame. It looks like there is enough room to use a conventional fail safe type sandwich mount.
As the mount also sets the angle of the engine and transmission in the frame, care must be taken to make sure this angle is kept.
The dis-advantage to this is it places the mounts in line with crankshaft, which is not the ideal placement for them.
Regardless, the mount pictured was made wrong. Motor mounts never rely on the rubber to steel bond to hold the engine, it will fail.
Lloyd, the mount you describe was what I was trying to get at in my 1st post. Both bolts go thru a plate in the center, makeing it fail-safe, with rubber between it and the two steel frames. (engine and yoke)