<VV> LM mounts

[UltraMonzaWest at aol.com]

WOW!   Glad I've never had to replace one!.....I thought it was just 4  
bolts...2 nuts......ggggggg


Matt Nall / Patiomatt / WCUH / Mr. DeckRug
69 Monza Cpe., 66 Monza vert, 65 Crown v8 Cpe.
Somewhere between Reno, NV and Coos Bay, Or.
http://members.aol.com/patiomatt    Corvair Info!


In a message dated 3/12/2006 4:30:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
kirbyasmith at gwi.net writes:

> To follow up on my previous comments...
> 
> Clarks sent me a replacement mount and generously included a new 
> figure-8 washer, which easily fit the mount.  The old washer was very 
> tight on the new mount also, but freer than on the mount I sent back, 
> and would have required significant reaming to work.  It is possible 
> that deformation from the nuts was a factor.  I did have to do a bit of 
> filing on the sides of the slots in the cradle to get the mount to pass 
> through it.  Hence, I still suspect the center-to-center spacing.
> 
> Anyway, in preparation for mounting, I slightly slotted the wide side 
> mounting holes just in case, and milled a much larger slot in the top to 
> clear the rear panel support.  It is true that once loaded by the engine 
> weight, there is enough drop to mostly clear the support, but where the 
> support curves toward the rear it would be very close to the original 
> slot corner, and installation unweighted would be more difficult, I expect.
> 
> Measuring from the top of the mount to the rear frame, the unloaded 
> dimension was 1.415.  Loaded, but undriven, it is 1.115.  The 
> measurement is taken on the driver's side, about 3/8 inch from the rear. 
>  I do not think the mount upper surface is closely parallel to the top 
> of the frame, so there may be differences depending on where it is 
> measured.  The thickness of the mount top I measured to be 0.212, which 
> may be subtracted from the above numbers to compare with the under 
> surface to frame dimension of an inch Padgett previously reported.
> 
> This mount raised the rear of my engine at least an inch.  The seal gap 
> at the rear is now slighly narrower than at the front.  I guess the rear 
> mount had seen better times.  I just can't recall how peaked it looked 
> when new.  My OEM mount is fairly flat across the top when loaded (or 
> unloaded, for that matter).
> 
> Padgett: In your instructions you call for 60 lb-ft of torque on the 
> lock nuts attaching the mount to the engine cradle, consistent with my 
> 1965 shop manual.  However, my 1966 supplement calls for 30 lb-ft in the 
> exact same table.  Is this a known discrepancy with a consensus as to 
> which is correct?  While I believe the nuts and bolts can take the 
> higher torque, I see no reason why they should need it.  The nuts are 
> locknuts, and ahouldn't need torque for retention.  Most forces put on 
> the interface are taken by the rubber mount, so I would expect shear and 
> other effects that might work the interface to be mild.  Opinions are 
> welcome, since I'm only guessing here.
> 
> kirby
>