67' Engine mount: Non locking vs locking

[Dave K.]

Question about engine mounts. I know the non-locking mount is the correct original style; but what is the physical difference or functionality of the non-locking versus the locking? What are most guys going with when replacing the mounts??

[Joe L.]

Re: 67' Engine mount: Non locking vs locking

Question about engine mounts. I know the non-locking mount is the correct original style; but what is the physical difference or functionality of the non-locking versus the locking? What are most guys going with when replacing the mounts??

Dave------

With the non-locking style motor mount, if the rubber separates from the steel frame of the mount, there is nothing to prevent the engine from lifting and, possibly, damaging the hood or other engine components like fan or fan shroud. The locking style mount is designed so that if the rubber separates from the steel frame, locking tabs on the mount's frame prevent the engine from lifting more than about 3/8". The locking style mount is wider and otherwise configured differently from the non-locking style mount. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND the locking style mount for all 1963-82 Corvettes. 1963-69 Corvettes were originally fitted with non-locking style mounts. The mount on the elft, below, is a non-locking style with a locking style on the right.


non-lockingmotormount.jpglockingmotormount.jpg

[Dave K.]

Re: 67' Engine mount: Non locking vs locking

Thx again Joe! Your help is always appreciated.

[Larry M.]

Re: 67' Engine mount: Non locking vs locking

Thx again Joe! Your help is always appreciated.

If you install the locking motor mounts, the lower ignition shields on the SB engine will not fit unless modified. Not a big deal, but something to be aware of. If I recall, GM (Chevrolet) issued a Service Bulletin on this and how to modify the shields. Probably in the archives, or someone may post for you.

If you stay with non-locking mounts, I believe Anchor has the best out there at this time. Not certain of a part number without checking my files. Let me know if needed.

Not certain if any issues with the BB engine.

Larry

[Michael C.]

Re: 67' Engine mount: Non locking vs locking

This is happened on my 67 BB. The driver side mount was broken. This cause the engine to left and hit the underside of the hood. I replaced mine with locking type. You will need a longer bolts than the stock one.

[Mike E.]

Re: 67' Engine mount: Non locking vs locking

There was recall for Chevrolet motor mounts in the early 1970's that involved millions of cars. It was probably the largest recall in history at the time. The Chevrolet X, A, F, B-bodies and light trucks were involved, I'm not sure why Corvette was not part of that recall.

If I remember correctly my Grandmother's Impala had the recall performed and the replacement parts included a cable assembly to prevent the engine from rotating as mentioned in the link below.

http://www.autosafety.org/chevrolet-motor-mounts

As Larry mentioned if you insist on Non-Locking the is Anchor Part # 2249 for SB's and is available from Rock Auto for a whopping $6.50.

There is a video that show some of the test they run on their mounts.

Mike

[Steven B.]

Re: 67' Engine mount: Non locking vs locking

I remember the recall. Seems to me that unless the mount had failed, the vehicle just got the cables. Pretty big deal at the time because of the linkage issues causing an engine to rev uncontrollably if memory serves.

Steve

[Lawrence S.]

Re: 67' Engine mount: Non locking vs locking

I just put the locking style on my L36.

[John H.]

Re: 67' Engine mount: Non locking vs locking

Here are the rework instructions for the V-shield "boomerangs" when the original engine mounts are replaced by the later (and slightly larger) locking mounts.


VShldRework800.jpg

[Domenic T.]

Re: 67' Engine mount: Non locking vs locking

I remember the recall. Seems to me that unless the mount had failed, the vehicle just got the cables. Pretty big deal at the time because of the linkage issues causing an engine to rev uncontrollably if memory serves.

Steve

I was installing cables on the left mount back in 1970 when I was a Chevy mechanic. I was told that it was because of all the reasons mentioned here. When the mount broke and the engine left side lifted it did pull the carb linkage wide open which caused it to continue to lift until the engine torque was lost. People were killed by run away cars usually leaving a stop sign or lite.
My question is: Do the safety mounts judge? I was going to install the cable on my cars as I remembered them. As I remember they were the first fix. Then came the safety mount.

Dom

[Joe L.]

Re: 67' Engine mount: Non locking vs locking

I was installing cables on the left mount back in 1970 when I was a Chevy mechanic. I was told that it was because of all the reasons mentioned here. When the mount broke and the engine left side lifted it did pull the carb linkage wide open which caused it to continue to lift until the engine torque was lost. People were killed by run away cars usually leaving a stop sign or lite.
My question is: Do the safety mounts judge? I was going to install the cable on my cars as I remembered them. As I remember they were the first fix. Then came the safety mount.

Dom

Dom------


The safety mounts are not original for 1963-69 Corvettes. So, I presume there is a judging penalty for such mounts on those year model cars. So what? Safety first. Accept the small judging penalty.

I'm sure the cables will suffer a judging penalty, too. Those were not factory installed on Corvettes.

[Larry M.]

Re: 67' Engine mount: Non locking vs locking

Dom------


The safety mounts are not original for 1963-69 Corvettes. So, I presume there is a judging penalty for such mounts on those year model cars. So what? Safety first. Accept the small judging penalty.

I'm sure the cables will suffer a judging penalty, too. Those were not factory installed on Corvettes.

[Domenic T.]

Re: 67' Engine mount: Non locking vs locking

Larry,
I still think I am able to get a few more tickets at 71. Had a cop pull me over and ask me what the he!! I was trying to do. I told him that I was tuning it thru the gears. He pulled his ticket book out, then said " this is to much to write" smiled and said "nice car, now get to he!! Out of here". Got away with that one with only a lecture.
On the cable note: If I do not find the ends to swage on the cable I may just use the safety mount on the left side. I agree with Joe, " safety first". Burn outs in reverse kept me busy replacing 4speed cases when they broke the reverse idler shaft mount out of the main case so I learned to behave when in reverse.

Dom

[John D.]

Re: 67' Engine mount: Non locking vs locking

Don't think I have ever done anything more than make a note in a judging situation with the safety mounts. Often easier to feel than see.

[John H.]

Re: 67' Engine mount: Non locking vs locking

Strictly from a factory originality perspective, Corvettes were never included in that engine mount safety recall because when the mount failed on a Corvette, it didn't jam the throttle wide open like it did on passenger cars.