Hardness motor mounts

[DutchEdwin]

I bought some Motor mounts from Kanter.

The first set I received had one that was rock hard (see picture: the mounts with the holes on top marked 2016). The other rubber parts had a hardness like the rubber of a tire, like 97 Shore A or 60 Shore D)

I complained at Kanter about the rock hard one. They did send me a new one, however this one is very soft about 70 Shore A)

So my question,

How soft should the rear mounts be, hard like the rubber of a tire or soft.

Same question on the front motor mount, hard like the rubber of a tire or soft.

Thanks.

[Plymouthy Adams]

I have no clue what the original duromter reading was on that rubber..it should be pretty firm but yet at the same time you should be to flex (indent) it with a screwdriver tip without damage..too soft and you will flex your new mount and compress rather quickly..too hard and I vision a split mount...of the two..I would go with the two former joints with the most firm mounted on the passengers side of the bell as this is the one that feel the torque

[Don Coatney]

If I recall the top rubber (the visible part between the bell housing and cross

member was very hard. The lower part that is buried inside the cross member

was not as hard. There is an internal sleeve that limits the ammount of

torque you can apply.

[Arthur1947]

Has anyone ever used these? Only $20 for both sides.

http://www.speedwaymotors.com/pl/405,1199_Universal-Bolt-Through-Engine-Mount-Cushion-Kit.html

Best.

ARTHUR

[DutchEdwin]

I have no clue what the original duromter reading was on that rubber..it should be pretty firm but yet at the same time you should be to flex (indent) it with a screwdriver tip without damage..too soft and you will flex your new mount and compress rather quickly..too hard and I vision a split mount...of the two..I would go with the two former joints with the most firm mounted on the passengers side of the bell as this is the one that feel the torque

Tim, thanks for the answer, but I would rather go for two correct mounts. that's why I'm asking

You and Don mention, the rubber of the top part is very firm, indent with a screw driver, the lower one a bit softer.

I have one (let's call it mount A) that is like that. The other one is softer (mount , I can indent it with my fingers.

If I compare them with the original ones they are as soft as the soft one. I'm a bit confused here.

For the front mount, it is as firm as the firm mount A. I guess it should be like that. Can you confirm this?

[DutchEdwin]

Thank you all,

Just got a call from Kanter. They will try looking into the problem.

I'll keep you informed.

Edwin.

[James_Douglas]

I had a front and rear uppers re-done by Steele. They feel and look much better than the NOS ones I put in 2 years back when I put the new engine in.

I have not put them on the car yet, but will be doing it soon.

James

[Plymouthy Adams]

Edwin..I have no answer to why they be different and which is the better mount, I got my set from Mitchell Motors long ago when he was still doing swap meets..I do recall them being firm but not to the point that I would be nervous about them splitting..I agree they should be equal in a perfect world..however if you have two suppliers..or even two batches..there could be a difference..curing the rubber when molded is also part of the process...we used to mold lots of rubber pieces for the US Navy...But in reality if you got a firm and maybe a tad firmer..put them on..all should be well..the firmer as stated earlier would be n the side that take the brunt of the engine roll when under torque...anyway..given the option and likelyhood of not finding a match pair..I would personally do as I stated above without reservation..

[1948Skip]

Gentleman,

The proper method of checking the motor mount rubbers is outlined in the service manual on page 151 along with the assembled motor mount as pictured in a previous post.

Skip