Original long bolts for 1969 L/78 motor mounts

[firstgenaddict]

Since the AIM shows the mount as a production part that would mean it would have been oversprayed with the engine paint... correct?
And the limit bracket was installed at the assembly plant so it would not have been painted.

 

[jacmac]

Are thse mounts L-78 specific??  AIM says L-34-35.  I just looked at mine & I have nothing but a 3 one half inch bolt X 7\8 with a lockwasher,no spacer ect! My engine is  L35  04C

[firstgenaddict]

No the ones in the beginning of the thread apply to all 69 Camaro BB's L34 L35 L78 and L72.

Yours most likely is the replacement style with the Interlocking tabs so the engine will not come off the mount when the rubber deteriorates.  The originals broke because the L braket with the long bolt and spacer were not introduced until later in production.

 If I am not mistaken Chevrolet changed to the interlocked style (safety mount) in 1970 which is the one pictured below which is still sold by GM.

[JohnZ]

Since the AIM shows the mount as a production part that would mean it would have been oversprayed with the engine paint... correct?

Nope. "Production part" means that it's the same part used for the base engine condition, installed at the car assembly plant; anything that was part of the engine from the engine plant would be normally be called out as "part of engine assembly".

[nuch_ss396]

No the ones in the beginning of the thread apply to all 69 Camaro BB's L34 L35 L78 and L72.

Yours most likely is the replacement style with the Interlocking tabs so the engine will not come off the mount when the rubber deteriorates.  The originals broke because the L braket with the long bolt and spacer were not introduced until later in production.

 

I had not heard this before.  Anyone know if this is accurate and more importantly when exactly "later in production" came to be for the '69 BB Camaros?

Nuch

[70L34]

Has anyone narrowed down the timeframe when this stop bracket / bolt assembly was installed? I have the bracket and bolt from a 1969 350/255hp Impala that is identical to the 'Z/28' RPO graphic in the assembly manual that's posted earlier in this thread. Pic below:

[john302]

The 1969 z/28 left side mount is different then the right. My very original 11d 69z never had the engine removed. So I know the mount is original to the car.Only one other person that I know has one of these mounts. He also restored a very original car and the mount is the same as mine. John Allouez Restorations

[mark x22]

Is the mount that uses these brackets shorter than a regular mount to allow for the thickness of the bracket , or does the engine set higher ? How thick is the bracket ?

[firstgenaddict]

Tony,
Do you happen to know the production date of the Impala?
Were the old type motor mounts on the car?
The one pictured earlier is on the 10D Lemans Blue Z28 purchased from you.

James

[70L34]

James,
I think the Impala was an early June of 1969 build. It must have had the old style mounts on it but at the time I didn't have the foresight to check.

[rszmjt]

The 1969 z/28 left side mount is different then the right. My very original 11d 69z never had the engine removed. So I know the mount is original to the car.Only one other person that I know has one of these mounts. He also restored a very original car and the mount is the same as mine. John Allouez Restorations

Quote - So sorry to all the Z/28 & L/48 guys here.  Until I got into the research on this topic, I didn't know that the these cars used a similar stop bracket.  Odd that
a thru bolt and nut assembly was used on the Z & SS and the big block used the threaded receiver.  Are there any Z/28 or L/48 owners here that can post images of
their motor mount components?  I'd like to see them for comparison purposes.

OK, Here you go. I am missing the bracket and spacer.

Hope this helps. Mike.

[firstgenaddict]

RE: The top mount in this NEW set of photos. Is this the 69 HP Small Block Left hand (drivers) motor mount?
Shauger's L48 RS/SS with 14k miles has the original mounts on it. The right is the same as the photos above, however my photos do not clearly show the left one. I requested in the Yenko boards, however it would be great if someone could get some photos of his.

[rszmjt]

RE: The top mount in this NEW set of photos. Is this the 69 HP Small Block Left hand (drivers) motor mount?
Shauger's L48 RS/SS with 14k miles has the original mounts on it. The right is the same as the photos above, however my photos do not clearly show the left one. I requested in the Yenko boards, however it would be great if someone could get some photos of his.

Yes this is the HP 302 left hand mount. What is weird is that if you look at the AIM sheet it shows that a bolt is used from the front and threads into the mount. This mount has the bolt comes in from the back and threads into a nut that is part of the mount.
 Unless there are 2 different mounts 1 for the antilift bracket shown above and another version. It appears that if a person used the Big Block Bracket it would work with this mount. ??

[firstgenaddict]

It's understandable for the mount to be as shown, because if the car had power steering it would be difficult if not impossible to insert the Motor mount to frame stand bolt.

They appear to be the exact same mount, however the left has a recess for the bolt in the "chunk" of rubber and the attached nut.

[Steve Shauger]

RE: The top mount in this NEW set of photos. Is this the 69 HP Small Block Left hand (drivers) motor mount?
Shauger's L48 RS/SS with 14k miles has the original mounts on it. The right is the same as the photos above, however my photos do not clearly show the left one. I requested in the Yenko boards, however it would be great if someone could get some photos of his.

I just happen to see this thread referencing my car. Anyway my car is typical in that the left MM is different from the right and the bolt is inserted from the rear. My car is a 4C without bracket. Pictures of mount below...

Link to a short write-up:     http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=432052#Post432052