Someone needed to verify motor mounts placement, 1950

[rghobden]

How are the motor mounts attached to the flanges on your engine block?  My 1950 Cadillac has the left motor mount attached on the rear side of the engine flanges  but the right mount is attached on the front of the engine flanges.  Is this correct?  It doesn't look right to me!  Would someone please check their mounts for me and verify the setup?  Thanks.  Russ Hobden #1235

[rghobden]

I should have researched this forum to start with.  Someone in 2005 had this same question and it was verified then that the mounts are correct as stated above.  Thanks anyway.  Russ Hobden  #1235.

[kav]

Hey , you helped me out . I didn't take notice when I pulled mine out . Thanks  stuart

[rghobden]

I asked John Washburn who is currently doing the engine rebuild of a 1952 in the Self-Starter, if he had this problem too.  He said that he did struggle with it but could find nothing about it in any Cadillac manuals or supplements for several model years afterwards.  He noticed the bolt holes in the frame were over size and deduced that was to allow for alignment.  So he put both of  his motor mounts in front of the flanges and everything seemed to be Okay.  On my car, only the passenger hole was enlarged. 

I guess we won't know sure which way is right unless we find someone that has a car with an engine that has never been removed. 

Russ Hobden, #1235

[Dan LeBlanc]

On the 390 engine they are offset this way, so it would make sense that the 331 is the same. The flanges on the block are offset and installing them both with the same orientation will cause the engine to sit askew causing alignment issues with the rear transmission mount.

[John Washburn CLC 1067 Sadly deceased.]

This is an interesting topic.

The motor mounts, per my investigation, seem to have been installed at the factory as listed in this thread.

We have installed the mounts behind the flange on both motor mounts on the 1952 engine rebuild.

Everything lines up correctly so I believe the oversize holes in the frame were made to allow various ways to install the mounts. It might be possible that the factory installation method was used to allow easy installation. It is possible that if we had done this as stated in this thread it would have been easier to install the engine without so much pushing and such.

I have also replaced/rebuild the engines on my 1949, 1953, and 1956 and have never worried about the motor mount installation and have never had a problem (over 20 years on the 53 and 56).

So we plan to leave it as it on the 52.

John Washburn

[Jay Friedman]

My 49's engine has been out several times in the 30 years I've owned it.  Like Russ Hobden's 50, the motor mounts have always been installed with the driver's (left) side mount attached on the rear of the engine flange and the passenger's (right) mount attached on the front.  When dealing with the motor mounts I've wondered what the reason for this was, but from what John says it probably doesn't matter.

[Roger Zimmermann]

If you look at the RH and LH side of the engine, the ribs to attach the mounts are placed the same way relative the the begin of the wall. However, due to the fact that one bank is further forwards than the other, the "play" with the motor mounts compensate for that because the holes in the frame are not asymetrical like the engine.