Transmission mounts

[jensenracing77]

What is everyone doing for the rear transmission mount? I have not looked it up but is the 4 speed transmission mount different than automatic?

[62 Cutlass Convert]

I don’t know but I will say the automatic crossmember slides forward and mounts up to the forward manual trans bolt holes.

[Jim Noel]

From my records, the automatic trans mount was slightly taller than the manual trans mount. The parts book also shows different numbers for the mounts. For replacements I have used Steele Rubber to make new ones from the old one.

[blockquote]BBCode you used is not allowed.[/blockquote]

Attachments:

You must be logged in to access attached files.

[jensenracing77]

That is interesting, I picked up an NOS trans mount from Fusick several years ago when we rebuilt the engine in the automatic car. It came rounded like the one you show for 4 speed car. I wonder if I have the wrong one in it now. Maybe I need to find one for the automatic car and use that one in the 4 speed car? I will look at mine closer and go from there. I have not looked at the one in the 4 speed car but I would think it is bad after all these years.

Was it very expensive to have them make a new one?

[macf85]

If you’re interested, my parts guy matched my old one up with I believe a mount from 1970 thru 1972 Chevelle. It was the same height and bolted directly to the trans. The part was only $7.40 back in 1998. Also, if I remember correctly, I had to slightly enlarge the bolt holes in the crossmember and get larger diameter mounting bolts. Center to center was thew same. My receipt only has part #2378 but I don’t have the manufacturer.
If you want it exact, per Jim, re-vulcanizing is the way to go unless you can find an N.O.S. part.

[jensenracing77]

I was wondering about that. I know the T-10 transmission was in many cars and figured something matches up. I believe the Muncie 4 speed also used the same one. I googled that number with the Anchor brand and is still a good number. Anchor makes 99% of all mounts I think. Thanks

[joe_padavano]

I’m a little confused here. The illustration in the parts book calls the rubber mount a “Rear Mounting Assy” in Group 4.081. I don’t see that part in either the page that Jim posted or the one from the Oct 1962 revision book that is available on line. The “Support” is the actual crossmember, and there are different P/Ns for 3spd, 4spd, and AT. The parts book shows a “Bracket (2 req’d) in 4.081, but the illustration shows them in Group 4.083 (which doesn’t exist in the listing pages). Also, the brackets are only used on the AT crossmember – the MT is hard mounted to the frame rails. Clearly this is a disconnect in the parts book.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to access attached files.

[jensenracing77]

The manual cross member is also rubber mounted but it is a different bushing setup than automatic.

[joe_padavano]

[quote quote=13800]The manual cross member is also rubber mounted but it is a different bushing setup than automatic.[/quote]

Could it be that only the three speed crossmember is hard mounted? The illustration I posted shows the hard mount as “synchromesh” and the isolated as “hydramatic”, but that’s an early parts book illustration and may only include the 3spd and RH5. The book does show three different P/Ns for crossmembers (3spd, 4spd, and AT). In any case, neither parts book lists P/Ns for the actual rubber trans mount.

[Jim Noel]

The first style transmission cross member for manual transmission 3 speed and “maybe” early 4 speed transmissions was a solid, with no rubber side attachment brackets, cross member. The second style manual transmission that was used for 4-speeds and maybe 3-speeds, from that point of introduction on, had a single rubber mount on the ends of the cross member. The automatic transmission cross bar used two rubber mounts on both ends of the cross member. Pics of all three styles shown below.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to access attached files.

[Author]

Posts