motor mounts

[pjbizjak]

I have a 68 z/28 Camaro and my motor mounts are 3886466 and 3880701, my question is which one is the left(driver) and which is the right(passenger)?

[bertfam]

It doesn't matter. However, I can't find any reference to the 3880701.

Ed

[68camaroz28]

I have a 68 z/28 Camaro and my motor mounts are 3886466 and 3880701, my question is which one is the left(driver) and which is the right(passenger)?

Our 68's use 3886466 on both sides. Your 3880701 was used in later years I believe but not in 1968. Many of the Corvette houses sell the correct 3886466 made by the same supplier used by GM. That is what I used in our restoration and they matched exactly the same as originals I had. Here is an example. https://shop.docrebuild.com/1963-1969CorvetteMotorMountReproOfGM3886466.aspx

[68camaroz28]

It doesn't matter. However, I can't find any reference to the 3880701.

Ed

Ed, when I looked into this years past NCRS states it was used later. Per Joe Lucia he said "3886466 mounts were installed on 1966-1968 Corvettes and the 3967767 mount made its debut on the 1969 Corvette as per the assembly manual. According to Chevrolet Parts History GM # 3967767 was replaced with GM # 3980701 in Oct. 1969. GM # 3980701 was then removed from service on July 1970."

[68camaroz28]

Just to add, when I purchased mine I found them very inexpensive made by Anchor Industries, Inc. of Cleveland, Ohio and is who made them for GM. Anchor Industries #2249 seems to be made as the originals.

[68Zproject]

Chick, where do you purchase Anchor at?  Or are you saying that's who makes the ones in your link?

[bertfam]

Chick, I just did a search over on teh NCRS site 3880701 and nothing showed up. You sure about that part number??

And the Anchor motor mounts can be purchased at your friendly local auto parts store (FLAPS). AutoZone has them for $14.99 each, Pep Boys has them for $17.59 each and Rock Auto has them for $5.85 each.

Ed

[68Zproject]

Wow, thanks Ed.  Having worked for UPS I feel like I'm giving back all the money I made every time I have to get a part shipped.

[68camaroz28]

Chick, I just did a search over on teh NCRS site 3880701 and nothing showed up. You sure about that part number??

And the Anchor motor mounts can be purchased at your friendly local auto parts store (FLAPS). AutoZone has them for $14.99 each, Pep Boys has them for $17.59 each and Rock Auto has them for $5.85 each.

Ed

Sorry Ed, I'm thinking its a typo and 3980701 is what Pete has. That is what I have copied from Joe Lucia on NCRS and found it again. Agree in that don't believe there is a 3880701.

[bertfam]

Yes, 3980701 is the later "locking" mount but again, like the 3886466, it fits either side.

Ed

[pjbizjak]

Thanks guys, Butb believe me I have a 3880701 mount and it's bigger in size than the 3886466. I don't know if it's an original part? Something about the engine torque required the beefier mount? I'm in the process of assembly of my 302 and I wanted to install the mounts on the block ahead of time, so that's what my concern is.

Thanks Pete

[bertfam]

That's correct. The 3980701 mount is larger than the 3886466. The interlocking design is what makes it bigger. However, to be "correct" (if you care about that), you need to use the non-interlocking 3886466 mounts.

Ed

[Kelley W King]

If you want to be "correct" install the recall hold down kit for non locking mounts.

[bertfam]

If you want to be "correct" install the recall hold down kit for non locking mounts.

Depends on what your definition of "correct" is. "Factory correct" would NOT include the recall.

Ed

[68camaroz28]

Thanks guys, Butb believe me I have a 3880701 mount and it's bigger in size than the 3886466. I don't know if it's an original part? Something about the engine torque required the beefier mount? I'm in the process of assembly of my 302 and I wanted to install the mounts on the block ahead of time, so that's what my concern is.

Thanks Pete

Pete, the repro 3886466 being made in S. Korea (I believe) for the original supplier Anchor is a spitting image of the originals and well made. That is what I used for our 68 restoration. The 3886466 is what was in our 68's and used on both sides.
Hope that helps!

[pjbizjak]

Thank you all, but I did make a mistake on the larger mount it's 3980701 not 3880701, sorry. The mounts seem to be ok so I'm going to use them. I did buy the recall 'hold down' kit a while back. So if I want to be correct then I should buy 1 3886466 to match the one I have or buy a pair of new ones to be safe.?

Pete

[68camaroz28]

Thank you all, but I did make a mistake on the larger mount it's 3980701 not 3880701, sorry. The mounts seem to be ok so I'm going to use them. I did buy the recall 'hold down' kit a while back. So if I want to be correct then I should buy 1 3886466 to match the one I have or buy a pair of new ones to be safe.?

Pete

Pete, that is what I'd do, purchase a pair of the what appear to be 3886466. Seem to be excellent quality.

[67jeffreyt]

I use the factory mount recall cable torque strap, I don't trust the factory mounts with my 4 speed.  My paper for the recall is dated 1971.  Also you can see in my pic my engine is not factory correct on several items.

[KurtS]

The recall was a cheap & ugly band-aid. They didn't want to replace all those mounts, too much money.
The interlocking mounts are superior design and the only thing I'd run in a car. Would you run a nylon tooth timing gear just to be original, even though they fail??

[bcmiller]

Exactly! Safety and function always trump originality for me.

[Jon Mello]

So do you have a 3 point harness and an airbag?

[KurtS]

Huh? So you would run nylon toothed timing gears??

The recall was the largest ever in the auto industry and they cut corners to reduce the implementation cost. 
Interlocking was a design change that I believe was implemented in 69 (the other divisions already had interlocking). So that is a vintage design. And if you broke a mount in 69, that's what you'd get. The recall was 1972.
Airbags are kinda newer technology, not sure what you point is......

Your choices are:
run a poor design that all the other divisions chose not to use
run a poor design with a ugly bandaid so when it breaks, it doesn't bind up the throttle linkage (which is why they went to cable linkage in 70)
run a better design that noone can see anyway

[bcmiller]

So do you have a 3 point harness and an airbag?

Jon, not quite the same thing. You may have taken my reply out of context. We were talking engine mounts. Oh, and also timing gears.

I wasn’t applying my statement as universal for every topic. Sorry for any confusion.

[68camaroz28]

These Anchor produced original looking motor mounts being discussed for restoration have been selling for years and are a common sight. I have not but has anyone heard of any issues with safety concerning their use the past decade or pending legal litigation? If someone wants a correct restoration that is what is being used in many cases.
Time to end so Pete, there you have it! You decide and enjoy that 68 Z/28.....

[Jon Mello]

There are a lot of guys who come here to learn about originality and who also like to restore their car to how it rolled off the assembly line. To have two CRG guys bashing that stuff and dissuading somebody from using it, I don't get it. Yes, myself and others have used stock style motor mounts and timing gears/chains in some of our cars and not had a problem. If I was going to drive something hard and didn't have to have it 100% assembly line correct because I wasn't going to show it, the interlocking mount is a good way to go for insurance.

[Mike S]

 When I restore my '67 L35 recently I used new original style non-locking motor mounts (from LI Corvette) because they are very visible and I wanted the restoration to be as close to factory as possible despite the cars early design flaws. I certainly don't drive the car hard like I used to back in the 80's. When driving, I pamper it now so I don't really worry about the mounts breaking loose. The timing chain I used is the single link type so as to keep in-sync to type used back then, though it is not nylon covered (was the BB nylon too?)

Mike

[cook_dw]

The timing chain I used is the single link type so as to keep in-sync to type used back then, though it is not nylon covered (was the BB nylon too?)

Mike

Yes it was.  Green car had a nylon in it until it stripped out at 50K miles and killed all 8 exhaust valves.  That was in the early 80's.  I still remember dad pulling the heads in the driveway and me fetching sockets, ratchets & wrenches.


As for the comments on the safety and correctness this can be a slippery slope for many.  I am in a different group than the 2 sides forming and I think many will agree that as long as it is not seen once the restoration is complete I do not see an issue with upgrading internal comments.  That goes for engine, trans, diff and hell even the radio..   

[69Z28-RS]

There are a lot of guys who come here to learn about originality and who also like to restore their car to how it rolled off the assembly line. To have two CRG guys bashing that stuff and dissuading somebody from using it, I don't get it. Yes, myself and others have used stock style motor mounts and timing gears/chains in some of our cars and not had a problem. If I was going to drive something hard and didn't have to have it 100% assembly line correct because I wasn't going to show it, the interlocking mount is a good way to go for insurance.

I agree Jon...    Team Camaro is more suited to 'aftermarket updates'...   CRG should stay true to it's purpose and function!

[bcmiller]

Good grief. 

Make sure you also have late 60s oil and antifreeze in your engine plus period correct air in the tires.     

Do whatever you want.

[cook_dw]

I agree Jon...    Team Camaro is more suited to 'aftermarket updates'...   CRG should stay true to it's purpose and function!

I think CRG does stay true..  Next you will want to build a wall around CRG..  Nothing wrong with having diversity..  lol  sorry that was a political joke and I couldn't help myself.. 


Team Camaro.?.  Do people still go there?

[ko-lek-tor]

I agree Jon...    Team Camaro is more suited to 'aftermarket updates'...   CRG should stay true to it's purpose and function!

CRG does stay true..  Next you will want to build a wall around CRG..  Nothing wrong with having diversity..  lol  sorry that was a political joke and I couldn't help myself.. 


Team Camaro.?.  Do people still go there?

10-10 Camaro lives matter, and all others Camaros, as well. Except HO, which is better. ( just adding humor to keep this civil)

 

[cook_dw]

Does that make us Conservative Camaro people or Ultra Conservative??  Or even worse Camaro Supremacists!!??!!  Ohhh the horror!!!   CAMARO POWER!!  With my SS hood..




If you can't laugh at that then something is wrong..
 

[KurtS]

To have two CRG guys bashing that stuff and dissuading somebody from using it, I don't get it.

I will post my opinion and I've done so in the past and will continue. We talk about a lot of things that aren't original. So we shouldn't discuss base/clear paint?

The original motor mounts have been clearly stated.
I hate the usage of the recall cable. I always have and have said so many times. It's not factory and it's a bandaid added 3 years after the cars were produced.
I don't think the new original mounts are a big risk, but I won't run them.

[Jon Mello]

There are three ways to go with the motor mounts. Actually four if you want to go with a solid mount. There are valid reasons for using the original mount with no recall cable. Give the original poster the info and let him make the final decision. That is how I see it but obviously you don't. There's no need to bicker back and forth anymore about this as far as I'm concerned.

[Kelley W King]

You could run original type on the right and interlock on the left since the left was the problem. Have I broken an original left? yes , did it lift and pull the throttle , yes , did it scare me? yes, would I still run an original type on a top level restoration or survivor , yes.

[x66 714]

I see the late 69 had a "catch" added in or under the LH mount. I think I saw it on the 396 engine pages of the AIM...Joe

[169INDY]

Just to add, when I purchased mine I found them very inexpensive made by Anchor Industries, Inc. of Cleveland, Ohio and is who made them for GM. Anchor Industries #2249 seems to be made as the originals.

Rock Auto $5.85

[cook_dw]

Just to pile onto this.  For those that insist on using the original looking mount; what I have done in the past (which I done to my previous 69) was to drill, countersink and tap the 2 halves of the mount.  I know, I know..  "Then it isn't original!!"  But at least it'll have the appearance of originality once installed.  My personal preference is using solid mounts on the engine and a rubber on the trans.