Hi Paul-

We got the parts back from the machinist & went

out to try a test-fit.

There is one new issue I want to get some feedback on.

Relocating the starter to the 9-oclock / 3-oclock

position per your

CADdrawing has resulted in one of the engine mount

bolts being

covered by
the body of the starter.  It is the bolt

immediately above the

starboardS-Beam mounting bolt.  (The bolt which

does not go into a

tapped hole on
the block).

After pondering a variety of solutions, we've come

to the

conclusion to
simply eliminate that bolt.  Looking at the bolt

pattern on the other

side of the engine, we see a bolt to bolt distance

which is even

greaterthan the distance created by leaving out

the bolt we

propose.  Also --
since this bolt does not go into a threaded hole

on the block, we

do not
believe it adds much in the way of stiffness to

the mount connection.

Finally -- even if we were to use the bolt, we

could not get a spacer

behind it, since the bolt for the starter motor is

very close near by,

as well as the starter cover.  Net result -- the

spacer would

interferewith properly mounting the starter.

If we must use this bolt, our plan would be to

mill out a pocket in

thestarter body for the bolt head to fit into.  We

believe this is

do-able.

Comments?  (No, I didn't bring my digital camera

-- thus no pics)

Mark & Mark

The trick is to use that bolt to mount the starter

and then drill

a hole in the starter flange for the bolt above

it. Al Gietzen

came up with this great idea. Here is a picture of

his set

up.

Paul Lamar

Any comments regarding the pros and cons of having
the motor mounts in the horizontal instead of
vertical position in this installation?

Scott Gettings

The main vibration generator what there is of it is torsional from
the engine firing. Twice per rev so you want the soft motor mount
in the axial (Horizontal) direction.  Vertical would be in the radial direction.

Here are the stiffness curves for the Barry rubber bushings.

Paul Lamar

Correction.

Here is the correct radial deflection chart.
When I scanned it in the first time the x axis and y axis numbers were
near impossible to read so I replaced them using xpaint.
I got the x axis numbers wrong on the radial chart.
It is .01 .02 .03 etc etc instead of .1 .2 .3 etc etc.
Big diff.

Paul Lamar