Motor plate, strap or solids?

[turbohunter]

There is a thread on the other forum that talks about motor plates.
Got me thinking, at what point do you start worrying about using them?
I know there is a pretty fast blue mustang here that doesn't seem to use them.
Obviously you want to limit your engines travel.
I have a set but honestly I'm thinking about cutting them up a bit and just using the front for motion control.
Like to hear what the real world experience is.

[jayb]

Motor plates are for tube frame cars, in my opinion.  I've always gotten by with stock mounts and a steel strap of some sort to limit engine travel.  Never broke a mount, although I also never use any really old ones...

[turbohunter]

Was hoping you'd say that.
Trying to keep from over engineering and just get it on the track.

[thatdarncat]

I don't have an answer for your question, but the topic has come up recently with my racing buddy Bradley's '67 Mustang. He has run a couple somewhat "mild" 351W's over the years and has gone mid 11's. But the competition at the track goes quicker every year and low 10 second cars seem like the median in Pro ET now, and many cars running in the low 9's & better. So a couple years ago he decided to step up his game and had our engine guy build him a 714 hp Windsor. He has been getting a lot of conflicting advice at the track, including predictions of "gloom & doom" by some of running this motor in his Mustang. He's looked around some for a "roller" racecar to stick it in, but nothing he has come up with of interest or that he can do a deal on. So back to plan A and into the Mustang it goes. Also a few years ago he did a bunch of work to the car, including bringing it to a recommended chassis shop where a 8.50 cage was installed, rearend braced, etc. so some of the ground work has been set. Later this month we're bringing the car back to the chassis shop for a few more upgrades, one of which may be motor plates. I think he plans to leave it up to the chassis shop on whether to stick with the stock mounts or go to a motor plate. I'll be there when we drop it off so I'll try to remember to report back here on what they say. Unfortunately it will be a while until it comes back and the shop is about a 100 miles away, so I probably won't get pictures until the work is done.

One other consideration for using motor plates instead of stock mounts is to free up more space for headers. Taking those mounts out of there eliminates some compromises.

[FordEver]

I have use an old school torque strap[turn buckel] on my 67 FE Fairlane, stock type chassis. Today i drilled a 3/8" hole through the motor mount and frame adapter to sandwhich the rubber.  Iv,e seen plates from the front off the head or water pump to the unit body frame , nice to free up some room when doing header on/off. I may try that next.

[Nightmist66]

We've only ever used a torque strap. We put one on everything. We have also drilled the mounts to put a bolt through and "pin" it, so it can't separate.

Here's the one I made for my car. I used a 3/8" solid rod end through the sway bar hole, 3/8" heim joints and some hex stock steel.

[machoneman]

Motor plates look cool but really don't add anything. The primary reason highly modified door slammers long ago went the plate route is, as mentioned, to free up header clearance and/or allow one to dump the Saginaw style box for a rack and pinion. Some mighty fast cars out there with modified stock mounts and a nice tube or flat stock limiter.

One often btw adds weight to a plate car as one really needs to add a front/rear limiter bar to prevent the engine from sliding fore or aft on launch or braking. Add up all those parts and they do tend to weight more than OEM stuff. But, if you are having totally custom made headers unemcumbered by the OEM steering box or OEM motor mounts, go the plate route for sure. 

[ScotiaFE]

When you get to hard mounting the engine you start feeling pretty much every piston stroke.
It's fine for a 1 minute of run time to make a pass.
Not so much fun on the highway for 3 or 4 hours.
I use a strap similar to Jared's even then you can feel that the engine is strapped down.
The harder you nail it down the more vibration you are going to feel.

[turbohunter]

Kevin I kinda think that I'm taking your buddy's route. Get it on the track and make it faster/better every year.
One question....... where the hell is he going to fit that oil pan in a mustang?? That thing is huge.
Seems like that's a track scraper from the word go.

Jared, That's about where I'm at. I've been using bolted mounts for years. That and a nice strap/bar seems like it would be fine at first for the 10s.

Howie, it's a track car with occasional street work. All good.

Bob, header clearance is a good thought. I've got a limiter bar also. I think I may just put them away for future use though.

[Rory428]

Just curious what type of "Doom & Gloom" worries these people have. DalePs 67 Mustang has gone mid 9s, my Fairmont high 9s, my SB 85 Mustang low 10s, and my buddys 64 Comet has gone high 9s, all with solid stock type motor mounts, also all sticks, normally dropping the clutch at 6000+ RPM, with no issues. All also have stock front chassis. On a full tube chassis car, the motor plate would help tie the front frame rails together, not sure how much that would apply with stock sheet metal frame rails and shock towers. I suppose that eliminating the side mounts would free up room for custom made headers, but with the stock chassis and steering box, doubtful most people would elect to spend a bunch of money and time to have custom headers made, when much cheaper "off the shelf" headers are available. Also with a front motor plate, a mid plate should really be employed, which could be a challenge when the stock firewall and frame rails are retained.