7X Motor Mounts? Found in box.

ski4life65

RL Chilton

Yes, that's precisely what they are.  307543 is listed in the Severe Usage Parts section of the Master Parts Catalog.  Oddly, it lists the years as 48-54 (no jet).  

Lee ODell

GOOD FIND.

SEVERE USAGE PARTS LIST - Section Z in Master Parts Catalog 1948-1954

307574 Kit-engine front mounting, consists of 2-30753, 2-307544, 2-GM181413, 1-GM451014, 4-171096, 2-307664, and 2-307660


307543 - - Mounting-upper-engine front
307554 - - Mounting-lower-engine front
171873 - - Bolt-engine front mounting
GM451014- Nut-engine front mounting bolt
171096 - P/washer-engine front mounting bolt
307664 - Sleeve-engine front mounting bolt
307660 - Bushing--engine front mounting

It seems as if part numbers GM181413 and 171873 are the same bolts. Possibly some slight differences or come from different suppliers?

Thanks for sharing your find. Looks in like new condition, NOS

Lee O'Dell

KTRON

If you take some measurements, (outside diameter, support plate thickness, bolt size, overall thickness) it can easily be cross referenced to a current two piece Lord Isolator (CBB/CBC) mount. That sure is a nice find! 

Chris

TwinH

Oh my, that is a sweet piece that I'd love to see repopped. The stepped, cup washer looks similar to the early Chevy V-8 mounts.

russmaas

Pretty much the same mounts they used on 37 to 47 Hudson. In stock at speedway motors as chevy

BillUSN1

Here's one from speedway.

http://www.speedwaymotors.com/Universal-Bolt-Through-Engine-Mount-Cushion-Kit,1199.html

StillOutThere

The durometer (hardness factor) of the rubber must always be considered.   It is likely the durometer of the mounts for the lighter Chev engine is a lower number and inadequate to hold up the Hudson big six.    If the Chev mount assembly would physically fit, and if a higher durometer upper "doughnut" of rubber is needed it wouldn't take too much to reproduce that and thus create a suitable "SU" Hudson motor mount.  The lower rubber is relatively inconsequential as it only restrains torque and that only on the left side.

russmaas

FYI -no issues with those speedway mounts .I have used them

BillUSN1

It would be pretty easy to mold and cast the pucks in any durometer urethane you desired if thought to be an issue.

TwinH

The issue I see with the Speedway mount is the large washer lacks the cup and step to positively locate the engine to the chassis. The hole below the stock mount on my 49 is 1.5" and that doesn't give the 1.625" Speedway bottom bushing much to grab to. Russ,did you modify them at all for use on a Hudson?

Frankvintagefullflowcom

I used the Speedway mounts in our '47 and have no complaints. They weren't an exact fit so I threw 'em in the lathe and trimmed them to fit the steel cup on the frame. You guys are being too fussy about the hardness of the rubber.....they're just fine.
F

StillOutThere

The "fuss" over the durometer is because the discussion began over Severe Usage mounts.   They were called Severe Usage because they were just that which had to include higher durometer.   Sure, put the Speedway universals under a splashing little six and they are certainly adequate.   Put them under a road race or NASCAR clone high performance Hornet and they aren't going to cut the mustard.

BillUSN1

I'm no engineer but to me, the simple fact that the standard mount is a molded bolt on and the severe duty is a thru bolt would be enough of a difference to make it a stronger mount. The compression of the rubber is really only for vibration dampening. If you wanted the strongest mount you would just use metal and directly bolt to the frame with no rubber at all.

StillOutThere

Due to torque, the left side factory mount has historically torn apart its vulcanizing.   Also due to torque, the right side factory mount has historically compressed and depending upon amount of grease /oil /antifreeze and heat and today, AGE, the rubber became something approaching black mashed potatoes.