Jump to content

UMI LSX motor mounts will not work with our Montes


Clever Idiot

Recommended Posts

At least, not for now.

 

I ordered the UMI LSX motor mounts designed for A-bodies, because they specifically list the Monte Carlo. A lot of members had been happy with their suspension stuff, so I went browsing their site and saw the LS motor mounts. I thought I remembered a member saying they'd used them in an LS swap but now I think I was just getting fuzzy in the head.

 

So I got the motor mounts. They look great. Greasable poly bushings, quality welds and hardware, sturdy plates and great powder coating. When I called to order, they were super helpful and friendly. I told them what I was putting in (LS3 into Monte), and I think they said they hadn't known many of those with their mounts. I told them I'd be happy to give them feedback. Their mounts were designed to fit the LS block with an LS1 oil pan, with no frame modifications (unless you have a low-mount A/C).

 

But unfortunately, it looks like they were engineered for a Chevelle or another A-body, and our Montes just got thrown into the list of applications. As Cody (Blackhawk) has said, our motor mounts are flipped 180 degrees from the other A-body mounts.

 

I've tried every possible configuration, and the best I can do is the UMI mounts installed 180 degrees different than their design. According to their site, the zerk fitting is supposed to face down, with the notch on the passenger side coinciding with the divot in the front cross member (same location). There are three bolt holes in the passenger mount and four in the driver mount.

 

I'm going to call them, let them know the story, and what I'd like to do is work with them to get their mounts working for our Montes. I know most go for the Dirty Dingo plates and stock mounts if they want adjustable plates, so it would be nice if there were even more options out there. I mean, to my mind all they really need to do is have a slightly different shaped plate with a bolt pattern, because to me it looks like the positioning is already dialed in. But, I'd be happy to be a test car for them. If they're not really interested in doing that, then I'll just use a different system.

 

As for the current UMI mounts, I'll post my results and pics for information for others, and update this thread as necessary.

 

With the zerk facing down, the passenger mount only lines up with two frame holes, and the driver with three holes.

UpW4VZil.jpg

 

bfw4jnql.jpg

 

zE7q4lEl.jpg

 

But the first way I tried (before seeing Cody's information about the mounts being flipped) had the passenger side line up with all three of its holes, but still only had the driver's mount lining up with three frame holes out of the four in the bracket. It also would move the engine very far forward. The UMI plates on the LS block have about 1" of adjustment front to back. According to their site, 3/4" rearward and 1/4" forward.

 

OFn1x2Ml.jpg

 

MS0sfMTl.jpg

 

QlW8gKtl.jpg

 

Luckily, I still have my factory mounts, and I got them blasted and powder coated at the same time as the frame. As far as I know, this is how they're supposed to look.

 

PpKr4vMl.jpg

 

9WFGRpal.jpg

 

sznwbOWl.jpg

 

It's the only way all holes line up with holes in the frame, so if this is wrong then I'm dumber than I like to think.

 

Finally, here's an album with a couple more pictures than I have here, so you can see more angles if you're so inclined.

Album link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the pics on their site and this video, the frame-side mounts line up with the rear of the crossmember - on a Chevelle or other A-bodies. According to that vid the notch they cut out of their mount was to allow for notching the frame for a low mount A/C. So I don't think it's that they welded it wrong, I think it's just wrong for Montes. When orienting the UMI mounts the way they are for the Chevelle, and how they show on their site, the bolt holes don't all line up with our frame holes.

 

As for their plates, they have their own ears that bolt to their frame mounts. Using the factory frame mounts with their plates would eliminate all bushings, since the Monte stock mounts have the bushing on the motor side, and the UMI mounts have the bushing on the frame side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The engine pulls on the driver's side mount under acceleration so I'd try to get at least three bolts on the left. Right side, two works.

 

I'm curious-you said LS1 oil pan. For what car?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, I think they said ‘Camaro’ LS1 pan, so the F-body pan. I think I saw that on their site somewhere; I’ll see if I can verify.

 

Edit: looks like that’s not specified on their site. May have been in the instructions. I can check later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so I looked at the instructions, and they don't specify Camaro there, either - they just say LS1. They specify that their test car was a '72 LeMans. I must have heard 'Camaro' when talking to them on the phone about the mounts and asking which pan they used for testing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LS1 was only in F body cars and the Corvette in the US, and the Corvette pan doesn't fit much because of the bat wings.  I would assume that they mean the F body pan, though there are clearance issues using that on a Chevelle.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used the GM performance pan kit from Summit when I swapped an LS into a G-body. The whole set up was then installed into a 77 Lemans grans Safari wagon when I bent the g-body. I used everything from the g-body swap. Frame/engine mounts, headers and pan fit both chassis. I believe the kit uses the hummer/CTS-v style pan. The front of the pan is like 11/2-2 deep.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used the GM performance pan kit from Summit when I swapped an LS into a G-body. The whole set up was then installed into a 77 Lemans grans Safari wagon when I bent the g-body. I used everything from the g-body swap. Frame/engine mounts, headers and pan fit both chassis. I believe the kit uses the hummer/CTS-v style pan. The front of the pan is like 11/2-2 deep.

 

I've got the F-body pan on the way, based on Blackhawk's install of using that with the Trans-Dapt plates. I have BMR 2" drop springs and front suspension, so I wanted as shallow of a pan as I could get away with to try an avoid ground clearance issues. Good to know the G-body stuff works on ours too, though. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...