• Welcome to The Truck Stop! We see you haven't REGISTERED yet.

    Your truck knowledge is missing!
    • Registration is FREE , all we need is your birthday and email. (We don't share ANY data with ANYONE)
    • We have tons of knowledge here for your diesel truck!
    • Post your own topics and reply to existing threads to help others out!
    • NO ADS! The site is fully functional and ad free!
    CLICK HERE TO REGISTER!

    Problems registering? Click here to contact us!

    Already registered, but need a PASSWORD RESET? CLICK HERE TO RESET YOUR PASSWORD!

Adventure Vehicles NW vs Autoworld Motor Mounts

I got one side of my SSOR mounts installed last night. Driver side mount is in and connected to Block, used “long” mount for the driver, but it is a solid 1”+ horizontal gap before the holes will line up. Am I doing this wrong?
 
usanumber1 said:
I got one side of my SSOR mounts installed last night. Driver side mount is in and connected to Block, used “long” mount for the driver, but it is a solid 1”+ horizontal gap before the holes will line up. Am I doing this wrong?
Click to expand...
Is there anything stopping the Cummins from contacting the mounting pad? Like the firewall drive-train tunnel or whatever.
How about an image
 
FellowTraveler said:
Is there anything stopping the Cummins from contacting the mounting pad? Like the firewall drive-train tunnel or whatever.
How about an image
Click to expand...
Negative. The engine can rotate on the driver side mount to where the bolt hole of the engineside half touches the mount base.
 

Attachments

  • 2BB63FA0-7854-4D7F-B6EC-DD004B36D3B0.jpeg
    2BB63FA0-7854-4D7F-B6EC-DD004B36D3B0.jpeg
    85.3 KB · Views: 21
usanumber1 said:
Negative. The engine can rotate on the driver side mount to where the bolt hole of the engineside half touches the mount base.
Click to expand...
The chassis rails are perhaps spread I suggest measuring that area to confirm if not then the mounts are built wrong however; instead of going bat s__t crazy make a plate the thickness of that gap between the bracket and the block to make the connection.

Keep in mind that the GMT400 was designed with engine mounting is offset 30mm or 1.18" to the passenger side with a 5.0 deg. cant to the drivers side and 5.0 deg +- down to rear depending on drivetrain configuration.

The GMT400 upfitter manuals will give the measurements.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking the rails were potentially spread, but I really don’t know how they could be spread that much. I’ll check it.
 
Could it be that brackets/mounts could be installed on the wrong side/orientation to the block/frame? Just asking, always better to double or triple check, sometimes with a second, unbiased set of eyes than it is to start fabricating/reengineering what's there or trying to return it back to the manufacturer.

Like FellowTraveler said, there is that designed engine offset GM engineered in. Is it possible that there is a "short" and "long" sets of adapter mounts in your kit that account for this and having components accidentally switched or intermixed is the root cause of your alignment issue?
 
It is correct, there are two different size mounts, I asked Seeman, he said “long” mount is for driver side. Photo of mount on website is the same.

If I were to make a puck as suggested, wouldn’t it be approx 1”? Seems pretty large.

Does anyone know correct distance between frame rails?
 
usanumber1 said:
I was thinking the rails were potentially spread, but I really don’t know how they could be spread that much. I’ll check it.
Click to expand...
GM built the diagonals into the rails at the mounting pads & front x-member for a reason "that reason was to keep the rails at the mounting pads from spreading from the weight of the engine."
I see most everyone who has done a conversion cut the diagonals out (as suggested by some vendors of conversion parts) without installing gussets or modifying the existing one on the passenger side like I did.
 
Last edited:
What about the frame rail mounts? Does one have a longer "reach" to the motor half of the mount than the other to compensate for the offset? That could be your 1" difference. I just can't see the frame rails being that spread apart without seeing the effects elsewhere - like in the control arm alignment, radiator support mounts, or visible bowing/wrinkling of the flanges of the frame rail channel.
 
Husker6.5 said:
What about the frame rail mounts? Does one have a longer "reach" to the motor half of the mount than the other to compensate for the offset? That could be your 1" difference. I just can't see the frame rails being that spread apart without seeing the effects elsewhere - like in the control arm alignment, radiator support mounts, or visible bowing/wrinkling of the flanges of the frame rail channel.
Click to expand...
If I remember right he is running an SAS front differential.
 
Husker6.5 said:
What about the frame rail mounts? Does one have a longer "reach" to the motor half of the mount than the other to compensate for the offset? That could be your 1" difference. I just can't see the frame rails being that spread apart without seeing the effects elsewhere - like in the control arm alignment, radiator support mounts, or visible bowing/wrinkling of the flanges of the frame rail channel.
Click to expand...
The frame rail mounts are just as described, driver side protrudes out into the engine bay farther than the passenger side. Swapping the asymmetrical motor mounts side to side doesn’t make up for the difference. I agree about the effects elsewhere, The coresupport and everything as far as I know is all square. I guess now that I have the upfitter manual I can go through and check it all.
 
Husker6.5 said:
Maybe the Cummins is supposed to lean over a bit? After all, it is a "Chrysler" straight-six and might lean like its slant-six 270 little brother! LOL!
Click to expand...
All GMT400 4x4 series lean to the drivers side w/30mm offset to the passenger side being that the Cummins is much narrower no lean is required "just the 30mm offset from center line to the passenger side is a better option all the way to the differential pinion."

However; those who use the GM adapter have the starter on the passenger side whereas the Dodge adapter the starter is on the drivers side so the install position is dictated by those constraints.

Some fabricators will move the Cummins so it aligns to the Ram Cummins radiator shroud which requires that the upper radiator hose be extended.
 
usanumber1 said:
The frame rail mounts are just as described, driver side protrudes out into the engine bay farther than the passenger side. Swapping the asymmetrical motor mounts side to side doesn’t make up for the difference. I agree about the effects elsewhere, The coresupport and everything as far as I know is all square. I guess now that I have the upfitter manual I can go through and check it all.
Click to expand...
Save yourself the trouble and install gussets at the frame rails to the and front x-member the drivers side is easy the passenger side requires fabricating around the idler assembly if you are even using one then fabricate a spacer for that mount.

With your SAS the rail stress points are pretty much a moot issue with that ORD setup, keep in mind you no longer have anywhere the same sprung load up you did with the IFS......
 
FellowTraveler said:
All GMT400 4x4 series lean to the drivers side w/30mm offset to the passenger side being that the Cummins is much narrower no lean is required "just the 30mm offset from center line to the passenger side is a better option all the way to the differential pinion."

However; those who use the GM adapter have the starter on the passenger side whereas the Dodge adapter the starter is on the drivers side so the install position is dictated by those constraints.

Some fabricators will move the Cummins so it aligns to the Ram Cummins radiator shroud which requires that the upper radiator hose be extended.
Click to expand...
Nevermind. Obviously the Dodge/Chrysler/Plymouth slant six reference of the joke went right over your head. The 270 c.i. MOPAR slant six was a tried and true workhorse as the base engine in over three decades of service in both cars and pickups. The joke being rhat the Cummins was trying to return to the venerable MOPAR six roots by "slanting" to fit the motor mounts.
 
I talked with Paul Seeman this morning. He's getting me measurements from frame rail to frame rail at the motormounts sometime today, I'll head to my shop this evening to see if there is an issue with a spread frame rail. If not, he said he'll work with me in getting the problem resolved. A+ customer service. Will update thread.

Also, I will link to this page in my build thread. I'm semi-hijacking this thread because of these specific motormounts. I'm thinking it'll make searching for information regarding the mounts helpful for others.
 
Husker6.5 said:
Nevermind. Obviously the Dodge/Chrysler/Plymouth slant six reference of the joke went right over your head. The 270 c.i. MOPAR slant six was a tried and true workhorse as the base engine in over three decades of service in both cars and pickups. The joke being rhat the Cummins was trying to return to the venerable MOPAR six roots by "slanting" to fit the motor mounts.
Click to expand...
I remember the slant 6 was built slanted and the oil pan set level....your joke just didn't click for me at the time....
 
My little sister had a '70 Dart in high school with the slant 6 in it. She put a 2bbl carb split intake (1 bbl each for 3 cylinders) and a set of split headers ( dual "Y" for 3 cylinders each) with dual exhausts on it. That thing sounded wicked (just love the sound of 3 cylinder exhaust) and had fairly decent performance for what it was (but couldn't stay with my '68 Dart GT with the hi-po 273 V-8 I had in college for tooling around town in, along with my '72 402 BB Monte Carlo, too) and pulled down mid-20's on the highway for fuel mileage - respectable even today. Of course, gas was $0.32⁹ a gallon back then!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top