`63 - `64 core support mount info

[1965rivgs]

• This post highlights the distinction between `63-`64 core support mounts and the `65 arrangement. The hole in the `63-`64 frame rails is smaller in diameter than the hole for `65. I suspect Buick made this change to utilize the same mount which appears at other frame locations in the core support position. The "correct" `63-`64 core support mount has a smallish collar as compared to the other positions. See pics.....
  
  
  The first pic is the `63-`64 replacement mount which is marketed by Steele. When searching the original Buick part number for this mount the Steele bushing came up. I am assuming Steele used an NOS example to reproduce/market their mount but I cant confirm this. The mount looks smallish in diameter as compared to my `65 cars but in fairness I dont have an original `63-`64 mount to use as a comparison. Also, Buick speced out a different part number for the `65 bushings.
  
  
  The second pic compares the Steele repro mount on the left to the GM tall superseded mount (see Dave`s and my posts above) on the right. As can be seen in the pics the collar, the part of the mount which fits into the hole in the frame rail, is much smaller in diameter on the Steele mount as compared to the superseded tall GM mount. This can be addressed by trimming off the collar on the GM mount, which may allow the mount to shift, or enlarging the hole in the frame. But for those seeking a drop in mount the superseded GM tall mount will not fit in the `63-`64 frame.
  
  
  The third pic illustrates the fit of the appropriate insulators (lower mount) to their mounts. On the left is the Steele repro mount fitted to the original style insulator and on the right is the GM tall mount fitted to the "improved" insulator. It is possible to force the original style insulator over the projection of the metal core of the tall GM mount but the "improved" insulator is a sloppy fit when mated to the Steele repro mount.
  
  
  The fourth pic illustrates the difference in diameter in the mounts where the bolt is inserted. The Steele repro mount is the correct 7/16ths diameter whereas the tall GM mount is considerably larger. Which circumstance is better is debatable. A nice fit between fastener and mount will discourage shifting whereas some clearance between the metal core of the mount and the fastener might prevent metal to metal contact and also allows some wiggle room during assembly. I dont think it is a significant issue but if I had to exercise a preference I would choose a better fit.
  
  
  Just a word about shimming at this location.....it is my opinion GM provided a short bushing at this location to allow a maximum range for shimming. Buick offered multiple shim thicknesses and I have inspected many cars with radically different shimming dimensions. This is the position where Buick compensated for production tolerances in the mating of body and frame. I am therefore skeptical about using a tall bushing here as the installed height, without shims, may exceed the proper dimension to align the front sheetmetal with the body. The last pics are the Steele mount installed in a `64. There was no evidence of any frame or accident damage on this car and the sheetmetal is aligned properly. Notice it took quite a few shims to finalize alignment. This is OK, it was meant to be so.....................
  
  
  
  Please note the original GM shims would be individually much thicker, cheers,
  
  
  Tom Mooney
  
  

  
  
  
  

• 
  

Edited November 14, 2014 by 1965rivgs (see edit history)

[RockinRiviDad]

Very very informative & detailed thread. Thx for taking the time to share.

David

[Glenn McMahon]

I second that. Excellent and informative information. My 64 body mount under the battery is rotted away due to 50 years of small acid leaks. Is the Steele mount described above the correct one for this location? All answers appreciated.

Regards

Glenn McMahon

#12929

[RivNut]

I second that. Excellent and informative information. My 64 body mount under the battery is rotted away due to 50 years of small acid leaks. Is the Steele mount described above the correct one for this location? All answers appreciated.

Regards

Glenn McMahon

#12929

I've yet to receive the kit from CARS, but their part # BM584-4 has the same dimensions as the core support mount that I pulled from my '64. To go with that you'd need the cushion #BM595-4. Two of each. You might also want to consider a few washers #W4-4 for spacing as described above. If I remember correctly, $6 for one $9 for the other and $1 for each washer.

Ed

[1965rivgs]

I second that. Excellent and informative information. My 64 body mount under the battery is rotted away due to 50 years of small acid leaks. Is the Steele mount described above the correct one for this location? All answers appreciated.

Regards

Glenn McMahon

#12929

Yes Glenn, the Steele mount will work under the core support on your `64. The original GM part # is 1195719 and crosses to Steele`s #50-0506-48. As Ed suggests you will also need the companion "insulator" which is installed from under the frame rail and indexes over the mount`s inner steel sleeve. The original GM part # for the insulator is 1190478 which crosses to Steele`s 50-0507-48. You will find both these components on Ebay. Try to save the original washers which clamp the insulator and be sure to save the shims, if any, which are installed between the mount and the core support.

Tom Mooney

[1965rivgs]

! ATTENTION ! Just noticed the first picture in the first post does not illustrate to correct Steele part #/package. Please see post #5 for the correct part number, sorry,

Tom