JimW and Tom,
The cable was a GM factory recall in the early 70's- they put one on my 68 Camaro with 327. I actually had a mount fail and I experienced the problem about '74. The rubber of the mount would seperate, the engine would lift the left side under hard acceleration, and bind the throttle linkage at Wide Open Throttle!! (and Toyota still is fighting this problem with a fly-by-wire throttle!!)
As Tom said, the Energy Suspension engine mounts interlock so that can't happen- but isn't that a different style mount from the one Jim shows. Jim, that mount you show is what is in my 63 with a 230. It is sandwiched between the perch and the engine mount with a bolt, so it can't come apart unless the bolt fails IIRC. Is that right???
As to using the 4 factory mounts versus a 3 legged approach, why did GM do it that way? a holdover from the days of heavier engines? which method would the T5 case/tailshaft fair best with?
I would think the 4 point mount would support the weight of the 292 better. If you eliminate the bellhousing mounts, and just use a tailshaft mount, ??? I don't know; maybe we should get one of the engineering guys to weigh in on this. I will email Tremec and ask them for an opinion.
-Tad
