In looking at the pix of that beautiful Mexico blue 6 conversion on BAT, I've never seen the front engine mount that is using. It looks like two beams running obliquely back to the original 4 cylinder engine mounts in the chassis. Seems like a sturdy alternative to the bulkhead mounted OEM style mounts most use.
Anyone know who makes it??

Sounds like the old quick six mount. I've always heard they were a pita with running exhaust. It's also a lot more weight for the stock four mounts to handle.

I ran a quick six mount for 15 years with my 2.7 with no problems. The downside is you can’t run heat exchangers with it. The bar interferes with the flappers. I switched to the rich Johnson mount when I got heat exchangers. The firewall mounts move the weight forward which helps with the heavier six motors. Patrick Motorsports used to sell a curved quick six mount, so you could run heat exchangers, but I have heard complaints about that mount. Keith aka 914toy also uses a quick six mount with his 2.7 motor.

They also have a reputation for cracking
Lots of members experienced the cracking issue

Curious where it cracked at? I know some of them were not reinforced with webbing between the 911 mount and the bar and the welds would crack.

Yes, I am using a "Quick Fix" engine mount which is an early 914/4 engine mount bar with a short (about 4") canter levered bracket welded to the center and front of this bar, with the engine mount four bolt pattern at the front end of the bracket. This bar is in the same position and bolts onto the car per the 914/4 system. I reinforced the bar by welding some 1" steel angle bar to the length of this engine bar. I bought this used on 914W. I now have about 10,000 street and highway miles on this mount - no problems.

Advantages are: no body drilling or cutting or welding, lots of room between the engine and the firewall for belt changes etc., easy removal and installation of the engine, eliminates any firewall contact vibration noises.

Disadvantages are: complicates exhaust design for heat exchangers (I have headers - S. California - so no problems).

Intellectual question - given that the engine is in exactly the correct 914/6 position relative to the car body, but is perched on this Quick Fix bar via a short (about 4") longitudinally oriented bracket (canter lever), is the center of gravity (CG) of the engine still in the stock 914/6 position or is it behind the 914/6 position relative to the engine weight in the car? My instinct says it is the same as the stock 914/6 position. With due respect to Steve's comment above, what do you think?

It has to be pretty close to stock or the trans wont mount to the stock location.

That’s a good question. The motor is in the same spot with all the mounts, but instead of the weight of the drivetrain on the 914-4 mounts, it’s moved forward to the firewall. Would the weight distribution change or did the factory only put it on the firewall to clear the heat exchangers? I just remember reading way back when, it was to move the weight forward to help with weight distribution.

The weight distribution doesn’t change when you change where the engines is supported.

My guess is the factory used a bulkhead mount because it’s a stronger design to support the weight from both ends. And not have the weight of the motor leveraged out hanging, like the quick six style

No one has heard of factory mounts cracking….

There is no change in the weight distribution
And the factory could have reshaped the heat exchangers if they had found Any other mount to be superior

The PMS swivel mount is the only mount with advantages over stock

I ran that mount in my 914-6 race car with a 2.8 motor for a long time with no issue. It did make it easy to remove the engine too.

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1970-porsche-914-6-53/

Looks like the PM Quick Six bar. I wouldn't let that stop anyone from buying the car if they wanted it. If you don't like Quick Six bars, it's an easy fix.

I ran a PM Quick Six in a 2.4 conversion years ago. Seemed fine.

Removal and service
I once changed a broken rocker shaft at the track in about 30 minutes between sessions
We were able to disconnect the tranny mounts and tip the motor down enough to access the valve train n and change the shaft

I had converted to 2.7L power in 1978, and found a cool bolt on mount (to the T4 chassis points) in Panorama magazine called the Goodspeed Mount.
After approx 6 months it failed, and the engine was saved from hitting the ground by some #12 & #16 aeroquip oil lines ! The mfg. did not have a " Cure" nor wanted to take back on warranty...so:
I basically re-engineered it with heavier gauge materials and sold it as Qwik 6 Mount.
My original mount still cranking in the flat-fan car, and a similar mount system is in our 8gtt racer.
This page is out of an early '80s MSDS brochure.
Click to view attachment

Another page out of our '90s brochure; the Qwik6, rear GT valence, 9146 engine sheet metal set, and Qwik 6 T4-to-6 cyl wiring schematic.
Click to view attachment

This picture clarifies my words above describing the Qwik 6 Mount, I purchased and continue to use with my 2.7 Porche 911 engine with no problems having reinforced the full length of the 914/4 bar with l” right angle iron bar welded onto it.

And now in use , in modified form...on the 9148-gtt build; the 5L Cayenne engine weighs in at approx 575 lbs. sitting on a similar perch to the Qwik 6
Click to view attachment

The Goodspeed Mount was using 1/4" steel on the main structure + gussets, .0625" gauge on the square steel crossbar; we use 3/8" on the structure + gussets, and .250" gauge x 1¼" square on the crossbar.
On the 8gtt I am using a solid 1¼" c/r steel crossbar.
I've always liked the way the crossbar ties the lower unibody together down low on the longs, near the suspension consoles.
Click to view attachment

I'm running the same PM Quick Six mount, 17 yrs now 2.0 for 5 yrs then a 3.0 for last 12. Lot's track days, lots of fun runs, lot's of weekenders. No problems, not Cracked & car hasn't tipped over from the weight being all wrong...
Just say'n...

Maybe Brant is referring to an inferior mount like the Goodspeed. I ran Marties quick six for years and only switched to the RJ mount to support heat exchangers.

I'm not trying to be negative to anyone have success using the quick style bar


I've never used one.
but having been on this board for 20 years.... I've seen about a dozen reports of them cracking. I don't know which brand... probably the early one that sounds like it was improved on.

but when people ask about using the bar.
I share my own personal decision
that I was worried about potential cracking problems and also like the design the factory used of supporting the weight from each end.

so I went with the bulkhead style.. and found the PMS bulkhead could swivel and offer the advantages of removal and service without removal

just passing along anecdotal information from the collection of 914 world experiences
Often a new person has no awareness of potential problems (probably the earlier brand of bar)

brant