Probably already know, but much of the destruction of the mounts is caused by chassis flex if anyone's interested in this babbling.. if not, no worries..
The engine and transmission is a fairly rigid assembly. Typically in my career, reviewing torsional tests of a frame such as a car which is body on frame like a Viper, there can be an increase in stiffness of the frame if solid powertrain mounts were swapped in. I've seen numbers up to 6% more increase in torsional stiffness due to solid mounts on some tests on other cars. This is a reason why flexible mounts are needed for a Viper, the engine mount brackets are not designed to be under that stress or at the ears on the block if the fame twists under load, (and also racking of the frame), and why they are a serviceable component.
I have Woodhouse mounts, they are nice quality. They are stiffer, it will be a small value (guessing 0.5%) but the frame will be slightly stiffer overall than using the softer OEM rubber mounts. OEMs are not going to use this type of urethane mount due to NVH reasons, customers typically don't want to drive a car that vibrates. Heck, when I pull my car up to my garage door at night, with the Woodhouse mounts, I can see even the headlights bulbs are jiggling. Long term vibration that can affect other components, electronics, etc.. another reason to steer away from solid mounts for a street car that's not designed for them. I think Woodhosue is an ideal route to take, slight risk due to additional vibration, but I think the benefits outweigh this since my car shifts better (don't miss 3rd gear) and because I am using a kevlar clutch that is gripper, the powertrain flopped around a bit too much on aggressive shifts with the OEM rubber mounts.
Thanks for posting the pics RevHeat. I was part of this presentation below, my name is in the doc.. when I used to work at Chrysler. It take a few minutes to load, if you want to read a bit about mount design.
http://support.mscsoftware.com/cgi-...e=ri/1-13/1-13B2-2703/DaimlerChrysler_Sui.pdf
Mike