[KGH]

Installing custom mounts, the mount bolts are offset and can be configured in two ways. I took some pics for clarity.

Which is proper for load as shown, or am I overthinking this?

 

[TheOneTen]

I would go with whatever orientation provides the most real surface contact with the steel bracket on the frame. This is dependent on the overall width and height of the engine brackets.

 

[Scottyoh]

Assuming both female slots are exactly parallel to each other, the 1st picture would be correct. You want the force of compression to push the studs towards each other. In the 2nd orientation, the studs would be pulling away from each other creating shear force on the rubber (or poly?) material which would decrease life compared to the first orientation. Weight of drivetrain will apply force perpendicular to the ground. Engine torque will apply downward compression force on one and upward pulling force on the other.

 

[Davis]

On these mounts, with the angle of the mounts being rigid and parallel with each other redirect the force into the pads, not lateral sheer, and as they compress. This "sandwich" of rubber will work more as a sheet/volume in unison. The two vectors of force acting routinely on the pads are actually in and out, pulling, pushing as the engine twists during acceleration and starting. That will break down the pads. It's designed to be that way and as such, it does a decent job. It is still rubber (or rubber and oil, or synthetic) and the closer to heat (exhaust), the more it will crack, harden and brake down, so protect them. And remember, it is a consumable item just like a suspension bushing. Its why I really wanted my engine be easy to change in case of failure or age. If you struggle to get an engine in, you'll struggle to get a pad out. I want to be able to lift the engine just high enough to get the mounts out with everything but the bonnet and turbo hoses still connected, if possible. In my case I need to disconnect the fuel feed to, but I am working on a solution for that...