This is a general statement rather than anything based in the specific facts of this case, but it is entirely possible for a stayrod to change the motion of the engine enough to put stresses on an existing engine mount, beyond those that it was designed to withstand.
Simply locking up motion in one direction may or may not be a good idea.
You won't be surprised to hear that engine mounts were a big issue back in my rallying days. We played a really irritating tail-chasing game where we'd break a motor mount, reinforce that one, and simply chase the failure somewhere else.
If you look at the mounts as a system, each is designed to resolve loads along a particular axis. The net result is CONTROLLED movement of parts, optimized for street use. The kind/size of movement that we want in a racing car is different but garage engineering can get it wrong more easily than it can get it right.
I'd start by doing a post-mortem on the busted mounts: They might be telling you which way they went too far before they failed. Luckily, it's the rubber tearing so stress failure isn't an issue. It logically has to be over traveling, probably in a direction it wasn't intended to deal with loads. With the busted piece in there, reef on the engine and see what kind of movement you get down there. That might point you in the right direction, too.
I can't strum up the appropriate Bentley picture in my head but if your stayrod is on one end of the engine, it might be turning pitching motion (tipping fore/aft) into yawing motion (rotation about the vertical), loading that mount sideways...?
K
[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited November 29, 2004).]