I am ‘knocking on’ a bit & some of the stuff that comes up on this site is great because it tests the mind.
Like peejay, much of my experience will have been gained both on & off the track.
In any situation that may involve remade parts & a mix of Series I, II & II there can be a marriage of harmony or misery.
I didn’t personally come up against the problem of the ‘wrong cones’ but know somebody that ‘chased his tail’ for a long time with handling problems of his Group Four & was gracious enough to relate the problem.
All engine mounts are compliant in not just absorbing the vibration, but in pulling in so that the internal tube is hard up against the faces of the cones.
By design, the outer part then flexes & twists whilst in situ as the back wheel goes up & down.
I apologise if I’m overstating the obvious here, but if that outer steel tube comes into contact with the cone or frame, then there will be friction & jerkiness as the result. Vibration will also obviously increase.
My belief is that the later, wider, chamfered cones are the best default if they will allow the engine to fit in the frame as they should prevent the above scenario, whether with short engine mounts or long.
That is all I’m trying to communicate & cannot comment on the current crop of remade engine mounts.
From personal experience, the best for racing are the ‘solid all the way through but with two holes’ type known as ‘Indian’ that were available from the Eighties.
Again, from personal experience, the worst for anything other than a static display machine or somebody that enjoys the numbing sensation of having their vision blurred, are the ‘solid all the way through but with no holes’ type that tempted my purchase a few years ago.
About eight miles was more than enough to learn the error of my ways……
