are these still available? Im thinking my solid rear trans mount is rattling the piss out of my car...
are these still available? Im thinking my solid rear trans mount is rattling the piss out of my car...
429whp 362wtq A20 TURBO. A20T>*
Sure are. I don't know how much of an improvement this would make coming from a sold mount though. Probably a little better but I would bet these are closer to a solid mount than a stock mount in terms of vibration. They are cheap though and the poly mounts are replaceable.
PM me if you're interested.
C|
So any word on how these new mounts handle? i know it has idle vibration but im ok with that. Thinking about buying a set and just hope CygnusX-1 has some in stock. oh i not backing out since ill be doing my rebuild soon and want better mounts .
Update:
So I'm doing a test fit for the 88-89 model bracket for Chris also know as Cygnus. Here are the results :
Front:
Rear:
And how engine sits;
Last edited by ShyBoyCA6; 09-16-2012 at 04:08 PM.
Cool!! It's good to see these working out with the (sort of) oddball cast bracket. Did you happen to try it without the spacer? It looks like it would lean without it.
C|
Hey ShyBoy what is that clutch cable from,looks shorter than stock.Is that the teg one.
Yeah they are great! Yeah i tried it without the spacer and leaned to much and with spacer it sat just right. I can't remember if i used a washer where the bracket meets the spacer or not i may of used one and one for the bolt.
Its a teg one.
Are there supposed to be a front and rear piece? Both of mine are the exact same, but I can't bolt up the front. It's not even close. Help Chris
They are both the same. Perhaps you have the cast bracket shown a couple posts up?? I've installed in both accord & prelude w/ no issue. Pics may help...what exactly isn't lining up?
Hey Gio,
I just responded in your other thread but I'll copy it here too for reference. Honda threw us a curve again...
Yeah, I just recently discovered that the SI Preludes have a different front cross member that only has the holes for the front style mount. For whatever reason the Accords have both sets of holes so they're fine. I'm working on a revised bracket that uses the front style holes that will work with the SI Prelude and with the Accords, but I'm not sure when they'll be available. More people are suddenly running into this issue though so I'll see if I can expedite things. When they are ready I'll send you a new front bracket at no charge. Not sure I still have your address so I'll PM you if I need it.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
So far I only know of one other person that I sent brackets to that has this problem, but if anyone else runs into it let me know and I'll send you one of the revised brackets where they're ready.
C|
Are these still aviable? Its about to be tax season time to upgrade
I have a few left but I'm running low and need to make more soon. Also still need to make some of the new models for the front.
C|
you still have the non powdercoated one with the broke weld?
I'm gonna need another set in a couple months..
I hope I don't annoy anyone by saying this, since I haven't had the time read this whole thing right now, I'll check back and read later, but I get the idea. But in general, soft mounts with something else for torque control is a good way to go. Soft mounts for holding the weight of the powertrain with something else for controlling its motion under torsional loading, ie, acceleration. I like the dogbone design in principle. I wish I had used it with my B series swap, with softer main mounts.
Currently I am researching mounts to swap a cummins from this old dodge I just bought into my chevy, and I do not want it to shake the hell out of my truck. For you guys who have never seen it, some people have even used braided cable as torque mounts.
Last edited by Accordtheory; 06-22-2014 at 08:42 PM.
The concept of the factory design is fine. I just think it could have been executed in a much more streamlined fashion. The dog bone is enormous for what it does, and for some reason I could never figure out they made it really sloppy, which limits its effectiveness.
C|
I can tell you why they made it sloppy. Look at the axis the powertrain pivots on under load, (which is basically the axis of torsional vibration, also) and then look where the dogbone thing is. A little movement of the motor imparts a lot of movement into the dogbone. In other words, that dogbone has a lot of leverage over the powertrain. (for comparison, look at the 94-01 integra front torque mounts, I think the dogbone is a better design. The integra mounts have a huge amount of force imparted into them, they have less leverage over the powertrain in comparison. They are also extremely harsh when shifting quickly.)
Anyway, the dogbone is designed to control torque upon hard acceleration/deceleration, without transmitting vibration into the body/chassis under normal driving. Designing it with slack in one of the bushings accomplishes this perfectly. Since a small movement in the powertrain results in a large movement at the dogbone, there is no reason for it to be tight, transmitting vibration continuously into the chassis, when a relatively small movement of the powertrain causes the bushing to become "tight".
I actually tried to mimic this design with my swap mounts, sort of succeeded, sort of failed. I had a 60a bushing in one side of the rear mount, with a hollowed out 80a on the other side. My theory was that under normal driving, the soft 60a bushing would limit the amount of vibration transmitted into the chassis, and under harder driving, the sleeve in the center of the mount would contact the 80a bushing, which would then limit further motion. Sort of like a progressive spring in a suspension, but it is inferior to the dogbone design, since it does not have the mechanical leverage the position of the dogbone has.
Here's something else to add on the subject of soft weight bearing mounts with dogbone style torque mounts. Many GM cars use this design, including my '02 gtp. To change the rear 3 spark plugs on the gtp, you undo the 2 front dogbone style mounts, and roll the entire powertrain forward. The motor/tranny pivots on the other mounts enough to allow access the rear spark plugs. The 2 front dogbone mounts control the powertrain torque well, delivering a nice vibration free ride, and that v6 makes 280 ft lbs all stock. This design also has the added benefit of requiring that front part of the engine compartment to be structural, vs the 3G's sheetmetal top piece between the headlights that has the structure of a piece of spaghetti.
Last edited by Accordtheory; 06-23-2014 at 08:33 PM.
I know what you're saying, and you're right in that they were trying to minimize vibration transmission from the engine to the rest of the car, and reduce shift shock. But in doing so they made the entire system feel mushy; so on hard acceleration/deceleration you get sort of a wind/unwind feeling. Granted this is rather subjective so everyone will have their own preference. I happen to like a very tight feeling drivetrain, where there is no windup delay. If this means more vibration, then so be it.
The dog bone on mine was literally floppy loose. You could wiggle the thing up/down and side to side at least 1/4" before it would even contact the rubber bushings. At one point I tried wrapping the bushing with duct tape to fill the gap. It worked and made it feel better without any more vibration, but it still felt mushy under acceleration and eventually I decided to just get rid of it altogether.
So I know what they were trying to do. I just think they could have made it a little tighter without transmitting any more vibration.
Incidentally, you could get a softer feel with the adapters that I've made by using an OEM type rubber transmission mount instead of the polyurethane mounts. You would probably need to retain the torque bar though since the rubber mounts are weaker.
C|
Last edited by cygnus x-1; 06-24-2014 at 08:01 AM.
Bookmarks