actually this is sort of true but the way they are designed will not see any difference what so ever in the vibration department nad they indeed do last much longer. -----Original Message----- From: Ben Randolph <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, January 30, 2000 10:38 PM Subject: Re: 2L engine mount
> >> From: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: 2L engine mount >> >> Some 2.0L 16Vs had a hydraulic rear motor mount. My '91 has the solid style, >> like my '88 GTI had. I believe AutoTech sells a kit to convert back to the >> old rubber style mount. > >FYI, the hydraulic rear mount is stiffer than the solid one. the solid >mount is actually VERY flimsy. its dimensions are alot bigger than the >solid front mount, but as far as i can tell, its the same type of >rubber. you can move even a brand new solid rear mount quite a bit with >minimal effort. > >ben randolph >92 16v gti >_____________ >List Sponsor: http://www.netsville.com >To remove yourself from this list, send mail to [email protected] with 'unsubscribe a2_16v' in the body of your message >See us on the web at http://www.a2-16v.com >Visit the 16V Homepage at http://www.gti16v.org > _____________ List Sponsor: http://www.netsville.com To remove yourself from this list, send mail to [email protected] with 'unsubscribe a2_16v' in the body of your message See us on the web at http://www.a2-16v.com Visit the 16V Homepage at http://www.gti16v.org
