> From: "Osborne, Brice D, GRWMK" <[email protected]>
>
> A little while back there were some discussions surrounding motor mounts and
> what is best. I think I need them (front and rear as the trans was replaced
> with the clutch). I could not keep up with who thought what was best.
here's my thoughts. like someone already said, motorsport mounts are
the way to go if you want power transfer. theyre solid, but theyre
pricey at 200-250 a pop, depending on the mount. my buddy got a front
one for his corrado and good god damn.... there are also a few front
mounts on the market like the new dimensions one. i dont know too much
about all those mounts, but i know they all cost quite a bit.
i have a couple of friends that like the tie down method. they take a
wire and loop it around the front subframe and somewhere on the engine,
then crank it tight. zero engine movement, but im not sure how good
that is for everything. also...both of them have broken the wire more
than once. i choose to not tie down my engine....
as far as other stock mounts are concerned, its generally accepted that
the front early style mount is the best. the force is transferred
through a horizontal bolt running through the mount, rather than a
vertical one in the later mounts. they also have proven to last longer.
i bought a brand new mount w/ upper bracket for $109 from adirondack.
('they' used to sell just the rubber part, but no longer sell just
tha--you need to get the upper bracket with it) the only problem with
that mount is that you need the bottom bracket to make it all work.
places like adirondack sell them (presumably used), or you could go to
the junkyard and pick one up. (thats assuming you have a later car w/o
the bracket...i forget what kind/year it is...) there are also holes
that run through the rubber, so you could probably take a nice solid
piece of polyurethene (or the like), and make inserts to go into the
holes.
for the rear mount, there are some differing opinions. there are
basically two options. one is to go with the later style hydo mount.
the other is the early stly solid mount. side by side, a new solid
mount was much softer that a "young" hydro mount. (about 20k) the hdro
mount just has less movement and less compression. i dont think
durability would be too much of an issue, as the engine is compressing
the mount rather than stretching it (like the hydro front mount...thats
where all the failures come from) and the fact that the solid mount is
so bouncy to begin with doenst really make for a good comparision
anyway. but....that hydro mount still costs a pretty penny (somewhere
in the mid 100's...i sold the one used in the above comparison for $70),
and the solid mount costs $40. the solid mount does need another lower
bracket though, like the early front mount. again, like the front
mount, the solid rear mount has similar holes in it, and apparently you
can buy inserts for it to make it more solid. (you might be able to
with the solid front mount too...i dunno) if not, making inserts
shouldnt be that hard.
mt suggestion? if you have an early car, replace it with early mounts
and buy/make inserts for it. if you have a later car, get a
fancy/expensive front mount and decide wether you want to shell out the
cash for a motorsport rear mount or if you want to get the solid
mount/bracket and get some inserts for it. the stock rear hydro mount
isnt worth it, simply because of its price.
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
