I took the early rubber mounts, both front and rear,
and have been filling the gaps with carefully applied
good quality black silicone, untill I achieved the
stiffness I desired. I put a plate as a "mold" and it
is really hard to tell that they are filled, and the
good thing about it is that you can custom design how
stiff the mount is by the amount of Silicone applied.
I started by just filling the top hole, in the front,
and the bottom in the rear to prevent rocking upon
acceleration, but got alot of movement upon
decleration. (plus the silcone came detached a few
times and had to be re-applied)
you can hardly tell that the silicone is in there.
still pretty smooth on the inside of the car.
sounds cheesy, but it works!
Percy
Balance Performance
Lots of cars and a few Vespas too!
--- Ben Randolph <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
_____________
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
