18 replies to this topic

[Nev]

I can make/supply stiffer engine side mounts that are 2.5 times stiffer than the OEM mounts and more robust. The OEM side mounts are prone to failing pretty rapidly (particularly on the gearbox side) as the metal cap tends to shear away from polyurethane/rubber. The way mine are made ensures several bonding platters for the polyurethane to "key" into, so unlike the OEM ones they are considerably more resilient to shearing and breaking apart.

 

My mounts are a direct swap for the OEM parts (both NA and Turbo models) and will stop your engine from rocking around so much. This will likely:

 

1. Improve gear change slickness (it did on mine) as the gearbox cables aren't being moved around so much.

2. Reducing how much the exhaust tips move about and how much strain the flexis have to take.

3. "tighter" feedback about what the car is doing at the rear, this is genuinely noticeable.

4. More direct clutch engagement feedback (ie less soggy feeling).

 

I can supply fitting instructions with them if you need. You only need a few simple tools and it takes about 45 to 60 minutes per side, maybe 90 mins to fit your first one if you are new to the car.

 

IMO these compliment the yellow rubber inserts that go into the front + rear engine mounts well, as they are similar in stiffness. With the yellow front+rear mounts and my side mounts installed you can expect the engine to reduce rocking from around 25mm to around 7mm (which is a bit torque/gear dependent though).

 

£65 each + postage (which is about 1/2 of the cost of the Vibratechnics ones).

Edited by Nev, 31 May 2018 - 11:08 AM.

[Seb.F]

Any pictures?

[Nev]

This is the prototype that I had on my car, made from a couple of old 10mm bolts and a Robinsons juice bottle mould! The ones I make for sale will be from a purpose made mould, use new threads and have a level of process control and be a bit more precise in profile. The PU I bought was from a specialist moulding company BTW.

 

You can clearly see the 3 internal "platters" (and nuts) for each of the 2 threads to lever off. Compared to the OEM mount this offers a lot more bonding surface, as well as distributing the leverage over a wider cubic volume.

 

I've done 800 miles on this test one, giving it 340 ft/lb of torque and have now taken it out of the car and inspected it on the bench. It looks 100% good still, no signs of wear etc.

 

 

Edited by Nev, 31 May 2018 - 12:02 PM.

[Paulus H]

My browser will not show the image.

 

Please advise it these are ready for sale or is this just a concept at this stage.

 

I would be interested.

 

Kindly, Paul

[Nev]

Yesterday I ordered up a load of metalwork to make 50 of them and will order some PU today, so I should be ready to make them in 2 days.

 

I've made 2 metal moulds, which are ready to roll.

 

 

 

Edited by Nev, 05 June 2018 - 06:21 AM.

[chris_uk]

i find it quite remarkable to believe that original side mounts “ fail pretty rapidly “...Even with no additional support on the front and rear mounts the side mounts will last for thousands of miles before they even think about coming apart.

Fair enough on trying to give people options, but these need to be tested for 8000 miles or until they break! Not 800 miles!

[ChrisS1]

i find it quite remarkable to believe that original side mounts “ fail pretty rapidly “...Even with no additional support on the front and rear mounts the side mounts will last for thousands of miles before they even think about coming apart.

Fair enough on trying to give people options, but these need to be tested for 8000 miles or until they break! Not 800 miles!

I was thinking similar.
Don't think I've heard of an OEM mount failing in 800 miles on a car that has no other problems.

[Nev]

I've made 2 pairs of mounts for customers now, using different diameters and different PU strengths. One pair was +40% stiffness and one pair was made deliberately asymmetrically (requested by the owner), and were +80% and +110% stiffness .

This is a +110% stiffness mount:




I've also taken a video to demonstrate the OEM mount, as you can see all the torque is loaded into just the bottom 30% of the unit (the top seems to be solid and do nothing).
 

 
 

 
I've read that some OEM mounts have failed on pretty new cars and even at just 6000 miles. There are quite a few threads on the matter, here are a couple:
 
Failure on a 2006 car: http://www.vx220.org...lacement-guide/
Failure on of a new pair in 6000 miles: http://www.vx220.org...n-engine-mount/ (Madfreebird)
 
After looking at the various threads on them failing, pics seem to show them shearing the metal top & bottom plate from the rubber. This can't happen on mine, as the load is deliberately transferred into the core and then distributed on the 3 spreader plates, and also mine can't rip the rubber from the base and top plate (as I avoid having that "feature").
 
BTW, I've had to replace 2 mounts on my own car (both on the gearbox side due to the asymmetric torque/twisting on the engine), one of the reasons I made my own.
 
I now have a fair idea of how the different PU strengths affect the mounts stiffness (compared to OEM), I can make anything from +40% to +110%. I can also make (and recommend you install) asymmetrically different mounts, putting the stiffer mount on the gearbox side and the relatively weaker mount on the O/S. This will help stop the diagonal twisting of the engine and any unwanted effect that might have on the subframe and geometry etc etc.
 
Here is a load test I did to demonstrate the OEM to +40% stiffness mounts.
 

 


I have also done a 4 hour heat (life) test at 50 degrees in my oven on my prototype mount. This would have accelerated the ageing process and I did a basic rebound test on it before/after and also inspected it for whitening/crazing. All looked good afterwards.

Edited by Nev, 13 June 2018 - 08:22 PM.

[Tony H]

Looks good!

Are you aware of this rover elise mount sold by EP? Might give you some thoughts. The bolt goes right through secured underneath.

[smiley]

Regelin Germany sells a comparable product for the VX, and i have not seen any complaints yet.

Always good to see alternatives

[siztenboots]

what flavours do them come in?

 

the +110% one looks like that grapefruit / pear type

[kipper]

what flavours do them come in?

 

the +110% one looks like that grapefruit / pear type

Quite fancy Strawberry or Elderflower myself  ...but what ever flavour well done Nev for trying something different.

[Nev]

@TonyH: I wasn't aware of that offering. I already have a "solid" mount on my gearbox side. It's a solid threaded bar, but the surrounding PU is under compression (due to the 45NM top + bottom nut) and hence does allow a few degrees of motion, much as that EP one does, albeit a lot cheaper.

 

Bear in mind my mounts are tested and compared vs OEM strength, so I can bespoke them to your torque. Whereas I notice none of the "professional" offerings show any such comparison info, you just buy a "random" stiffness mount from what I can see.

 

I currently have some "strawberry" (red) ones on the bench, they are circa +35% stiffer than OEM. Pineapple ones are 110% stiffer, banana are +70% stiffer.

 

 

Edited by Nev, 14 June 2018 - 11:51 AM.

[Nev]

The next pair of mounts ready for despatch to a VX220 friend. This pair is around +90% stiffness, with a slight improvement to the metal work to help distribute the torque strain over an even wider volume of the unit.

 

 

Edited by Nev, 22 June 2018 - 06:57 AM.

[chris_uk]

Couple things which you may if overlooked

the faces which will be touching, on the original are both metal faces, so the mount sits on metal and the engine mount bracket sits on metal. On yours they will sit on PU and potentially dig into mounts and cause damage/splitting

The originals have an anti spin bobble pressed into the top section so you can remove the nuts without the mount spining.

The originals sometimes can be very tight when removing after a while, with yours whats stopping the bolt inside from just spinning out of the pu in the same instances?

Also, what grade steel have you used for the bolts? I assume 8.8 zinc plated ?

[Nev]

I can still make these any time, it's not really worth it financially for me, but happy to help someone who's fed up with replacing them!

 

More info here: https://sites.google...ine-side-mounts

[chris_uk]

id still be interested on hearing your thought on my comments above.. 

[Doctor Ed]

the EP mounts use a similar design to the BDE ones i bought... i like the engineering principle behind them:

"the vibration isolator design is unique in that it 100% mechanically contains excessive engine movement with high-strength 6061-T6 aluminum construction and grade 10.9 hardware. By design, the polyurethane bushings are preloaded during assembly to ensure both upward and downward forces are controlled at all times and the polyurethane material is never placed in tension.

In contrast, stock engine mounts are preloaded only by the weight of the engine/transmission sitting upon them. Unfortunately this leaves an enormous window for upward movement which imparts a tensional force into the relatively weak rubber material and its bond to the mount's metal shell, effectively fatiguing the material and weakening it. Eventually the stock rubber will tear and the mount becomes useless at controlling engine movement"

[Nev]

I think you are right about the upward movement, I took videos of the engine moving and side mounts see upwards movement on acceleration, as their axis is forward of the centre of rotation of the engine, so the whole engine lifts at the bulkhead side and dips at the rear of the car.

 

This is why I put 3 platters (ie 6 faces) into each side of my units, the surface area for the PU to bond to is far more than OEM and can take both upward and downward forces, distributing the load over the 3 faces (as opposed to the OEM 1 face under tension) regardless of direction.

 

 

 

Edited by Nev, 27 November 2018 - 06:35 AM.