All Stiff

[03MSPRO]

did not you read my post? A stiffer mount will NOt cause more wear on the other because all the stresses will go to the stiffest mount or member (structures)

 

[girth]

I thought about possible damage for just installing the front mount. Since the front mount is now stiffer than the rear mount, all the forces/stresses are being transfered to the stiffests mount (front). This also applies to structures ( I am a Civil Engneer). The rear mount will not wear faster. The front (stiffest) mount is talking most of the beating. BTW, stop the misinformation.

How do you explain then the numerous people that have changed just 1 mount only to have the opposing one fail prematurley? Various people have posted about that on here in the past ... so either they were lying or you are wrong.(dunno)

 

[I'm Allen]

Thought you all might want to check this out. I went to www.axronline.com and they have the AWR 'softer' poly motor mounts. Go to the Mazda>Protege>Engine Parts>Antony Woodford Racing section. They say they are for the AT proteges so I don't know if they will work on the MT. Might give them a call tomorrow to find out. Price is only $119.

Allen-

Also, Cork Sport is supposedly coming out with some poly motor mount inserts. Those may be a better alternative too.

 

[Yay-Boost]

Anyone tried filling the stock motor mounts? My last car i filled the front with epoxy and it completley eliminated wheel hop. The epoxy made the mount very stiff. There was alot of vibration at idle. Once driving down the road it wasn't too bad. I think a softer material might work better. Once spring rolls around I'm going to try filling with silicone.

 

[Equinox]

have you guys not seen the corksport motor mount inserts, they would fix all yrou wishes =p

 

[03MSPRO]

I had mine for 3 days. I guess I'll find out what happens after 1 month, but I doubt the rear mount will wear any sooner, but I MIGHT be wrong, after all the engine is not a building or structure so it might behave different. Somtimes logic does not always work. But one things is true, in a building, stresses are distributed to the strongest/stiffest member. Yes it might be apples and oranges, but I am trying to be logical and applied my work knowledge on everyday staff. Most of the times it works.

 

[aftershock63]

anyone think about calling them and asking if they could put the slightly softer bushings in the M/T mounts.

Better yet Has anyone wiht a A/T used these mounts yet?

 

[Glowmunkey]

I had mine for 3 days. I guess I'll find out what happens after 1 month, but I doubt the rear mount will wear any sooner, but I MIGHT be wrong, after all the engine is not a building or structure so it might behave different. Somtimes logic does not always work. But one things is true, in a building, stresses are distributed to the strongest/stiffest member. Yes it might be apples and oranges, but I am trying to be logical and applied my work knowledge on everyday staff. Most of the times it works.

I've seen mounts wear faster when one mount was significantly stiffer. It's extremely common for SR20 cars to rip through their tranny mounts when stiffer motor mounts are used... and we actually installed a new OEM rear mount along with Place Racing front and side poly mounts. The rear OEM one gave way in around 20K of hard driving. Granted, I doubt the proteges would wear through engine mounts as fast as an SR20, but you get the idea.

The weakest link breaks first in this case... the softer mount takes extra abuse because it's the only part that is allowing any movement.

 

[SPDRCR]

the softer mount takes extra abuse because it's the only part that is allowing any movement.

I agree. 03MSPRO, I think you figured it out basically that dynamic loads differ from static loads.

I have 4 mechanical enginerd friends and they agree, the stiffer mount will cause the softer one to wear out faster. I think from a civil engineering standpoint, you probably deal with static loads (I presume)...in a building, the stiffer the stuctural post the more load it will take simply because the the softer one cannot hold as much...given that the load doesn't move accordingly, the stiffer post takes the majority of the load.

When talking about dynamic or oscillating loads, the stiffer the attachment point, the less movement, and the more load and movement on the softer attachment point. Therefore the softer mount moves more and wears out faster.

Ultimately, for those of us that bought the full race motor mounts, (and assuming we are not one of the 2 or 3 teams that actually race in the Tourning Car Championship) we probably didn't need that stiff of mount.

So I openly ask everyone if it is possible to drill holes and "thin" the mount? Otherwise, if you haven't bought yet, it sounds like there's a softer mount to buy if you didn't already drop the $130 or so on the full race AWR mounts.

Just my two cents and worth every cent you paid!

 

[03MSPRO]

I agree also. Dynamic and static loads are not the same. I am not very familiar with dynamic loads since I am a Civil Engineer and deal primarly with static loads. I'll agree with your response, at least it sounds good!!
I also talked to Tony from AWR and Mitch from Protege5online. Neither one thinks that upgrading just the front mount will damage anything and also neither one said that doing just the front will cause the rear to wear out faster either. I have ordered the rear mount, but I will not install it until the rear out wears out simply beacuse it's a PITA and I don't want the extra vibration right now. When the rear wears out, I'll replace it w. the other AWR mount and I'll see how bad the vibration really is. Mitch said the he sold hundreds of mounts and only a handfull complaint about the vibration. There is an exception to every rule.

 

[02.5 P5]

I have both mounts in, I strongly suggest ONLY installing the front motor mount. ONLY.

Now Equinox, where is your sense of adventure?