fostersafb
Member
- :
- 2009 Mazdaspeed3 GT MGM
Update, after throwing on some grease the mount slid right in to the bracket no problem, and I didnt have to use a hammer. After thinking about it, I like the idea of the bushing being a tight fit. Once its in there isnt any vertical play. Also the sleeve inside the bushing is shorter than the total width of the bushing. This allows for much more absorbtion of vibrations and noise (this is important to some but not for everyone) becasue the the rear mounting bracket is really only in contact with the bushing material instead of the inner sleeve and bushing together like the TRZ is setup.
Obviously this type of design has its pros and cons depending on which way you look at it. For those that want all out performance and dont mind the NVH of the TRZ setup than the Medieval is not for you. For those that want to tighten up the drivetrain but also want a little dampening than the Medieval is for you.
Honestly the whole copying of designs and smack talk back and forth between the two companies isnt necessary. The way I see it is that while both are very similar in design they really target different buyers.
Also the price difference is easily justified. The Medieval is priced where it is for a reason and the same goes for the TRZ. The TRZ is a higher quality piece than the Medieval. Higher quality cunstruction = higher cost, simple as that. Both perform well in their own right but there is always a simple explanation for these things.
I also wanted to note that I logged about 30 city miles today with the Medieval mount in place of the TRZ dogbone installed. I still have the TRZ tranny mount installed so the dogbone is all that has been changed. The difference was immidiately noticeable. The NVH is still present, just not as severe as with the TRZ. Engine movement is still controlled night an day better than the stock mount. Basically, aside from the NVH bing less the car feels exactly the same. Things may change as the mount breaks it and I will definitely report any chnages.
Obviously this type of design has its pros and cons depending on which way you look at it. For those that want all out performance and dont mind the NVH of the TRZ setup than the Medieval is not for you. For those that want to tighten up the drivetrain but also want a little dampening than the Medieval is for you.
Honestly the whole copying of designs and smack talk back and forth between the two companies isnt necessary. The way I see it is that while both are very similar in design they really target different buyers.
Also the price difference is easily justified. The Medieval is priced where it is for a reason and the same goes for the TRZ. The TRZ is a higher quality piece than the Medieval. Higher quality cunstruction = higher cost, simple as that. Both perform well in their own right but there is always a simple explanation for these things.
I also wanted to note that I logged about 30 city miles today with the Medieval mount in place of the TRZ dogbone installed. I still have the TRZ tranny mount installed so the dogbone is all that has been changed. The difference was immidiately noticeable. The NVH is still present, just not as severe as with the TRZ. Engine movement is still controlled night an day better than the stock mount. Basically, aside from the NVH bing less the car feels exactly the same. Things may change as the mount breaks it and I will definitely report any chnages.
Last edited:
