poly engine mounts?

[dazzer]

There doesn't appear to be a supplier of poly engine mounts, which appears peculiar as everything else even the obscure is.

I've come across three different types of rubber remanufactured as well as different NOS bits. I'm on my third set after 30k, albeit rallying.

Has anyone seen Poly engine mounts? Otherwise I'm going to modify and go for something a bit more substantial.

Dazzer

[Greeks]

No and i have looked too as i am on my third set after considerably less miles. Best advice i had was to fit loose and run the engine then nip up ... Seems obvious now. But still not going to last long. They are seriously inadequate.

[Nick Jones]

Do your trials include the shockingly dear Witor ones?  My originals are now looking very baggy and saggy but I'm really struggling with the idea of £ 80 for a pair of engine mounts and I know the others currently available (as most repro rubberware) are just rubbish with a half life of about 4 months.

May have to re-purpose something more modern......  Hardly a complex shape.

Nick

[Tim Bancroft]

I have not had any problems using the type that Chris Witor markets, these are an Australian make of mounting. Bit pricer than the cheapo, cheapo types that many sell, but well worth the extra cost.

I have not subjected my car to the type of use either Dazzer or Graham have done, but no problems, fitted in 2005 and the car has done 35,000 miles since then.

[Greeks]

I saw that Chris Witor's are Aussie made and decided it would be pointless re-importing them. The latest ones are brand new and I assumed they'd be the same. Also, it's only the passenger side one which seems to suffer.

I suspect it's my cam combined with lack of pi that's causing the problem ... anyone else ever worn the paint off the oil filter from it rubbing on the chassis?

When the next one goes I'll check out Greg Tunstall who concentrates on saloons and deals with lots of 2.7s and modified beasts ... he ought to know what's needed / available.

[dazzer]

Hi guys  

The last set were the better spec witor type but they've both detached from the backing plates. Perhaps fitting some updated TR mounts would just require a single drilled hole on the base.

[Richard B]

Greeks wrote:

... anyone else ever worn the paint off the oil filter from it rubbing on the chassis?

What stae is your gearbox mount in?

Do you have the correct packing pieces so that everything is aligned ?

[Greeks]

Gearbox mount was replaced when the engine gearbox was replaced. Should be fine still I suppose, but I could check.

Packing pieces are in situ ... again the guy who did the engine / gearbox is a very long term Triumpher so I'm certain he would have got that right.

[DJB_Harvey]

I've recently seen TR4 type of mounts I think on a PI Saloon at Malvern ... Wether they were modified first I would have to check , but the engine was a lot more stable .

[ferny]

They're crap on the 4-pot cars as well. I gave up in the end and made solid ones. You can buy your own stuff to make poly mounts. All you then need is an old one and set some studding in it so the poly has got more surface areas to grab onto. I've got a homemade one here but haven't fitted it yet.

[dazzer]

Sounds ideal Ferny. Where are the kits available from?

Dazzer

[Clive]

I was talking to a trader at the weekend about poly engine mounts. He reckoned the cheapest way was to get a rubber type, remove the rubber (sounds like a job for some serious fire!) and then remake with polyurethane. Sounds very plauable to me.
Or alternative engine mounts? there must be something half decent out there. I got some new jag e-type oe mounts  from one of the traders. Will be using those on the spitty.

[ferny]

dazzer - I can't remember  :B

A quick google brought these guys up, might be worth firing off an e-mail to them to see if they do anything useful;
http://www.polytek.com/

[piman]

hello all,

all the failed engine mounts I have had failed at the bond to the steel and I wonder if polyurethane would be any better?

The most reliable type of mounting to me is a sleeved metalastic bush, similar to the old type used for leaf spring eyes. The only drawback is that they tend to be rather harsh.

Alec

[heraldcoupe]

piman wrote:

all the failed engine mounts I have had failed at the bond to the steel and I wonder if polyurethane would be any better?

All depends on how well the process is carried out.
I'm currently experimenting with bonding polyurethane to steel, it's a process used in some pretty demanding industrial applications. If it's done properly then holding up an engine will be easily within it's capabilities,

Cheers,
Bill.

[dazzer]

As a temporary fix I've just got a couple of the Earlpart remanufactured items. The top mounting stud on one of them is on a lovely jaunty angle... quality stuff what.

[James]

I bought a pair that were utter crap — sharp pointy edges, needed drilling to fit properly and failed within months.

The ones I got from Witor have been good so far — nice rounded edges and fitted perfectly.

[Nick Jones]

TR4 ones look the same as LR Defender ones.  Must do some measuring.

Nick

[dazzer]

The Tr4 engine mounts are much beefier and I think you can get heavy duty versions.

[DJB_Harvey]

Most repro rubber items seem to be lacking in quality nowadays .. New old stock bushes / mountings etc really are worth searching out if there's no polyurethane option .

[Nick Jones]

Just started an experiment using Mk1/2 Fiesta mounts.  Reasonably easy mod - only non-reversible element is the need to drill  2 x 20mm holes in the top surface of the crossmember under the mounting position.

They cost me the princely sum of � 8.48 for the pair and (surprisingly) look a fair bit beefier than Triumph ones.  Not driven yet but look pretty much at home.  Suits my early Mk2 PI well (single spacer both sides).  Would work less well on Mk1 or HS6 equipped car as the Fiesta mounts are about 5mm thicker than the Triumph mount itself and I used a 5mm plate to make an adaptor to pick up on the original mount holes, making the combo the same as one Triumph mount + spacer plate.

I'll do a proper write up with pics if it shows any sign of lasting!

Nick

[dazzer]

Sounds interesting Nick.

I previously posted that I'd try some of the standard mid priced engine mounts to get me by... they lasted one event, basically a drive up the motorway and then sixteen tests and the rubber has come away from the metal plates. So if going for standard mounts for competition the Chris Witor quality ones last much longer at approx 10,000+ miles, the cheaper ones last approx 400 miles.

The standard repos are probably fine for the odd show and a trip to the shops, but for serious use they are not nearly robust enough.

Cheers
Dazzer

[Nick Jones]

So, did about 160 miles today.  The new mounts have improved the driving experience - more because the old mounts were very knacked than any inherent superiority of Fiesta mounts though.  Seems to have stopped the nasty noises I was getting under harder acceleration - presumably because the engine is moving less and the exhaust and propshaft/subframe as not getting friendly anymore.

New mounts are FEM3003 (Fiesta Mk1/2).  That's a Firstline p/no.  Ford parts will probably last better.

Old mounts are approx 35mm thick.  These are more like 40mm.  My car also had 1 x 10mm spacer on each side (normal for non HS6 equipped Mk2s I think).  So adding a 5mm adaptor plate made for equal heights.


20mm hole needed as shown to provide somewhere for the lower stud and nut to go.  Cutting the stud off helps it all go together when wrestling things into place on reassembly.


Which results in this


No mods are needed to the engine plate.  Although the Fiesta parts have M10 studs and the originals are 5/16" the holes are plenty big enough.

Old mount was distressed by time and service


Nick