Innovative motor mount discussion. **New mount info on page 13**
11-17-2008, 03:12 PM
#882
Lead Footed
. . . finally got a hold of IM . . . the short answer is that they are wanting to do one more design change. See jproy's post above . . . well that's what IM is about to do. They are now thinking that the geometry is off just enough to place the load on the weakest or wrong part of the mount. 
Anyway, after IM gave me a brief overview, it makes sense to me and I hope this one really works out. However before IM can make one, they got to get their hands on the rear engine mounting bracket. That's the key to coming up with the right geometry. I don't don't know where they'll get one, but maybe someone here has one laying around . .
so this may take a while . . . so . . . I'm not going to wait on that one.
Since that'll take too long, I'm going to replace the rear with an OEM mount and that should fix my problems. If that works, I'll watch for any wear and tear on the rear, and if or when IM comes out with the new design, I'll try it if I'm seeing some problems with the OEM rear. If there are no problems, I may just leave it as it is.
BTW, the tranny is getting replaced and I asked the dealer what they'd charge, $373 for the mount and installation. A bit too much for me right now so I'll sacrifice a weekend and do it myself.
I also asked them about replacing the belts (the car is over 7yrs old now) and they quoted me $1044 for that . . . about $800 of that is labor so I'll see if that's something I can do as well . .
Ruf
Anyway, after IM gave me a brief overview, it makes sense to me and I hope this one really works out. However before IM can make one, they got to get their hands on the rear engine mounting bracket. That's the key to coming up with the right geometry. I don't don't know where they'll get one, but maybe someone here has one laying around . .
so this may take a while . . . so . . . I'm not going to wait on that one.Since that'll take too long, I'm going to replace the rear with an OEM mount and that should fix my problems. If that works, I'll watch for any wear and tear on the rear, and if or when IM comes out with the new design, I'll try it if I'm seeing some problems with the OEM rear. If there are no problems, I may just leave it as it is.
BTW, the tranny is getting replaced and I asked the dealer what they'd charge, $373 for the mount and installation. A bit too much for me right now so I'll sacrifice a weekend and do it myself.
I also asked them about replacing the belts (the car is over 7yrs old now) and they quoted me $1044 for that . . . about $800 of that is labor so I'll see if that's something I can do as well . .
Ruf
11-17-2008, 04:12 PM
#884
MP90 uninstalled
The heart of the issue here is not just the alignment of the rear mount geometry but all three of them. They are all slightly off by a few MM and the collars should be lengthened on all three in the center of the IM mount to match the steel collar of the OEM mount collar. I know this for a fact. That alone will cause more vibration transmission than necessary. The bushing is prevented from doing its job on the horizontal axis with it pinched like they are in the pics above plus I am concerned about the OEM cast chassis-side brackets snapping since they are being deflected a few MM into center to pinch the shorter metal collar at the center of the IM bushing(see the indentations from the chassis-side bracket on the bushing). Those marks are still identical to what they looked like when they came out of the car over two months ago. The mounts were only there for 3-4 days. The bushing material should have come back to neutral, at least a little after removal. This makes me question the chemical composition of the bushing itself in that it has no memory characteristics of its original shape or that those characteristics are very weak. These three issues must all be addressed on all three of the mounts for them to work properly; 1.)the geometry of all three mounts needs to be identical to the OEM mounts without deflection(neutral, non load bearing), 2.)the collars need to be lengthened to match the OEM collars, 3.)and the composition of the bushing material needs to be corrected so it will have better shape retention characteristics. I would not consider any kind of reinstall or purchase until all three of these issues are addressed in their entirety. There should not be any need to unbolt so much stuff just to get the bolts to go in.
11-17-2008, 05:31 PM
#885
nice write up on other concerns!
as for their mount...i sent them my rear mount back in the beginning for fabrication. so i guess they cut it up into small pieces? i will be pulling my IM mounts out soon and be replacing them with poly filled stock.
as for their mount...i sent them my rear mount back in the beginning for fabrication. so i guess they cut it up into small pieces? i will be pulling my IM mounts out soon and be replacing them with poly filled stock.
11-17-2008, 09:20 PM
#886
Lead Footed
The heart of the issue here is not just the alignment of the rear mount geometry but all three of them. They are all slightly off by a few MM and the collars should be lengthened on all three in the center of the IM mount to match the steel collar of the OEM mount collar. I know this for a fact. That alone will cause more vibration transmission than necessary. The bushing is prevented from doing its job on the horizontal axis with it pinched like they are in the pics above plus I am concerned about the OEM cast chassis-side brackets snapping since they are being deflected a few MM into center to pinch the shorter metal collar at the center of the IM bushing(see the indentations from the chassis-side bracket on the bushing). Those marks are still identical to what they looked like when they came out of the car over two months ago. The mounts were only there for 3-4 days. The bushing material should have come back to neutral, at least a little after removal. This makes me question the chemical composition of the bushing itself in that it has no memory characteristics of its original shape or that those characteristics are very weak. These three issues must all be addressed on all three of the mounts for them to work properly; 1.)the geometry of all three mounts needs to be identical to the OEM mounts without deflection(neutral, non load bearing), 2.)the collars need to be lengthened to match the OEM collars, 3.)and the composition of the bushing material needs to be corrected so it will have better shape retention characteristics. I would not consider any kind of reinstall or purchase until all three of these issues are addressed in their entirety. There should not be any need to unbolt so much stuff just to get the bolts to go in.
Seriously, if you are not talk with IM . . . you should. Tim has been the main contact. Meanwhile I'm pretty close to calling it quits.
Also, have you seen the 3rd gen design? Go to post 829 if not. This in my opinion is the best design. It spreads the energy across a bigger are, and it does by compressing the bushing . . . not by ripping/streaching it.
Ruf
11-17-2008, 09:23 PM
#887
Lead Footed
Hey Sentinel, on my call today Tim mentioned that you were not having any problems and were happy with the results. Some how I missed that . . . can you clarify? Maybe Tim's talking with yet another person.
Ruf
Ruf
11-18-2008, 04:49 AM
#890
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Whittier Area, CA, USA
Age: 41
Posts: 115
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think Tim got the message from Brian (he's been my main contact) anyway the vibrations have eased up from the modification of the original design (shortening the mounting point to the bushing section.) But recently vibrations have been getting steadily stronger. They said to wait on your report before they will make more modifications or changes.
11-18-2008, 10:14 AM
#892
Lead Footed
I don't think Tim got the message from Brian (he's been my main contact) anyway the vibrations have eased up from the modification of the original design (shortening the mounting point to the bushing section.) But recently vibrations have been getting steadily stronger. They said to wait on your report before they will make more modifications or changes.
I did give Tim an update yesterday afternoon that the 3rd gen aren't working out either. We'll have to wait and see what they come back with.
Ruf
11-18-2008, 10:16 AM
#893
Lead Footed
sigh . . . yep, that's what I'd do at this point since I don't think they'll have another design out for several weeks or a efw months. If you can do it yourself it won't be too painfull. I just feel for the guys that need someone to do it for them . . .
Ruf
11-18-2008, 03:21 PM
#894
MP90 uninstalled
Another possible cause, I wonder if the extreme heat from being so close to the headers in such a confined place is making the bushing material doughy? They almost look melted. I will give them a call if you post the number. The bottom line here is this; either they must purchase three OEM mounts for both a 6MT and a AT then create identical copies down to 1/1000 of an inch or get a 6TM and AT car they can use until they get this right. I think it is ridiculous they are even trying to correct this problem without a car on hand. It is the first thing that would come to mind if I wanted to design a product for something and have it work.
Four major concerns;
ALIGNMENT = The mounts are clearly not lined up correctly to evenly distribute the load under neutral conditions. It is a fact that they are all off by a few MM’s. The best evidence of this is that so many bolts have to be loosened just to get the bolts to thread up when installing all three IM mounts. When all the bolts are fully threaded and torque down the mounts are clearly under substantial load where they are supposed to be at neutral evenly supporting the motor. I had to twist my motor about 3MM on all axis’s just to get the bolts to line up with everything loose. There is even a sequence in the shop manual to tighten up all mounting bolts so you do not cause vibration transmission due to poor alignment, and this is using the OEM mounts we know are perfect with the loads distributed evenly at neutral.
COLLAR LENGTH = The collars on the IM mounts are shorter than the collars on the OEM mounts putting unnecessary stress on the engine-side OEM bracket as it has to flex in about 2-3mm to clamp the IM collar. This should not be necessary and in itself would cause additional vibration transmission. Additionally, this is quite dangerous as over time the bracket could fracture possibly causing a catastrophic failure. For the 6MT guys this is a problem on the rear and side mount.
BUSHING COMPOSITION = It has been a while since I was in the chem lab but there is certainly something awry with the formulation of these red bushings, and the black bushings from what I have seen here. They should not become deformed like they are under load for any reason. This is simply unacceptable. The stock OEM Rear 6MT mount holds up just fine with the front and side IM so they should start there. After 100000 supercharged miles my OEM rear shows no deformation. The OEM 6MT rear mount is not fluid filled. The 6MT OEM rear mount is a solid piece of rubber with three channels to allow some movement. It is very difficult to manipulate with your hands unlike the front and side OEM mounts. My opinion is that the bushing composition needs to change as well as the size of the bushings they are trying to distribute these loads over.
TEMPERATURE = I could be way off here but I think there is a possibility the heat associated with being so close to the header in such a confined place may be weakening the front and rear bushings nearly to the point of melting or just hot enough to change the neutral orientation of the bushing itself. I don’t know for sure but it is suspect.
Four major concerns;
ALIGNMENT = The mounts are clearly not lined up correctly to evenly distribute the load under neutral conditions. It is a fact that they are all off by a few MM’s. The best evidence of this is that so many bolts have to be loosened just to get the bolts to thread up when installing all three IM mounts. When all the bolts are fully threaded and torque down the mounts are clearly under substantial load where they are supposed to be at neutral evenly supporting the motor. I had to twist my motor about 3MM on all axis’s just to get the bolts to line up with everything loose. There is even a sequence in the shop manual to tighten up all mounting bolts so you do not cause vibration transmission due to poor alignment, and this is using the OEM mounts we know are perfect with the loads distributed evenly at neutral.
COLLAR LENGTH = The collars on the IM mounts are shorter than the collars on the OEM mounts putting unnecessary stress on the engine-side OEM bracket as it has to flex in about 2-3mm to clamp the IM collar. This should not be necessary and in itself would cause additional vibration transmission. Additionally, this is quite dangerous as over time the bracket could fracture possibly causing a catastrophic failure. For the 6MT guys this is a problem on the rear and side mount.
BUSHING COMPOSITION = It has been a while since I was in the chem lab but there is certainly something awry with the formulation of these red bushings, and the black bushings from what I have seen here. They should not become deformed like they are under load for any reason. This is simply unacceptable. The stock OEM Rear 6MT mount holds up just fine with the front and side IM so they should start there. After 100000 supercharged miles my OEM rear shows no deformation. The OEM 6MT rear mount is not fluid filled. The 6MT OEM rear mount is a solid piece of rubber with three channels to allow some movement. It is very difficult to manipulate with your hands unlike the front and side OEM mounts. My opinion is that the bushing composition needs to change as well as the size of the bushings they are trying to distribute these loads over.
TEMPERATURE = I could be way off here but I think there is a possibility the heat associated with being so close to the header in such a confined place may be weakening the front and rear bushings nearly to the point of melting or just hot enough to change the neutral orientation of the bushing itself. I don’t know for sure but it is suspect.
Last edited by jproy; 11-18-2008 at 03:25 PM.
11-18-2008, 04:36 PM
#895
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Whittier Area, CA, USA
Age: 41
Posts: 115
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another possible cause, I wonder if the extreme heat from being so close to the headers in such a confined place is making the bushing material doughy? They almost look melted. I will give them a call if you post the number. The bottom line here is this; either they must purchase three OEM mounts for both a 6MT and a AT then create identical copies down to 1/1000 of an inch or get a 6TM and AT car they can use until they get this right. I think it is ridiculous they are even trying to correct this problem without a car on hand. It is the first thing that would come to mind if I wanted to design a product for something and have it work.
Four major concerns;
ALIGNMENT = The mounts are clearly not lined up correctly to evenly distribute the load under neutral conditions. It is a fact that they are all off by a few MM’s. The best evidence of this is that so many bolts have to be loosened just to get the bolts to thread up when installing all three IM mounts. When all the bolts are fully threaded and torque down the mounts are clearly under substantial load where they are supposed to be at neutral evenly supporting the motor. I had to twist my motor about 3MM on all axis’s just to get the bolts to line up with everything loose. There is even a sequence in the shop manual to tighten up all mounting bolts so you do not cause vibration transmission due to poor alignment, and this is using the OEM mounts we know are perfect with the loads distributed evenly at neutral.
COLLAR LENGTH = The collars on the IM mounts are shorter than the collars on the OEM mounts putting unnecessary stress on the engine-side OEM bracket as it has to flex in about 2-3mm to clamp the IM collar. This should not be necessary and in itself would cause additional vibration transmission. Additionally, this is quite dangerous as over time the bracket could fracture possibly causing a catastrophic failure. For the 6MT guys this is a problem on the rear and side mount.
BUSHING COMPOSITION = It has been a while since I was in the chem lab but there is certainly something awry with the formulation of these red bushings, and the black bushings from what I have seen here. They should not become deformed like they are under load for any reason. This is simply unacceptable. The stock OEM Rear 6MT mount holds up just fine with the front and side IM so they should start there. After 100000 supercharged miles my OEM rear shows no deformation. The OEM 6MT rear mount is not fluid filled. The 6MT OEM rear mount is a solid piece of rubber with three channels to allow some movement. It is very difficult to manipulate with your hands unlike the front and side OEM mounts. My opinion is that the bushing composition needs to change as well as the size of the bushings they are trying to distribute these loads over.
TEMPERATURE = I could be way off here but I think there is a possibility the heat associated with being so close to the header in such a confined place may be weakening the front and rear bushings nearly to the point of melting or just hot enough to change the neutral orientation of the bushing itself. I don’t know for sure but it is suspect.
Four major concerns;
ALIGNMENT = The mounts are clearly not lined up correctly to evenly distribute the load under neutral conditions. It is a fact that they are all off by a few MM’s. The best evidence of this is that so many bolts have to be loosened just to get the bolts to thread up when installing all three IM mounts. When all the bolts are fully threaded and torque down the mounts are clearly under substantial load where they are supposed to be at neutral evenly supporting the motor. I had to twist my motor about 3MM on all axis’s just to get the bolts to line up with everything loose. There is even a sequence in the shop manual to tighten up all mounting bolts so you do not cause vibration transmission due to poor alignment, and this is using the OEM mounts we know are perfect with the loads distributed evenly at neutral.
COLLAR LENGTH = The collars on the IM mounts are shorter than the collars on the OEM mounts putting unnecessary stress on the engine-side OEM bracket as it has to flex in about 2-3mm to clamp the IM collar. This should not be necessary and in itself would cause additional vibration transmission. Additionally, this is quite dangerous as over time the bracket could fracture possibly causing a catastrophic failure. For the 6MT guys this is a problem on the rear and side mount.
BUSHING COMPOSITION = It has been a while since I was in the chem lab but there is certainly something awry with the formulation of these red bushings, and the black bushings from what I have seen here. They should not become deformed like they are under load for any reason. This is simply unacceptable. The stock OEM Rear 6MT mount holds up just fine with the front and side IM so they should start there. After 100000 supercharged miles my OEM rear shows no deformation. The OEM 6MT rear mount is not fluid filled. The 6MT OEM rear mount is a solid piece of rubber with three channels to allow some movement. It is very difficult to manipulate with your hands unlike the front and side OEM mounts. My opinion is that the bushing composition needs to change as well as the size of the bushings they are trying to distribute these loads over.
TEMPERATURE = I could be way off here but I think there is a possibility the heat associated with being so close to the header in such a confined place may be weakening the front and rear bushings nearly to the point of melting or just hot enough to change the neutral orientation of the bushing itself. I don’t know for sure but it is suspect.
I now nominate jproy as our representative to IM 
.These are solid points. While i have not dealt with installing the mounts and experienced the difficult installation my mechanic has mentioned the difficulty of installing the mounts each time i came back to change them out.
i think i spent about the cost of the mounts on changing them out.
11-18-2008, 05:21 PM
#897
MP90 uninstalled
11-18-2008, 09:57 PM
#898
Lead Footed
Another possible cause, I wonder if the extreme heat from being so close to the headers in such a confined place is making the bushing material doughy? They almost look melted. I will give them a call if you post the number. The bottom line here is this; either they must purchase three OEM mounts for both a 6MT and a AT then create identical copies down to 1/1000 of an inch or get a 6TM and AT car they can use until they get this right. I think it is ridiculous they are even trying to correct this problem without a car on hand. It is the first thing that would come to mind if I wanted to design a product for something and have it work.
Four major concerns;
ALIGNMENT = The mounts are clearly not lined up correctly to evenly distribute the load under neutral conditions. It is a fact that they are all off by a few MM’s. The best evidence of this is that so many bolts have to be loosened just to get the bolts to thread up when installing all three IM mounts. When all the bolts are fully threaded and torque down the mounts are clearly under substantial load where they are supposed to be at neutral evenly supporting the motor. I had to twist my motor about 3MM on all axis’s just to get the bolts to line up with everything loose. There is even a sequence in the shop manual to tighten up all mounting bolts so you do not cause vibration transmission due to poor alignment, and this is using the OEM mounts we know are perfect with the loads distributed evenly at neutral.
COLLAR LENGTH = The collars on the IM mounts are shorter than the collars on the OEM mounts putting unnecessary stress on the engine-side OEM bracket as it has to flex in about 2-3mm to clamp the IM collar. This should not be necessary and in itself would cause additional vibration transmission. Additionally, this is quite dangerous as over time the bracket could fracture possibly causing a catastrophic failure. For the 6MT guys this is a problem on the rear and side mount.
BUSHING COMPOSITION = It has been a while since I was in the chem lab but there is certainly something awry with the formulation of these red bushings, and the black bushings from what I have seen here. They should not become deformed like they are under load for any reason. This is simply unacceptable. The stock OEM Rear 6MT mount holds up just fine with the front and side IM so they should start there. After 100000 supercharged miles my OEM rear shows no deformation. The OEM 6MT rear mount is not fluid filled. The 6MT OEM rear mount is a solid piece of rubber with three channels to allow some movement. It is very difficult to manipulate with your hands unlike the front and side OEM mounts. My opinion is that the bushing composition needs to change as well as the size of the bushings they are trying to distribute these loads over.
TEMPERATURE = I could be way off here but I think there is a possibility the heat associated with being so close to the header in such a confined place may be weakening the front and rear bushings nearly to the point of melting or just hot enough to change the neutral orientation of the bushing itself. I don’t know for sure but it is suspect.
Four major concerns;
ALIGNMENT = The mounts are clearly not lined up correctly to evenly distribute the load under neutral conditions. It is a fact that they are all off by a few MM’s. The best evidence of this is that so many bolts have to be loosened just to get the bolts to thread up when installing all three IM mounts. When all the bolts are fully threaded and torque down the mounts are clearly under substantial load where they are supposed to be at neutral evenly supporting the motor. I had to twist my motor about 3MM on all axis’s just to get the bolts to line up with everything loose. There is even a sequence in the shop manual to tighten up all mounting bolts so you do not cause vibration transmission due to poor alignment, and this is using the OEM mounts we know are perfect with the loads distributed evenly at neutral.
COLLAR LENGTH = The collars on the IM mounts are shorter than the collars on the OEM mounts putting unnecessary stress on the engine-side OEM bracket as it has to flex in about 2-3mm to clamp the IM collar. This should not be necessary and in itself would cause additional vibration transmission. Additionally, this is quite dangerous as over time the bracket could fracture possibly causing a catastrophic failure. For the 6MT guys this is a problem on the rear and side mount.
BUSHING COMPOSITION = It has been a while since I was in the chem lab but there is certainly something awry with the formulation of these red bushings, and the black bushings from what I have seen here. They should not become deformed like they are under load for any reason. This is simply unacceptable. The stock OEM Rear 6MT mount holds up just fine with the front and side IM so they should start there. After 100000 supercharged miles my OEM rear shows no deformation. The OEM 6MT rear mount is not fluid filled. The 6MT OEM rear mount is a solid piece of rubber with three channels to allow some movement. It is very difficult to manipulate with your hands unlike the front and side OEM mounts. My opinion is that the bushing composition needs to change as well as the size of the bushings they are trying to distribute these loads over.
TEMPERATURE = I could be way off here but I think there is a possibility the heat associated with being so close to the header in such a confined place may be weakening the front and rear bushings nearly to the point of melting or just hot enough to change the neutral orientation of the bushing itself. I don’t know for sure but it is suspect.
and to top it off, there's the engine mount bracket that the motor mount bolts to and they can't be sure of its positioning. At this point I don't think this will get resolved until they can work with all the parts at the same time. And their number is - 714-524-5246
Tim is the guy I spoke to 99% of the time, and Greg once. Sentinel spoke with a Brian.
One thought I have would be to have a conference call with 3 guys from here and their 3 guys. That way all the notes, experiences and insight can get things narrowed down. I'm game if you and Sentinel are. Let me know and I'll call Tim to see about setting one up.
Ruf
11-18-2008, 11:09 PM
#899
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Whittier Area, CA, USA
Age: 41
Posts: 115
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we can set it up that would be great. Personal info to follow in PM once confirmed. With Holidays coming around it might get harder to get them all on at once. Let's see what we can roll out.
11-20-2008, 10:24 PM
#901
Lead Footed
Spoke with Tim today and asked if they had a conference room/capabilites and he said they did. I then proposed a conference call with the 3 of us. He paused and said "I guess that isn't a problem". He wasn't ready to talk about a time at that moment so I told him I'd call him Friday to pick out a couple of times next week . . if possible. I'll PM you guys with the details . . assuming I get some.
Ruf
Ruf
11-25-2008, 11:42 AM
#906
Kilos of yayo in
Yeah tell me about it. At least a partial refund would be nice. I have been using an OEM rear mount with innovative front and side the entire time. My vibration is getting way too much to stand going to put back in the stock mounts will report back with pics on the condition of the innovative mounts. Since mine took such a nosedive I don't think OEM rear, innovative front and side is a viable option as I heard mentioned earlier in the thread.
11-25-2008, 04:14 PM
#907
Lead Footed
Yeah tell me about it. At least a partial refund would be nice. I have been using an OEM rear mount with innovative front and side the entire time. My vibration is getting way too much to stand going to put back in the stock mounts will report back with pics on the condition of the innovative mounts. Since mine took such a nosedive I don't think OEM rear, innovative front and side is a viable option as I heard mentioned earlier in the thread.
If that is the case, then that is not an option as the bushing won't hold up. The only set up that I believe has a chance at working is the 3rd gen . . that's the ones that have the mount set up vertically verses horizontally.
I've contacted IM to set up the conference call . . so hopefully we'll do that after Thanksgiving.
Ruf
11-26-2008, 09:06 AM
#908
Kilos of yayo in
Hey Billy, I think you had the 1st gen front mounts . . . right?
If that is the case, then that is not an option as the bushing won't hold up. The only set up that I believe has a chance at working is the 3rd gen . . that's the ones that have the mount set up vertically verses horizontally.
I've contacted IM to set up the conference call . . so hopefully we'll do that after Thanksgiving.
Ruf
If that is the case, then that is not an option as the bushing won't hold up. The only set up that I believe has a chance at working is the 3rd gen . . that's the ones that have the mount set up vertically verses horizontally.
I've contacted IM to set up the conference call . . so hopefully we'll do that after Thanksgiving.
Ruf
11-26-2008, 10:16 AM
#909
MP90 uninstalled
I think it would be interesting to contact Pinho on the Dyno threads. He put the CLS motor in a civic. He obviously had some mounts made in a small volume. How many civics are runing around with a J motor? Cant be many. Anyway it would be nice to find out who he went though and what his mounts are like. If you watch his videos he does burnouts through third with zero wheel hop.
11-26-2008, 10:31 AM
#910
Lead Footed
I think it would be interesting to contact Pinho on the Dyno threads. He put the CLS motor in a civic. He obviously had some mounts made in a small volume. How many civics are runing around with a J motor? Cant be many. Anyway it would be nice to find out who he went though and what his mounts are like. If you watch his videos he does burnouts through third with zero wheel hop.
. . . and . . . I'm hem hawing right now . . on whether I tackle installing the OEM rear mount today or later this weekend . .
Ruf
11-26-2008, 12:27 PM
#911
MP90 uninstalled
It took me an hour to put the OEM rear mount back in. I do have two jacks and every tool under the sun though. I do realize mine is a 6MT. It wasn’t something to stress over.
I disagree with you about the mounts with the bolt perpendicular to the ground being better. The rear OEM 6MT mount bolt and bushing are parallel to the ground and it works just fine. After thinking more about this, I think the main problem is the surface area of the collar on the IM mount being too small in diameter. There is not enough surface area to distribute the weight of the engine over such a small amount of bushing for both the front and rear mounts. The bushing OSD (outside diameter) needs to be increased and the OSD of the collar needs to be at least doubled on both the front and rear mounts. I still think the composition of the bushing is questionable, at least in its temp resistance and deformation. I think a hard rubber should be used like on the OEM rear 6MT mount.
I disagree with you about the mounts with the bolt perpendicular to the ground being better. The rear OEM 6MT mount bolt and bushing are parallel to the ground and it works just fine. After thinking more about this, I think the main problem is the surface area of the collar on the IM mount being too small in diameter. There is not enough surface area to distribute the weight of the engine over such a small amount of bushing for both the front and rear mounts. The bushing OSD (outside diameter) needs to be increased and the OSD of the collar needs to be at least doubled on both the front and rear mounts. I still think the composition of the bushing is questionable, at least in its temp resistance and deformation. I think a hard rubber should be used like on the OEM rear 6MT mount.
11-26-2008, 12:47 PM
#912
MP90 uninstalled
I dont think the designers of these mounts realized how much dead weight is placed on just the front and rear mounts unlike a I-4 motor they have designed so many mounts for. The IM front and rear bushings appear to be the same size as what is used on the I-4 motors. The side and trans mounts are not intended to be load bearing on the CL/TL, they are jsut for stabilization, so all the weight is on the front and rear mounts. I think the IM mounts are just collapsing under the sheer weight of the larger 3.2v6 and are very very poorly aligned causing all the problems. Changing the orientation of the bushing is just an unnecessary band aid, IMHO. If the bushings are collapsing with the old design, what is to say it wont get pulled right out of the IM bushing socket using the same inadequate bushing? There is no reason the parallel design wont work as proven by the OEM rear mount. Bahhh!
12-02-2008, 12:29 PM
#916
Lead Footed
Well . . . installed the new OEM rear and all is good. There is a slight vibrations but nothing I'd complain about.
Installation wasn't as bad as last time (5hrs) now that I know what all to disconnect. I think I can do it in 2hrs or less now . . . should IM solve the problem . . I'd replace the rear . . assuming it's not doing the job.
The real beef right now is that I've still not heard back from Tim regarding our conference call request.
I'll give him one more chance and see if Excelerate can weigh in on this.
Ruf
Installation wasn't as bad as last time (5hrs) now that I know what all to disconnect. I think I can do it in 2hrs or less now . . . should IM solve the problem . . I'd replace the rear . . assuming it's not doing the job.
The real beef right now is that I've still not heard back from Tim regarding our conference call request.
I'll give him one more chance and see if Excelerate can weigh in on this.Ruf
12-02-2008, 12:44 PM
#917
Lead Footed
It took me an hour to put the OEM rear mount back in. I do have two jacks and every tool under the sun though. I do realize mine is a 6MT. It wasn’t something to stress over.
I disagree with you about the mounts with the bolt perpendicular to the ground being better. The rear OEM 6MT mount bolt and bushing are parallel to the ground and it works just fine. After thinking more about this, I think the main problem is the surface area of the collar on the IM mount being too small in diameter. There is not enough surface area to distribute the weight of the engine over such a small amount of bushing for both the front and rear mounts. The bushing OSD (outside diameter) needs to be increased and the OSD of the collar needs to be at least doubled on both the front and rear mounts. I still think the composition of the bushing is questionable, at least in its temp resistance and deformation. I think a hard rubber should be used like on the OEM rear 6MT mount.
I disagree with you about the mounts with the bolt perpendicular to the ground being better. The rear OEM 6MT mount bolt and bushing are parallel to the ground and it works just fine. After thinking more about this, I think the main problem is the surface area of the collar on the IM mount being too small in diameter. There is not enough surface area to distribute the weight of the engine over such a small amount of bushing for both the front and rear mounts. The bushing OSD (outside diameter) needs to be increased and the OSD of the collar needs to be at least doubled on both the front and rear mounts. I still think the composition of the bushing is questionable, at least in its temp resistance and deformation. I think a hard rubber should be used like on the OEM rear 6MT mount.
As for the mounts, I still believe that a vertical design will be more effecient and durable. After seeing the OEM rear mount up close and able to put it next to the IM mount . . . surface area and mass ARE a key factor that needs to be addressed. Without it . . . I'm pretty certain they'll never fix it.
I wish I took a pic before I installed the OEM and do a side-by-side shot of the 2. The OEM has 3 to 4 time the surface area that absorbs the motor and downward force. It also as several times the mass, so I'm pretty sure IM will need to design a mount more in line with the size of the OEM.
I'll see if I can dig up some pics.
Ruf
12-02-2008, 12:51 PM
#918
Lead Footed
I dont think the designers of these mounts realized how much dead weight is placed on just the front and rear mounts unlike a I-4 motor they have designed so many mounts for. The IM front and rear bushings appear to be the same size as what is used on the I-4 motors. The side and trans mounts are not intended to be load bearing on the CL/TL, they are jsut for stabilization, so all the weight is on the front and rear mounts. I think the IM mounts are just collapsing under the sheer weight of the larger 3.2v6 and are very very poorly aligned causing all the problems. Changing the orientation of the bushing is just an unnecessary band aid, IMHO. If the bushings are collapsing with the old design, what is to say it wont get pulled right out of the IM bushing socket using the same inadequate bushing? There is no reason the parallel design wont work as proven by the OEM rear mount. Bahhh!
As for the orientation, note that on the auto cars the OEM mount is vertical and not horizontal. And I'm fairly sure that vertical will be better overall.
By th way, I did inspect the front and rear bushings and they are holding up fine . . . and would do better if it was larger and used a larger aluminum retainer.
Now we just need IM to work with us on the call request.
Ruf
12-02-2008, 11:05 PM
#919
-Arsenic-
I think it would be interesting to contact Pinho on the Dyno threads. He put the CLS motor in a civic. He obviously had some mounts made in a small volume. How many civics are runing around with a J motor? Cant be many. Anyway it would be nice to find out who he went though and what his mounts are like. If you watch his videos he does burnouts through third with zero wheel hop.
