Motor/ Trans mounts [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

Matt Rowe

01-06-2007, 06:58 PM

The way I read the rules I would have to agree with Jeff also, we are stuck with stock engine/trans mounts.

But I'm curious how many other vehicles have issues with "relatively "fragile" mounts? I know I have to treat them as a consumable, even with the allowed additional stay rod. It seems odd that we can add a stay rod and we can replace suspension bushing but the motor mounts are off limits. So does anyone else have any thoughts one way or the other?

ddewhurst

01-06-2007, 08:16 PM

***So does anyone else have any thoughts one way or the other?***

You could call the flexible motor/trans material bushings. Then you could use Spherical bearings as your material. (Yes I understand bushings are tubular.)

We ALL have options when we don't like the IT rules. :D Why should the IT rules be changed closer & closer to Production rules? Why don't people who need more free rules move to a class with more free rules ? :D

The fun part IMHJ of the original glossary definition of Bushing is that the word had NOTHING to do with suspension bushings. The rule had to do with installing a sleeve or tubular insert as a linear bearing or to salvage a worn part.

GCR Glossary

Bushing/Bush - A sleeve or tubular insert , whose PURPOSE is to reduce the dimension(s) of an existing hole.

The friken rubber suspension things are to reduce noise & make up for irregularites of lack of perfection. :D Not to reduce the dimensions of an existing hole.

Have Fun ;)
David

Andy Bettencourt

01-06-2007, 08:55 PM

Ben and I talked about engine/tranny mounts. Engine obviously stock - tranny I say stock too. Can't find any allowance in the GCR for alternate material.

If vibration is an issue, you can always go to a stayrod.

jlucas

01-07-2007, 09:49 AM

The friken rubber suspension things are to reduce noise & make up for irregularites of lack of perfection. :D Not to reduce the dimensions of an existing hole.[/b]

I'll have to disagree with you there. Suspension bushings do indeed reduce the diameter of an existing hole. At the 25hour in 2005, I had a rear trailing arm front bushing disintegrate during my stint due to the exhaust getting too close (from someone's prior off road excrusion).

Can you say 1" of dynamic toe adjustment? Turning was not a problem, going straight was! The high speed kink at on the back part of the course was especially hairy. When it came time to pit, I was very much looking for something to reduce the diameter of the hole. :P

mlytle

01-07-2007, 10:39 AM

Are motor mounts free? I don't have my GCR handy. BMW uses a fluid filled motor mount which isn't particularly strong in a hit....suffice it to say one of mine is not healthy :D . I was wondering what my options were.

Thanks

R
[/b]

only one? if you hit something hard enough to break one, i bet the other is toast too. and the tranny mounts would now be suspect. both my stock bmw engine mounts and both of my uuc tranny mounts sheared off in my front end "incident" on labor day. entire drive train moved forward several inches since is wasn't connected to anything anymore.. :( system basically worked as designed to absorb the energy of the impact.

marshall

ddewhurst

01-07-2007, 03:29 PM

***The friken rubber suspension things are to reduce noise & make up for irregularites of lack of perfection. Not to reduce the dimensions of an existing hole.***

***I'll have to disagree with you there.***

Jerremy, do ya think that the OEM intent of the rubber suspension thing was to reduce the existing hole? :D

Second question:

Do ya think the ORIGINAL Glossary definition of the word Bushing/Bush had any reference to the rubber suspension things that reduce noise & make up for irregularites of lack of perfection? :D

Have Fun ;)
David

ps: Sometimes it's good to stay some what grounded when reading the rules/glossary.

bldn10

01-07-2007, 04:24 PM

David, I don't think we'd have SBs today if that had been the operative definition. But there is a separate one for "Suspension Bushing" and it uses the word "bearing" so, of course, that opened the door to things that were never envisioned by anyone as being a bushing. :bash_1_:

ddewhurst

01-07-2007, 06:36 PM

Bill, thanks for grounding me. :023:

benspeed

01-07-2007, 08:39 PM

Y'all think I should stay stock on the trans mounts? Anybody running anything but stock? The ones I want to put in are urethane.

Greg Amy

01-07-2007, 09:56 PM

Ya know, those engine mounts are "suspending" the engine and transmission...hmmm, looking through the GCR for the legal-to-the-letter definition of "suspension"...strange...none found...

It's amazing how one silly little "clarification" of a rule can be so wide-reaching...what a surprise...

Matt Rowe

01-07-2007, 11:31 PM

I like the way you think Greg. Here I've been replacing stock rubber mounts with more stock rubber mounts like some kind of sucker when all I had to do was squint really hard while reading the rulebook. :D

I'm still just curious how many people have to treat motor mounts as common maintainence items, or maybe I should ask how many people AREN'T using stock mounts?

RSTPerformance

01-08-2007, 09:19 AM

We have stock bushings in the Audi's and yes, they can be a problem and need to be replaced every years or so... more frequently if we are involved in an "incident."

Raymond

lateapex911

01-08-2007, 09:38 AM

...., or maybe I should ask how many people AREN'T using stock mounts? [/b]

Uhh...yea...

My informal eavesdropping in post race inpound yeilded this quote from the owner of a blue honda this summer at Lime Rock..., " Those? aluminum..... Illegal? Sure! (laughing), but what do I care? I make 'em for guys....need a set?"

Uhhh yea....your question might be the one to ask....

benspeed

01-08-2007, 11:14 AM

RacerBill

01-08-2007, 11:15 AM

I'm still just curious how many people have to treat motor mounts as common maintainence items, or maybe I should ask how many people AREN'T using stock mounts?
[/b]

I'm using stock motor/transmission mounts, but I would sure like to go to polys.

Z3_GoCar

01-08-2007, 11:38 AM

only one? if you hit something hard enough to break one, i bet the other is toast too. and the tranny mounts would now be suspect. both my stock bmw engine mounts and both of my uuc tranny mounts sheared off in my front end "incident" on labor day. entire drive train moved forward several inches since is wasn't connected to anything anymore.. :( system basically worked as designed to absorb the energy of the impact.

marshall
[/b]

Another point is that UUC also makes what they call The Enforcer. Basically an aluminium sleave that goes over a stock transmission mount that stiffens it up. I know IIDSYCYC, but you're still using the stock mount and the moving transmission does cause shift linkage bind which this helps as it stiffens up the mount.

James

Knestis

01-08-2007, 12:02 PM

"And they're off!"

Kirk (who invites anyone to come wiggle his engine whenver they want)

Greg Amy

01-08-2007, 12:07 PM

So what happens if I do the trans mounts - Do I become a cheater?[/b]

Yup.

...what are guys doing in the NE? Stock everything?[/b]

Dunno about "guys", but I'm certainly running stock mounts. That's the rule. Anyone doing anything else is cheating.

Z3_GoCar

01-08-2007, 12:11 PM

"And they're off!"

Kirk (who invites anyone to come wiggle his engine whenver they want)
[/b]

:D

But what's to stop my buddie from drilling an opening in his mount and replacing all the fluid with something a little firmer? Like maybe a good long cure epoxy. Then how would the legality of the mount be confirmed? It still has the stock part number, and except for a small rubber plug looks exactly like a stock one. Wasn't this the reason that the ecu was opened up, unenforceability?

James

lateapex911

01-08-2007, 12:28 PM

So what happens if I do the trans mounts - Do I become a cheater? (I bought these but they aren't installed yet.)

The aluminum motor mounts for this car is supposed to be a top handling enhancement - do I become a double weezle if I use those?

Not looking to put myself into a world of pain by doing this stuff.

I guess the big question is what are guys doing in the NE? Stock everything? If so, then I will to. But if folks are running solid mounts, so will I.

Reaching out to the experienced ITA folks and rules folks for direction. I do not want to be pulling these out after buying and installing.

Thanks [/b]

I'm going to sound like your Mother, LOL.

You know the right answer, don't you?

Do you think Greg Amy runs illegal mounts? Or Andy? Or Jeff? Or Jeremy? (And natioanlly, Ruck? Mosers?)

On the flipside, how about the 24 car?

Does that help?

;)

:D

But what's to stop my buddie from drilling an opening in his mount and replacing all the fluid with something a little firmer? Like maybe a good long cure epoxy. Then how would the legality of the mount be confirmed? It still has the stock part number, and except for a small rubber plug looks exactly like a stock one. Wasn't this the reason that the ecu was opened up, unenforceability?

James
[/b]

Is that the way the part came from the factory?

No.

Not legal, and enforcibilty has ZERO to do with that.

If we're playing the "Odds of getting caught game", there is no hope. Time for a "claimer class".

Just because one guy can "cheat better" doesn't make it right, nor acceptable.

RSTPerformance

01-08-2007, 12:59 PM

So what happens if I do the trans mounts - Do I become a cheater? (I bought these but they aren't installed yet.)

Reaching out to the experienced ITA folks and rules folks for direction. I do not want to be pulling these out after buying and installing.

Thanks
[/b]

Yup you would be cheating... I would suggest a first offence penalty of: Fix by next race, and probation for the rest of the year on that spacific item, car must be checked by tech at EVERY event before the race.

I am sure you will find that all the seriose people are running stock parts...

Raymond

dickita15

01-08-2007, 01:03 PM

IMHO changing to anything but stock motor or transmission mounts it cheating. We run stock although they are not a big deal on our cars. We have broken one tranny mount and one motor mount in five years on our two cars. Both because unusual circumstances.

But I would have no objection if this is really a severe problem endorsing a rule change to allow the change.

JLawton

01-09-2007, 07:08 AM

I run stock. One of my previous cars came with illegal mounts.....I swapped them out........BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLEGAL!!

Greg Amy

01-09-2007, 08:15 AM

One of my previous cars came with illegal mounts...[/b]

I think this is a silly rule. One story I like to tell is when I was building the NX2000 I installed Energy Suspension poly engine mounts inserts in my car. Seemed so logical, given the philosophy and the plate of other mods allowed, that something like this was allowed (find another mod that is so common on street cars; hell, guys buy these things before they even accept delivery of their new/used car!)

I was at the ARRC in 2003 when we had to swap out the engine. As it was coming out Tim Rogers pointed out to me that the mounts were illegal. I laughed, then I was stunned when he didn't laugh, too. Went and read through the rulebook again and damned if he wasn't right...so, I give people the benefit of the doubt, at least initially.

It's a silly rule. You're allowing welded-in spherical bushings on suspension control arms, fabricated engine stay rods, and Motec engine management systems but not bolt-in poly engine mounts?

Silly rule. But, it's still the law.

dj10

01-09-2007, 08:59 AM

So what happens if I do the trans mounts - Do I become a cheater? (I bought these but they aren't installed yet.)
[/b]

Only if your running in ITR. ;)

bldn10

01-09-2007, 10:25 AM

"It's a silly rule. You're allowing welded-in spherical bushings on suspension control arms, fabricated engine stay rods, and Motec engine management systems but not bolt-in poly engine mounts?"

Four wrongs don't make a right!

This illustrates the disastrous unintended consequences of BS rule interpretations that are adopted by Topeka - they then become examples of the types of mods that should logically be allowed. :018:

Ben, had you said that the alum. mounts were simply more durable/safer, they would still be illegal but I don't know if anyone would much care. But they are a huge handling improvement?!? Shame on you!

Greg Amy

01-09-2007, 10:35 AM

...they then become examples of the types of mods that should logically be allowed. :018: [/b]

Not what I meant to imply, directly. I don't mean to say that since "this" is allowed then "that" should be allowed. What I mean is that by comparing the currently-allowed mods to the philosophy of the class, it seems like there are many other disallowed mods that should have been considered long before these... - GA

benspeed

01-09-2007, 03:20 PM

Not naming names but a notable NE ITA guy told me trans mounts were OK but not motor mounts. The original interpretation then changed on this thread - which is fine.

This is one reason why this forum exists - to double check before you do anything. Certainly seems to have sparked some reaction though.

(And yes Jake - you rightfully did sound motherish but hey, just checking Ma!) ;)

Knestis

01-09-2007, 03:45 PM

Not naming names but a notable NE ITA guy told me trans mounts were OK but not motor mounts. ...[/b]
So where my engine bolts to the transaxle, and the transaxle mounts onto the subframe, then it's OK to replace all of the bushings involved in connections where the engine is NOT involved...?

Whee!! :026:

Kirk (who is liking the New Order more and more)

EDIT - or where the engine bolts to other parts, then THOSE parts are supported by bushings? EXCELLENT!

lateapex911

01-09-2007, 04:58 PM

Not naming names but a notable NE ITA guy told me trans mounts were OK but not motor mounts.
(And yes Jake - you rightfully did sound motherish but hey, just checking Ma!) ;)

[/b]

I'm thinking he's notably....wrong.

benspeed

01-10-2007, 08:40 AM

Based on this discussion and the feedback - and my final review of the GCR last night - agreed! :023:

Doc Bro

01-10-2007, 12:17 PM

It's funny to read this thread. I posted it, a trusted friend replied, I gave him a smart reply (which I'm good for), and then....then....ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE!!! Wheeee!

Thanks Jeff -I had the STOCK parts orderd after my original reply. I hadn't revisited this thread till now. The more I read the interpretations some have of the IT rulebook the better I understand the U.S. Tax Code!!

R

Which blue Honda?

lateapex911

01-10-2007, 12:48 PM

Not a CRX, but ask me in person if you want to order a couple, LOL. (ITA) I can get your order to him. ;)

Jeremy Billiel

01-10-2007, 12:56 PM

I agree that motor mounts are illegal. However, there is also very limited ways to enforce the rules. I know Hondas so here is my example.

Stock OEM Honda mounts, have no markings at all on them. They are black in color. Mugen makes a motor mount that at a 300% markup is significantly stronger and better. Can you tell they are stock? Well no, there are no markings on either piece. They both are black and look the exact same. The only way to tell they are not stock is to test the hardness of the rubber.

Am I cheating? No, I am too damn cheap to spend $405 on motor mounts. Plus its not moral, but this rule can be very hard to enforce.

Edit: While ECU's etc are being discussed is there room to clarify/change this rule? Does that even make sense to do?

Andy Bettencourt

01-10-2007, 01:05 PM

PSherm

01-10-2007, 01:47 PM

I
Am I cheating? No, I am too damn cheap to spend $405 on motor mounts. [/b]

I'm with you! But a cheap, simple piece of aluminum rod makes a nice solid engine stayrod, which would suffice... :D

JoshS

01-10-2007, 02:13 PM

So what exactly *is* an "engine stayrod?" There's no definition in the GCR.

ddewhurst

01-10-2007, 03:05 PM

Josh, there is a definition of "Stayrod" with reference to the car structure. Engine Stayrod connects engine to car structure.

88YB1

01-10-2007, 04:01 PM

2007 GCR
page 128. Stayrod - A rigid reinforcement bar or rod interconnecting opposite sides of a car at structurally significant locations.
page 116 Engine Steady Bar (torque suppressor) - A constraining beam or rod intended to resist the terndency of an engine to rotate on it's mounts in reaction to torque forces.

ITC page 298 D-1-r One (1) engine stayrod may be added. No definetion of an ENGINE stayrod is given in the GCR.

Chuck :(

JLawton

01-11-2007, 06:59 AM

I posted it, a trusted friend replied, [/b]

Trusting me was your first mistake!! You notice I don't chime in too often on rules interpretation. However, having dealt with this in a previous car, I am now a motor mount rules nerd!! :023:

RacerBill

01-11-2007, 07:29 AM

Andy Bettencourt

01-11-2007, 09:25 AM

OK, If one (1) engine stayrod may be added, can you substitute one for the factory installed stayrod? [/b]

No. Added is added, substituted is substituted.

RacerBill

01-11-2007, 10:17 AM

No. Added is added, substituted is substituted.
[/b]

I really am not being stupid or silly, by what if the manufacturer does not make that part anymore, and there is no dealer stock? I am seriously running into this problem with a lot of parts. I tried to replace some transmission linkage parts but 80-90% of them were not available, and the most expensive piece came in a Chrysler box but looked like it had been welded up by a monkey!

Thanks, Andy.

lateapex911

01-11-2007, 10:33 AM

..... and the most expensive piece came in a Chrysler box but looked like it had been welded up by a monkey!

. [/b]

Looks probably aren't deceiving in this case!

It does seem like a goofy rule, if you can ADD one, why can't you just sub what you've got? I wonder what the unintended consequences are on that?

That said, your option is clear: fab up a couple mounts and a heim jointed stayrod. You'll probably have as good or better asolution than the factory, and it won't look like a monkey did it,......right?? ;)

Andy Bettencourt

01-11-2007, 10:59 AM

I really am not being stupid or silly, by what if the manufacturer does not make that part anymore, and there is no dealer stock? I am seriously running into this problem with a lot of parts. I tried to replace some transmission linkage parts but 80-90% of them were not available, and the most expensive piece came in a Chrysler box but looked like it had been welded up by a monkey!

Thanks, Andy. [/b]

This is what I would do if it were my car - look for a new one. If they aren't available anymore, see if there is a superceeded part in the system. If not, you need to scour the earth for a used one. Maybe rebuid a stock one...if no go on that stuff, I would say SOL. One of the down sides to running a rare car.

Looks probably aren't deceiving in this case!

It does seem like a goofy rule, if you can ADD one, why can't you just sub what you've got? I wonder what the unintended consequences are on that?

[/b]

If you want to know, take a look through the ITCS and really pay attention to the add and substitute contexts. It would be the worst Pandoras box ever.

RacerBill

01-11-2007, 11:05 PM

Thanks for all your comments. I am not SOL yet, but can see it comming. Hope it's a long tunnel!

88YB1

01-12-2007, 08:05 AM

Replacement parts no longer have to be "stock from the factory" They may be sourced from the automotive after market suppliers such as NAPA. They must be substantially identical to the stock part though.

Chuck

Matt Rowe

01-12-2007, 08:26 PM

I'm obviously familiar with the setup on Bill's car and there are a couple points.

One, the piece in question is not a rare piece, it actually was on every manual transmission omni/charger/horizon/rampage/turismo. But, that still doesn't mean that after 20+ years the rubber has rotted out and the stock on the shelves hasn't dried up. And while it would be easy to fab up a new replacement, it is not currently legal in the rules unless it is added somewhere else which greatly increases the difficulty of the install.

Two, why is it that you can add a stayrod, but you can't modify an existing mount that acts as a stayrod? That what the rule says but it certainly doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

Third, it does seem sily that although you can upgrade suspension bushings (even when it was thought that meant higher durometer poly) that engine mounts are kept completely stock. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing the allowance for alternate stock mounts as long as the configuration and amount of metal content remains as OEM.

Hmmm, it may be time to send in a request to the ITAC....

ddewhurst

01-13-2007, 06:46 AM

Matt & Bill, if someone were to post a picture of the in question OEM engine stayrod I'll bet WE could brainstorm an added stayrod.

Have Fun ;)
David

Matt Rowe

01-13-2007, 08:45 AM

Dave,

I couldn't find a picture of the OEM piece, but here is the aftermarket one with stiffer poly bushings that isn't legal.

http://www.polybushings.com/images/l-bodybone.jpg

and it is attached (one bolted to the trans and one welded to the frame) via two pieces like

http://www.polybushings.com/images/1010c.jpg

It is pretty much exactly what someone would do if they were adding one, with the exception that I would use rod ends instead of bushings.

Greg Amy

01-13-2007, 09:09 AM

Hey, Matt. I suggest you fabricate a dogbone that attaches to the OUTSIDE of the mounting brackets.

Make one up with Heim joints and a threaded rod, and use longer bolts to attach it to the sides of the bracket, not inside the bracket. That way you're leaving the stock one there (even it's trashed) and the outside one takes all the forces.

I had the same problem with the OEM one on the Shelby CSX. Unfortunately, the P-bodies used a shock damper instead of a bushed link like the L-bodies. That thing was a POS and I ended up replacing at least once a year...

Matt Rowe

01-13-2007, 10:34 AM

Greg,

Yeah, I know the known l-bodies of that era use the dampener which is just can't stand up to racing abuse, the neons use the same type of design. And in cases like the shadow and the neon the nature of the bracket make it more difficult to bypass like you have suggested.

Still, it seems ridiculous that if the car had never come with the piece I could make up a rod end and brackets and place it there, but because it came with a piece with rubber bushings I have to create a new part located elsewhere instead of making a minor change to existing piece. The net effect is the same and as others have pointed out the rules allow much greater modifications for more questionable reasons. And the stayrod still doesn't solve the translation issues that most bushings allow movement and failure in.

Greg Amy

01-13-2007, 10:55 AM

Well, also keep in mind there's no requirement that OE parts on your car meet "new" specifications (otherwise 99% of the cars out there would be denied track access). So, if your OE dogbone happens to be in TERRIBLE shape, like with bushings that are moldy, melted from exhaust, etc, and the legal one you added on there with Heim joints right next to it is taking in all the loads, well...c'est la via, muchacho...

Matt Rowe

01-13-2007, 11:17 AM

New or old, a rod ended piece would be taking all the load anyway, but it still seems ridiculous that if it wasn't there to start with I would have a simpler solution. But because it is there it has to be worked around.

RacerBill

01-13-2007, 05:12 PM

Let's see if I got this right. I can't substitue a different stayrod, but I can add one, even if the car alrerady has one?

RacerBill

01-13-2007, 06:05 PM

[attachmentid=771][attachmentid=772][attachmentid=773]BTW - Here is the real thing!

Gary L

01-13-2007, 07:12 PM

Let's see if I got this right. I can't substitue a different stayrod, but I can add one, even if the car alrerady has one? [/b] That's correct... the rule clearly states one may be added, unqualified.

tom91ita

01-13-2007, 07:46 PM

per page 298 of GCR2007

r. One (1) engine stayrod may be added.[/b]

if it says we can add one, we can right? is there any limit to the shape or the number of mounting points?

it looks like we could have a triangular piece that could mount to the motor at one point but mount to the car at two.

oh, and if you use the poly inserts in your motor mounts, you could pull them quick in impound.

i hide mine in the windshield washer bottle. :blink:

mlytle

01-13-2007, 08:56 PM

per page 298 of GCR2007
if it says we can add one, we can right? is there any limit to the shape or the number of mounting points?

it looks like we could have a triangular piece that could mount to the motor at one point but mount to the car at two.

oh, and if you use the poly inserts in your motor mounts, you could pull them quick in impound.

i hide mine in the windshield washer bottle. :blink:
[/b]

this same question about stayrods came up a year or so ago. a rod is not a triangle. a rod is a straight bar and has two attachment points. one on the engine, one on the car.

marshall

tom91ita

01-14-2007, 11:26 AM

i think there is little in the definition of "stayrod"

is there a max diameter then for a "stayrod"?

does it have to be a round rod or can it be hexagonal?

can it be made of tubing or does it have to be a solid rod?

and does it have to be rigid or can it be like these?

http://www.lightningmotorsports.com/images/ingalls/93130.gif

would the above be acceptable as a stayrod?

Gary L

01-14-2007, 05:15 PM

and does it have to be rigid or can it be like these?[/b]

Depends... if you use the GCR glossary definition of Stayrod, the pictured item is clearly out... it must be rigid, and any reasonable person would say that "rigid" applies in all directions.

If you use the GCR glossary definition of an Engine Steady Bar, it gets murkey. Here we have "...beam or rod" as part of the definition. I personally have a problem with the pictured device being called either of those, but reasonable persons could disagree, I suppose.

lateapex911

01-14-2007, 06:24 PM

Where it gets murkier, is when you look at the stock example.

A rod.....mounted in...wait for it....rubber filled with liquid.

And then you look at this: The rubber ends have become rod ends, but the liquid is now in the center.

Hmmmmm.

Functionally, the stock version and this one are very similar. They both provide location, with a controlled amount of movement. If stock is allowed, and stiffer than stock is allowed to be added, then logic would seem to dictate that this would be allowed.

tom91ita

01-14-2007, 07:16 PM

the GCR definition is:

Stayrod - A rigid reinforcement bar or rod interconnecting opposite sides
of a car at structurally significant locations.[/b]

and essentially everywhere in the GCR, other than the IT engine stayrod section. stayrod is mentioned when referring to suspension items, etc. unless i missed something.

i like Greg's take on it!

Andy Bettencourt

01-16-2007, 09:28 AM

How does Greg's take on it change anything? You can add a stayrod. Go ahead and add one! Design it or buy one that is legal under the definition of a stayrod in the GCR.

If your 'added' one does a better job than your factory one because your factory one is worn out, so what? Just keep your factory one in there.

benspeed

01-16-2007, 10:00 PM

I couldn't resist chiming in here - especially since my motor is going in TONIGHT!

I believe it was Greg who had an idea about placing a stayrod alongside a factory mount. Using the same mounting location no less. If anybody is familiar with the Fiero dogbone - that idea would work great.

PS - for the record that motor goes in on the old stock mounts. :P

(But I was pulling the trans and bellhousing on my stock car yesterday and man does that thing have the sweetest set of aluminum mounts. And yes, the trans and motor share, but not quite like the Fiero. ( which sucks).

Eric Parham

06-30-2007, 06:18 PM

Jeremy, this rule is easily enforced. A simple durometer test between the two would surface the illegalities. Now KNOWING that someone has these is the difficult part.

If I was trying to take down a known illegal car, this would be one of the items I would name on my protest.
[/b]

Sorry to bring this up after so long, but I'm just catching up on some of this. If the stock material is polyurethane, the durometer comparison might just work. But, if the stock material is rubber, the durometer outcome would depend on such intangibles as age, prior exposure to heat, exhaust fumes, engine bay chemicals or even sunlight. As I go through last year's leftover tires with my trusty tire durometer, I WISH rubber products kept the same hardness as they aged :(