IT Motor Mounts, please send in your yes votes to the CRB

[John Herman]

John, when was the last time you knew that your competitions crank wasn't lightened. Or that his pistons weren't skirted...or......

We have a protest system. Heck, as it stands now, are you aware of how many engines are sitting on non stock mounts? What about the locations? Further, Using STOCK mounts in crappy conditions lowers the engine, and a stayrod attached to the strut tower brace ensures it stays low....

This whole arguement is just a red herring. If I wanted to protest any of the engine itmes you listed, either a visual inspection will determine compliance, a review of the service manual will list piston weights, etc. Protesting non-stock mounts, easy to do. Don't really care how many people are all ready doing it. Stay rod (which was put in to help the crappy mounts) is legal. No issue.

Your example just reinforces what I believe will happen....yeah my engine sits this low on the crappy stock mounts, so thats where I put it.

[GTIspirit]

Stay rod (which was put in to help the crappy mounts) is legal. No issue.

The addition of an engine stay rod is legal, right? And said stay rod could be a solid link of steel or some other material, or some other kind of damper, right? So why couldn't you make one of the stock rubber bushings into a stay rod by adding poly inserts? The allowed stay rod was added, it just happens to be concurrent with an existing bushing. Would this be allowed or not?

[trhoppe]

Tom,

What is your rationale for this? I am with you, but I would like to know why you think this change is justfiied. Also, does it represent a competitive advantage for any cars?

Tim B.

I don't know of any car (I'm sure someone will list one, but anyways) that doesn't have to put "engine mounts" on the wear and tear list of parts they need to replace, as the OEM parts are not up to the task of racing.

I feel that is is a very cheap, optional modification, that will not provide a "competitive" advantage over not doing it. It will instead allow for eventual cost savings, as one purchase of engine mounts, or a $5 fix, will last a long time and not necessitate extra spending on OEM mounts every year or other timeframe. If you car has really strong motor mounts from the factory? Sweet. good for you, leave them alone, this rule won't affect you and you not buying motor mounts will not provide you with a competitive disadvantage over someone else that does buy upgraded motor mounts for his car

The addition of an engine stay rod is legal, right? And said stay rod could be a solid link of steel or some other material, or some other kind of damper, right? So why couldn't you make one of the stock rubber bushings into a stay rod by adding poly inserts? The allowed stay rod was added, it just happens to be concurrent with an existing bushing. Would this be allowed or not?

We are in the year 2010. "Engine stay rods" are from the last century. I know there are some IT cars that were made in the 70s, but we really should upgrade our rules to keep up with new technologies. VERY inexpensive Polyurethane compounds in 2010 are available that will allow for engine mounts to be both still a little compliant, while being strong enough so they don't tear. Some engine mounts allow you to just squeeze some of that poly in the openings, some you have to replace the whole thing. Hell, some might have to buy a whole new mount.

You know? Some might say "fuck it, my stay rod does enough". Whatever, your choice.

In the end, what this rule does is allow for more choice, more options, and in the end, I feel it can save the general IT membership money and allow for less time spent working on the car

-Tom

[dickita15]

I don't know of any car (I'm sure someone will list one, but anyways) that doesn't have to put "engine mounts" on the wear and tear list of parts they need to replace, -Tom

So you are not disappointed Tom:
The first gen rx7’s do not have a problem. In eleven years of using literally parts car engine mounts the only motor mount I had to replace was when a wrecker driver tried to pick up the front of the car from the motor mount. I guess there is some advantage in having no torque and very little compression braking.
Bu even so I see no problem with this rule. Enough guys are having races screwed up when a mount breaks to make this a wise move.

[timo944]

Good enough guys you have my vote. I do, of course, have evil intentions here!!!

[trhoppe]

Bump! Get your "yes" letters in, if you haven't yet

-Tom

[lateapex911]

If I read the update right from Josh, they have an shitload of letters Tom, but it's 40 to 1.

[Knestis]

The addition of an engine stay rod is legal, right? And said stay rod could be a solid link of steel or some other material, or some other kind of damper, right? So why couldn't you make one of the stock rubber bushings into a stay rod by adding poly inserts? The allowed stay rod was added, it just happens to be concurrent with an existing bushing. Would this be allowed or not?

This is precisely what we did with my MkIII. The first cut was flat brackets that sandwiched between the chassis- and engine/gearbox-side of the rear mount, glued together with a welded-in square tube. It worked great until it busted because we couldn't reach inside to get full perimeter welds done.

The current iteration is a link about 4" long, with rod ends connecting the front of the engine - off of a boss down by the starter(?) - to a big ol' bracket welded to the subframe. It essentially binds up the flexibility in the front mount.

K