Results 1 to 20 of 93

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

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    219

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

    As noted in the latest fastrack, we finally have the chance to have upgraded motor mounts. Please vote yes to the CRB, as unless they hear from us, this will probably not go through.

    "Engine mounts of alternate design and/or material may be used, but there can be no change to the engine’s fore, aft or vertical location. Engine mounts must attach to the engine and the chassis in their stock locations."

    -Tom
    ITA Integra | 05 Mazda3 | 03 Mini
    http://www.tomhoppe.com

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Trussville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,087

    Default

    Tom, cut and pasted your suggestion with one exception:

    "Engine and transmission mounts of alternate design and/or material, may be used, but there can be no change to the engine’s fore, aft or vertical location. Engine mounts must attach to the engine and the chassis in their stock locations."

    Chuck
    Chuck Baader
    White EP BMW M-Techniq
    I may grow older, but I refuse to grow up!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    >> Engine and transmission mounts of alternate design and/or material...

    So rear differential mounts (a la IRS designs) can be replaced as well.

    Is a subframe "the chassis?"

    K

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Are the mounts used to hold the transmission end of a FWD assembly considered "motor mounts"? I suggest not. If not, then the whole exercise is pointless, as there's no point in doing the engine side of the drivetrain if you can't do the transmission end, especially since the front/rear mounts are usually attached to the transaxle...and if so, then the rules applies to longitudinally-mounted drivetrains too, regardless of location of the transmission/transaxle.

    And why specify "fore, aft or vertical" location? All those extra words (bad, bad ITAC!) do is make me want to find a way to rotate my engine (in either roll, pitch, or possibly even yaw) in such a way as to have a competitive advantage (and with oil pans free, I can probably find a way).

    I support the general concept, though... - GA


    (In fairness for intorturation, my original suggestion: "Alternate engine and transmission/transaxle mounts are allowed. No chassis or drivetrain components may be repositioned or modified to accommodate this allowance.")

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Trussville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,087

    Default

    Come-on, y'all...lets not make this a 15 page discussion...send your version to the CRB in support of the idea. Chuck
    Chuck Baader
    White EP BMW M-Techniq
    I may grow older, but I refuse to grow up!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Torrington CT
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Done and Done
    Ryan Hall

    Just Boss It
    #03 Mini Cooper B-Spec
    Indian Summer Racing/Advanced Monograms
    SolidSkills.Net

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chuck baader View Post
    ...send your version to the CRB in support of the idea.
    Problem is, Chuck, we're not writing in support of an idea, we're writing in support of a rule. While I agree with the idea, I do not agree with the rule; as it's written I can only replace one of the three mounts in my FWD car (the other two attach to the transaxle), making the whole exercise pointless (and a potential competitive disadvantage)...


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Torrington CT
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Where or who do we send our vote to? I vote yes

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Trussville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,087

    Default

    Send votes to www.crbscca.com and fill out the form. You will get a quick email confirmation with a confirmation number for tracking.

    Bushings are free, and I have always thought diff and subframe bushings were bushings Chuck
    Chuck Baader
    White EP BMW M-Techniq
    I may grow older, but I refuse to grow up!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Falls Church, Va
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Email sent in support
    Enjoy,
    Bill

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Lagrangeville, NY
    Posts
    694

    Default

    I am in favor since the inserts are already in my car.
    Chris Raffaelli
    NER 24FP

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Grove City, OH, USA
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Email sent - in favor, and advocating the inclusion of transmission/transaxle mounts.
    Bill Stevens - Mbr # 103106
    BnS Racing www.bnsracing.net
    92 ITA Saturn
    83 ITB Shelby Dodge Charger
    Sponsors - Race-Keeper Data/Video Aquisition Systems www.race-keeper.com
    Simpson Performance Products - simpsonraceproducts.com

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Hendersonville, NC
    Posts
    174

    Default

    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.
    timo

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Falls Church, Va
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timo944 View Post
    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 am sure he will chime in but for my car, the loosey goosey motor mounts cause me to have issues down shifting at times, so for my car, sure it will be a "competitive advantage" (of sorts).

    The overly soft engine mounts do fine for the street, but present problems when used as we do. In some cases (many) factory mounts have to be replaced yearly, and cost MUCH more than stiffer, better performing poly mounts, that will last longer (cost savings).

    Of course, many already run them, and everyone seems to turn a blind eye (a noobs perspective). Just about any SM that double dips in ITA has the upgraded mounts SM allows, and I am pretty sure no one is protesting. I know that isn't a reason to pass the rule, but it is, what it is.
    Enjoy,
    Bill

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Posts
    274

    Default

    I've replaced five or six radiators and a couple dozen motor mounts in my Benz due to their crappy design. I'd like to see this rule changed.
    Chuck

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Goldsboro,N.C. U.S.A.
    Posts
    485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by callard View Post
    I've replaced five or six radiators and a couple dozen motor mounts in my Benz due to their crappy design. I'd like to see this rule changed.
    Chuck
    I spun in my own oil when one of my "fluid dampening" motor mounts broke.

    ... Just sent in my vote............ YES

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshoe View Post
    I spun in my own oil when one of my "fluid dampening" motor mounts broke.

    ... Just sent in my vote............ YES
    And we share mounts with the M3, imagine what it'd be like if we had to use the softer mounts from the regular sedan.
    STU BMW Z3 2.5liter

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •