Motor/ Trans mounts
- Thread starter Doc Bro
- Start date
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.
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.
mlytle
New member
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.
[/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
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?
would the above be acceptable as a 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?
would the above be acceptable as a stayrod?
Gary L
New member
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
Super Moderator
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.
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.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
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.
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
New member
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.
(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).
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.
(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
New member
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
