CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.

Lets talk motor mounts - solid or standard

Engine/trans/tcase can have a solid mount but I'd rather use the ORD poly mounts for that. I would say there should never be any other solid mounts on the engine/trans/tcase assembly unless you are running a tube frame and things don't move around.

Andy
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously if your frame flexes around this is a problem but if you're frame flexes much, that's a problem to solve in itself. A vehicle fabricated to this level should have a stiff frame.

I vote for using all the same mount, if you want to try solid, solid mount the whole thing. Just make sure you cage it front to rear.

I think if this setup was a problem I'd have torn it up by now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, typically you're the last person I'd disagree with, but I think you're WAY off with this post.

1. Frame flex is not a problem. Frames are designed to flex. If it doesn't flex, it's going to crack. I personally would rather have flex myself. For your rig you can choose cracking if you so desire. To say that a rig fabricated to any point should have a, "Stiff frame" is an opinion and a poor one if you ask me. I guess we'll agree to disagree here.

2. Since frames are designed to flex, solid mounting the whole thing is the wrong answer if you ask me. From an engineering standpoint you're asking cast iron and aluminum to flex and spring back, and that is unacceptable in my opinion.

3. Just because you haven't broken it yet doesn't necessarily make it a good setup, and to try to use that to justify such a setup really just isn't a statement I'd be making at all. Next thing you know, you'll go out next weekend and break everything and all of a sudden you'll be the poster boy for softer mounts.

This is not a flame, simply a disagreement on engineering ideas. Typically you'd be the last person I'd disagree with on such issues, but I believe your points made to be far from reality in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Frame flex IS a problem to me, hence the reason for this post. I don't need opinoins here, I need real world experience.

2. Stock frames might be "designed to flex" but I don't want mine to flex. Again, same statement as above. I will take the precautions to strengthen the frame from the front to rear and as Watson said - there will be a cage from front to back.

3. Tried and true is a good way to go and eventually things fatigue over time - thats a given. I would tend to believe someone who has acutally tried something with success, with results to prove this theroy.
 
I guess no ones heard about the new Ford frame that they boxed in to limit flex. The only reason frames flex is because they are a C-channel design.
 
You can limit frame flex, but I think it's impossible to eliminate it entirely, and I think that the ultimate destruction of transmission bellhousings and transfer case adapters is a definite possibility with all solid mounts in this application.

The reason that we have a forum is so that we can share differing opinions. Some of you may dismiss my opinion, but I believe I have a valid point here (but certainly not the only valid point, either).
 
Top Bottom