MR2 Owners Club Forum banner
1 - 20 of 64 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,114 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
First it was my rear brakepads, then my left rear wheel bearing, in one week, then my gearbox isclunking like mad so i have gone and bought a C56 and am having it modified for the MR2 selector shaft as i speak. While pulling my gearbox out i noticed that the front torque mount has one of the bolt holes ripped apart, the rear bolt hole. Has anyone ever experienced this and what did ya do to fix it, im blaming this on my urethane motor mounts, damn things.
 

·
i overtake on roundabouts
Joined
·
3,803 Posts
i have seen reference to that problem on here before.
i would weld a nice thick (maybe 10-12mm) peice of flat bar over that hole that carries onto/over the front mount bolt hole. then weld some strengthening gusset doodbies down from that knob bit sticking out to the flat bar. drill and tap threads for the mount to bolt to.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,114 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Thanks John that sounds like a good idea, ill see if the fella who did the selector shaft mod to my gearbox can whip something up, other than that i have remebered when under Scotts car that his doesnt have this mount either and the previous owner had drilled a hole straight through and bolted the mount to the body like that, im sure it could last if i reinforce it somehow, but ya never know with the urethane mounts trying to rip and rattle everything apart.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,626 Posts
Instead of drilling / tapping the hole, just make the hole slightly oversize and weld the proper size nut on the back side (with a well-greased bolt through the nut while you're welding it - and a few shrimp to BBQ from the grease fire :)).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,603 Posts
That is exactly what happened to me except that mine wasnt ripped completely out yet so I still had the stock metal and nut hanging on for dear life. I took the urethane mount off after that. Made up a 1/8" thick steel piece to cover the bottom like Feral shows and had someone weld up the stock metal and then lay the 1/8" over it all and weld that on all the way around. Seems to be okay so far and it had seen its share of abuse, just without a urethane mount.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,360 Posts
I don't think that urethane mounts have anything to do with this problem. Essentially, the urethane mount limits engine/trans travel. I would think that this would minimize the shock to the chassis mounts vs. worn stock mounts that allow 1/2 to 3/4" movement. Seems that the movement of the stock mount would only contribute to the pounding that the chassis mounts receive. BTW how many 5K clutch drops or monster burnouts have you done in the last 6 months?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,114 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
86AW11 said:
BTW how many 5K clutch drops or monster burnouts have you done in the last 6 months?
Never done a burnout in the 2, thats not what its built for. I cant remember the last time i did a 5k clutch drop, i try to have a bit of mechanical mercy as i dont like replacing and fixing things constantly. Hopefully this newer C56 will last a bit longer, from what ive read they are a bit stronger than the C52 and should go well with the gze. Its all ready to go in, just waiting for a mate to finish work to help me lift it in and then all should be good.
 

·
i overtake on roundabouts
Joined
·
3,803 Posts
Never done a burnout in the 2,
did Scott happen to show you what we did in the feral the morning i left? :D

Instead of drilling / tapping the hole, just make the hole slightly oversize and weld the proper size nut on the back side
even better idea. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,114 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
feral4mr2 said:
did Scott happen to show you what we did in the feral the morning i left? :D


even better idea. :)
He hasnt showed me yet, but hes told me all about it. You animal :banana I should have gotten him to show me on his laptop just before, hes just left my place, he helped me get my new gearbox in place. Ive been there and done burnouts in lots of my other cars and i always end up breaking stuff in the end, but damn its fun. :thumbup
 

·
MR2-less
Joined
·
9,855 Posts
86AW11 said:
I don't think that urethane mounts have anything to do with this problem. Essentially, the urethane mount limits engine/trans travel. I would think that this would minimize the shock to the chassis mounts vs. worn stock mounts that allow 1/2 to 3/4" movement. Seems that the movement of the stock mount would only contribute to the pounding that the chassis mounts receive.
Exactly. If your engine is powerful enough to rip out a motor mount not having the more solid urethane mount will make it worse. Less movement, less chance of it ripping out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,191 Posts
kirkosaurus said:
Exactly. If your engine is powerful enough to rip out a motor mount not having the more solid urethane mount will make it worse. Less movement, less chance of it ripping out.
I disagree. The urethane absorbs less shock, transmitting more to the chassis mounting point. A more extreme effect can be seen with solid engine mounts. They rip up chassis mounting points all of the time. I think that over time a urethane mount could fatigue the metal enough to do the same thing. My guess is that this happened gradually, and was only noticed when the chassis point was completely rippped out. That's when he heard/felt the clunking.

I know that you're defending your product Kirk, but if you think about the science/engineering behind softer mounts vs. more solid mounts, you'll realize that the softer mount is easier on the chassis mounting point.

-Winston
 

·
MR2-less
Joined
·
9,855 Posts
SpyHunter said:
I know that you're defending your product Kirk, but if you think about the science/engineering behind softer mounts vs. more solid mounts, you'll realize that the softer mount is easier on the chassis mounting point.

-Winston

Not defending my product at all, I don't need to defend it. Just stating opinion.
A softer mount is easier on the chassis until it starts to deteriorate from the forces of high torque. I still stand by opinion that a less movement of the engine is better.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
42,298 Posts
I agree with Kirk as I had the same issue with the Krylon. Ripped that baby out. The urethane we are using is not all that much stiffer than the stock rubber. Yes more noise gets transfered to the chassis, buit that is about it. Noise. With a broken rubber mount you will get the problems we are seeing with torn sheet metal.
I took mine to a bodyshop and they fixed it for under 100 bucks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
124 Posts
just reading through this and i thought i'd share my $.02. Bill, the fact that you admit noise is being transmitted means that vibrations are being transmitted to the mounts/frame. This is because the urethane engine mounts do not absorb or disipate the energy, they transmit it. Spyhunter IS correct, the energy is being transmitted to the frame and will therefore fatigue the metal until it develops cracks and fails. Just think of what happens when you run over an awful pothole on the street and you have your koni's set up to the max stiffness, your "behind" feels it pretty bad....now compare to how it feels to when you set them to the softest setting. The softer setting abosrbs the energy and does not transmit it to the frame and therefore you don't feel it as bad. True a broken or extremely worn motor mount is bad no matter how you look at it, but the fact of the matter is that urethane motor mounts can also greatly contirbute to the stripped bolts and the torn metal as well (not to mention the fact that these are old cars). I'm not trying to offend anyone or any product, just stating a "general" fact people should consider when buying a product: a performance modification has its drawbacks in terms of overall reduced reliability, longevity or street driveability of a car.
 

·
<--- Scott, oh...
Joined
·
5,715 Posts
I remember there being discussion about the inserts causing problems before... http://www.mr2oc.com/showthread.php?t=161384

Seems to me like you wouldn't want to limit all of the play in the mount by filling the gaps because it would put a lot of stress on that chassis point. Doesn't seem like the body was designed to take the additional punishment.

Front TRD mounts are still out there if you want something a little stiffer and still Toyota tested.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,227 Posts
Same thing happened to me accept it ripped the mount clean off and I was using the stock rubber.
 
1 - 20 of 64 Posts
Top