SD! Type Engine Mounts

Ian Anderson · Post by **Ian Anderson** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:10 am

Can anyone suggest a good source (I need to replace mine and so does Tricky after a run at the Pod yesterday

Best of all is there anything more robust on the market han a standard SD! set? (Perhaps Cop car set?)

And what should I look out for as presumably there will be new old stock around but after 20 odd years the rubber is probably already past it's best

Cheers
Ian

stevieturbo · Post by **stevieturbo** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:05 am

Steel is pretty robust

kiwicar · Post by **kiwicar** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:20 am

I have 1 spare (I presume it is the round one about 3" diamiter and 3/4" thick) PM me with your address if you want it?
Mike

ChrisJC · Post by **ChrisJC** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:52 am

No, it's very different from the Land Rover style.

Anyone got a pic?

Chris.

Ian Anderson · Post by **Ian Anderson** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:06 am

Correect Chris
Definately not like MGB / Landrover

Along the lines of the units bottom of this page (CRC2044)

http://www.rimmerbros.co.uk/rimmer/rover/sd1/mountings

Steel would be good but I'd imagine the vibration would shake me and the car to pieces

Ian

stevieturbo · Post by **stevieturbo** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:10 am

Ian Anderson wrote:Correect Chris
Definately not like MGB / Landrover

Along the lines of the units bottom of this page (CRC2044)

http://www.rimmerbros.co.uk/rimmer/rover/sd1/mountings

Steel would be good but I'd imagine the vibration would shake me and the car to pieces

Ian

Some peoples imaginations run wild though. Just do it.

Darkspeed · Post by **Darkspeed** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:36 pm

Best bet is a complete modification to the Escort world cup type as being used by Tony

A lot of mounts and bushes etc. supplied to Rimmers and the like are manufactured by a little place in Stafford - which is where I get my mounts from and they will make up specials with harder compounds if its a mount they produce.

Personally I would get a quick replacement mount to get you going and then look at changing the design or adding an engine steady mount to fight the torque reaction like the old P6 mount.

You could always fit a couple of removable engine stabilisers that are used just for those hard launch days

Andrew

ChrisJC · Post by **ChrisJC** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:00 pm

Actually, thinking about the torque reaction on a GT40, the engine mounts will be trying to lift the front of the vehicle up....

Therefore a horizontal steady bar will do nothing. You need a vertical one to keep the engine down in the chassis.

Chris.

spend · Post by **spend** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:07 pm

The SCPower poly mounts and restraints have gained favour with a lot of us..

http://www.sc-power.co.uk/SC%20Power%20 ... 20Mods.htm

stevieturbo · Post by **stevieturbo** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:25 pm

Or just stop f***** about with silly flexible mounts, and bolt it in solid

Darkspeed · Post by **Darkspeed** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:29 pm

Torque reaction in the GT40 should be no different - reaction is a rotation of the block in the opposite direction to the crank - i.e Counter clockwise - so the engine tries to tear out of the offside mount - hence why the P6 stabilser fixes the o/s head to the chassis. This is also the furthest distance from the crank c/l so providing the best leverage to the reaction.

Those poly-mounts look like they would do a decent job.

Andrew

mgbv8 · Post by **mgbv8** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:15 pm

I used to have issues with mounts going wobbly. I nearly went down Stevies route and made solid mounts. But time was against me and I fitted 2 steady bars to the engine. That was 3 years ago and all is well so far. I will probably fit solid mounts next time the engine comes right out though.

ChrisJC · Post by **ChrisJC** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:34 pm

Darkspeed wrote:Torque reaction in the GT40 should be no different - reaction is a rotation of the block in the opposite direction to the crank - i.e Counter clockwise - so the engine tries to tear out of the offside mount - hence why the P6 stabilser fixes the o/s head to the chassis. This is also the furthest distance from the crank c/l so providing the best leverage to the reaction.

Those poly-mounts look like they would do a decent job.

Andrew

Not in a GT40. It has a transaxle bolted to the block, so the torque reaction is from the half-shafts, not the propshaft. I agree there'll be a minor torque reaction from the flywheel, but nowhere near as much as the torque from a brisk getaway....

Chris

Ian Anderson · Post by **Ian Anderson** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:15 pm

Chris

I'd go with that logic

Along with the lifting force trying to lift the nose of the engine around the drice shaft (CV) centerline the left hand side rubber would have been in extreme streatch mode!

Ok Stevie

Want to make some solid mounts for me to try?

Ian

Darkspeed · Post by **Darkspeed** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:23 pm

The wheel torque reaction should be being taken care of by the transaxle mountings not the engine mounts - so if its a case that the engine mounts are used to counter this and the crank torque reaction - then the design of the mount needs a serious redesign as its being used well outside of its original design which did not have that force to deal with.

If the GT40 transaxle does rely on the engine mounts for wheel reaction then I would say that the mounts that Tony is using would be your best route.

Andrew

ChrisJC wrote:
Darkspeed wrote:Torque reaction in the GT40 should be no different - reaction is a rotation of the block in the opposite direction to the crank - i.e Counter clockwise - so the engine tries to tear out of the offside mount - hence why the P6 stabilser fixes the o/s head to the chassis. This is also the furthest distance from the crank c/l so providing the best leverage to the reaction.

Those poly-mounts look like they would do a decent job.

Andrew
Not in a GT40. It has a transaxle bolted to the block, so the torque reaction is from the half-shafts, not the propshaft. I agree there'll be a minor torque reaction from the flywheel, but nowhere near as much as the torque from a brisk getaway....

Chris