Engine mounts

PostPost by: ardee_selby » Tue May 18, 2010 6:11 am

With correct & sound engine mounts in place, what tilt angle is acheived for airbox clearance?

(On my engine mount "static load test rig" :wink: a spirit level across the cam cover shows it as horizontal. Implies the "special" carb side mount has sagged more than t'other one)

Cheers - Richard S3 S/E FHC
ardee_selby
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 1090
Joined: 30 Sep 2003

PostPost by: rgh0 » Tue May 18, 2010 5:39 pm

I have never actually measured the angle but it is clearly visible and you can fit the fingers of your hand bentween the airbox and top of the footwell. If the mount sags to much you cant fit your fingers in and the airbox hits the footwell under acceleration torque loads on the engine.

regards
Rohan
User avatar
rgh0
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 8409
Joined: 22 Sep 2003

PostPost by: quaybook » Tue May 18, 2010 6:01 pm

Richard
My experience is that carb side engine mounts collapse with depressing regularity these days. My car had a replacement in 2006, total collapse and replacement in 2008 after 2000 miles and again in 2010 after another 2000 odd miles. Not sure they can be described as fit for purpose! I've obtained the latest replacement from Susan Miller and hopefully it will do better but if not, next time I'll go for the TTR ones which are apparently strengthened with a neoprene infill. At least it means that I'm now fairly adept at removing the starter motor which I thought was a real pain first time I did it, but just feels like everday Elan maintenance now.
Vernon
Elan S2 26/5614
Alfa Romeo Alfetta Berlina 1974
Westfield 7SE
quaybook
Second Gear
Second Gear
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 24 Aug 2009

PostPost by: ardee_selby » Wed May 19, 2010 6:10 am

Rohan/ Mike

Thanks for yr replies.

It certainly seems the carb-side mounts are not as durable as the exhaust side...whether they see engine torque or not...and if they are current non-doctored rubber formulation or the old-school type.

Seems they must be treated as a consumable item.

(I suppose condition monitoring using an inclinometer would be OTT! :)

Regards - Richard
ardee_selby
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 1090
Joined: 30 Sep 2003

PostPost by: rgh0 » Wed May 19, 2010 5:46 pm

The engine torque reaction under acceleration adds to the engine weight on the carb side and subtracts from the engine weight on the exhaust side unloading the exhaust mount so it rarely fails except eventually due to exhaust heat getting to it but the carb side which sees the double load of weight plus the torque reaction fails rapidly particularly the current replacements with poor rubber quality.

cheers
Rohan
User avatar
rgh0
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 8409
Joined: 22 Sep 2003

PostPost by: Allison » Sat May 22, 2010 5:54 pm

Richard,

The way I test it is to see if there is similar clearance between the two metal pieces of the engine mounting if yes then you're ok. I've had both sides fail unexpectedly - one within weeks of being replaced and the other after two years. yes they are consumable items but at less than ?10 each what do you expect?

Peter
Allison
Second Gear
Second Gear
 
Posts: 90
Joined: 20 Jan 2007

PostPost by: 106500 » Sat May 22, 2010 6:58 pm

Just removed my Carb side mount (Spyder chassis) today which has failed (has lasted 7 years although I don't do many miles). Straight forward and easy to do. Just need to get a replacement from PM and should be able to fit in the week.
106500
Second Gear
Second Gear
 
Posts: 51
Joined: 18 Feb 2004

Total Online:

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 52 guests