Engine mount selection

[HCA]

Are there variants of the Ford Anglia engine mount - must one be careful in selecting which one to buy? (I have a Spyder chassis.)

I ask, because there are two below where the pictures differ (yes, I know that pictures should only be illustrative, but these two look too different for what I thought has been unchanged by Ford during its life)

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/x2-FORD-Angl ... xygo9Q4yJP

https://paulmattysportscars.co.uk/produ ... ne-elan-2/

I do not know how many manufature this part - is there a better one that I should go for?

Thanks
Hal

[UAB807F]

I'm not sure the variants are both from the Ford Anglia (probably not) but the Elan does have different style mounts for the carb and exhaust sides.

The Ebay link shows an engine mount with the standard bolt position whereas the Paul Matty one shows the mount holes on the back plate as slightly lower (or higher depending on your viewpoint !) which means the engine on that side will sit a touch higher. That gives clearance for the carbs on the bodywork.

My early Spyder chassis takes one of each mount, the same as the Lotus chassis. I don't know if Spyder changed their mounting positions on the chassis at a later date to use the same mounts on both sides.

Final point - I'd be wary of exactly what you're buying on Ebay. I bought one set of mounts (not from the seller in your link) and frankly they were poor. The rubber seemed softer than my old ones and the steelwork was noticeably thinner. I didn't fit them, just wrote it off to experience.

Brian

[JonB]

Not to complicate the issue, Hal, but I'm not sure the Plus 2 needs different left / right mounts. It's not got carb/body clearance issues like the baby Elan. When I took my engine out I couldn't discern a difference; although the Spyder mounts (arms that connect the block to the Anglia mounts) are handed.

https://lotuselan.net/wiki/EA_-_Engine_-_Block_%2B2

See item 27 - engine mount - not handed, though this is an older mount design from the looks of it.

Edit: Hmm, on second thoughts: https://lotuselan.net/wiki/EA_-_Engine_-_Block is the Elan engine parts diagram, and it's got the same mount.

Maybe you should just take your engine mounts off (pretty easy with ramps and an engine hoist to support the engine) and see for yourself?

[Chrispy]

Plus 2's use the Ford mount only. Last one I used failed after 800km! Got a 'race style' bobbin type mount on the exhaust side and standard on the carb side. Few more vibrations but won't fail now!

[HCA]

Thanks for the replies - it is, like the past posts on the subject, one that is still open to interpretation!

I have just taken them both off and like you Jon, I do not see a difference, but that is not to say an incorrect mount has been fitted before - in fact I think one has and it answers my question on quality. The exhaust side is a beefy mount with good solid rubber bonded all around the blade into the 'U' and unlikely ever to shift, and if it does, there is enough rubber to at least support the engine at the correct height. The carb side though is puny in comparison with rubber bonded either side of the blade only. In this case, both rubber bondings have sheered allowing the centre blade to fall into the empty part at the bottom of the 'U'! This in turn has allowed the airbox to drop onto the body contour just enough to leave marks (that alerted me to something wrong).

Brian, you echo the past threads on the subject, but how do I know if I have an early or later chassis? I take your point re ebay! Jon, you might also know the answer to this?

Interesting Chris re your bobbin mount. I know that such mounts were used in 105E racing, and woud account for the vibrations I guess, but what was involved in the modification?

Another question - does [on the +2] one mount tend to pack in before the other due to any peculiarities of torque? If so, and I cannot find a real beefy mount, this is the side that I should use the good one I already have.

[Craven]

On the 2 seat Elan the Spyder chassis uses same mount both sides (standard), but accommodates engine tilt by unequal length mounting arms, Unique to Spyder chassis.

[JonB]

..how do I know if I have an early or later chassis? I take your point re ebay! Jon, you might also know the answer to this?

Can't tell from here mate! If you have the chassis number you might ask Spyder.

Another question - does [on the +2] one mount tend to pack in before the other due to any peculiarities of torque? If so, and I cannot find a real beefy mount, this is the side that I should use the good one I already have.

Yes but not because of torque. The one on the exhaust side tends to pack in sooner due to the extra heat coming off the manifold.. Solution being to wrap a bit of heat shield round it (mine is OK and not covered by the way).

[jono]

It well worth beefing up the mounts by pumping the void between the 'U' shape part and the 'failsafe' metal plate which bolts to the chassis full of tigerseal or other PU sealant.

It greatly stiffens things up, reducing torque reaction, and also stops the mounts sagging over time.

[alanr]

I bought so called uprated engine mounts from TTR but I think they are just ordinary mounts filled with Tiger Seal as Jon suggests doing.

Alan.

[HCA]

That is a good idea Jon! I wish someone had thought of that with my broken one. However the other, beefy, one looks like those advertised by TTR. A nuisance though as I see they only sell them in pairs.

[Chrispy]

Interesting Chris re your bobbin mount. I know that such mounts were used in 105E racing, and woud account for the vibrations I guess, but what was involved in the modification?

Have a look at this: https://lotuselan.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=44933&hilit=mount

[HCA]

Not as I imagined them but a nice design certainly. I missed that thread in looking back on past comments.

I have ordered a couple of TTR ones despite your comments Jon (put it down to lainess...) as they best represent the beefy one I already have.

I note that Spyder have a slot so that their leg can be high or low o the mount. In my case not only did the rubber sheer allowing the middle of the mount to sit on the base, but the leg has slid down to the lowest part of the slot. I think I will spot weld the ⅜ bolts in one position so that if there is a failure, the engine will only drop 15mm and not 30mm

Thanks for all the comments!
Hal