WAYNE88N/A

CANT should have an apostrophe

J-Rat

iTrader: (2)

Eat my shorts.... At least I can spell fuel.

WAYNE88N/A

And several other 4 letter words, too, I'm sure...

RotaryEvolution

iTrader: (30)

bah, i didn't read the replies to the torque loss with the motor mounts...

you may lose some torque momentarily and you will gain some torque momentarily, overall it averages out and changing the mounts does not net you anything but a more solid feel.

p4nc7

iTrader: (1)

Ahahhahaha this is great. High School does a CRAP job of educating people. I learn more reading comic books than in school. Anyways, I'd like to see if any-one has any proof on the motor mount theory. I'm getting a rebuild soon and my motor mounts feel like they're gone..lol

ddub

Ok ok, we'll just agree to disagree

If both of my engine mounts and one of my tranny mounts hadn't been broken (discovered during rebuild last summer) then I'm sure I wouldn't have bought the solid mounts. Oh well, I really couldn't care either way heh.

snub disphenoid

I'm out of high school as of today, and I can spell just dandy, but about a quarter of my class is really bad at it, and they seem to get pissy when you correct their spelling. Their argument is, "what the **** does it matter, yo, you get the idea, right?" Well, when someone writes, "The bread is over their", or, "your to stupid", I want to rip my eyes out and shove them down their throat in disgust. It's ridiculous how little emphasis is put on proper writing/spelling/grammar these days. I know one kid that got through four years of high school writing "aZn style". YoU kNoW, LiEk ThIs, wItH aLtErNaTiNg CaPiTaL aNd LoWeRcAsE LeTtErZ aNd "Z" InStEaD oF "s" aNd UsInG "tEh" iNsTeD Of "tHe". Drives you nuts. But two kids I know are actually dislexic, and they can't really type anything without spell check.

/thread hijack

Anyways, do a turbo engine swap. It's simple, it's been done many times, you can get help easily, and you're still emissions legal (well, sometimes). A turbo II with full exhaust, FCD, and an intake usually makes ~205rwhp, so there you go.

ddub

Alrighty people I think the high school/education/etc. debate is done with.


I'd also like to see some data, but I doubt there is much out there easily obtainable.

ddub

But it's heavier! Heavier = less fun!

Seriously, though, it is an expensive upgrade, harder to maintain (more money to maintain), wont last as long, etc. So if all he wants is 200 hp, sure turbo is easier to get there, but there may be better options depending on what he wants.

WAYNE88N/A

Hmm, you'd have to have a very solid, heavy test stand. And a very accurate torque gauge setup. And a very accurate fuel delivery system so that both runs wouldn't have input errors. We have a torque wrench tester here at work that's pretty damn accurate, now all I have to do is walk out the door with it and figure out how to weld it to the test stand, lol...

ddub

Haha, that'd be pretty interesting

bigdv519

iTrader: (3)

If your motor mounts were extremely stiff, stiff enough to to stop the top-most part of the UIM from moving just a quarter of an inch, wouldn't those mounts essentially do the same thing that a torque brace does??? Now, I might be wrong, and I admit to never having used a torque brace, but isn't a torque brace supposed to limit the amount of unneccesary engine movement, in an effort to transfer as much availiable torque farther down the driveline towards the wheels.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, about the torque brace and it's relationship to stiffer motor mounts.

***FYIW*** I personally will use AWR motor mounts in a 200rwhp convertable.

RotaryEvolution

iTrader: (30)

i don't see why you guys are even trying to do a test. i figured it was simple enough to understand but i guess it isn't.

i'll give an example though: the engine torques up but where does it go? it torques back to it's original position, while it is fully torqueing the engine mounts they would basically be the same as solid mounts because they are no longer moving in a direction away from the engine. unless the engine jumps out of the bay there is only one way for the mounts to react which is to give that movement back to the drivetrain.


you will feel no flex in the drivetrain if the mounts are solid but that does not mean you are losing anything overall.

Mint87RX7

you will get a small amount or torque from using solid mounts (very small) when the rubber mounts squish, you are loosing a very small amount of torque. and you are never getting it back, when they sqwuich back to where they were its because you let off the throttle.
as far as bigdv519's question. don't get a torque brace, works awsome when you first get it but it destroys your stock mounts. just spend a little extra and get some uerethane mounts, then you wont need a brace. and i would not have gotten solid mounts if i could do it over again. eurethane is so much better

WAYNE88N/A

We're kidding about the tests, Karack. At least I was...

What I'm thinking is that the rubber mounts expend sound of the force recieved as heat, and the rest of the force is "bounced back". Like Dub (I think) said earlier, the reaction forces will not fully "bounce back" to actually add the same amount of torque that was originally applied to them. So yeah, you'd lose a little...

How much? I could only guess. Maybe a foot-pound difference between the rubber and solid mounts, if that. If the chassis didn't flex at all with the solid mounts, it would be more, but that chassis flexes a heck of a lot more than most of us think it does...

ddub

Yah it was me that said that, and I really agree with wayne that it wont be anything much over 1 ft/lb, most likely (like wayne said), if that.

RoadRaceJosh

Oh, fer Chriss sake! The biggest single reason for solid motor mounts is that they don't break! You break a rubber mount and you can tear up hoses, wires, etc. Torque braces take load off rubber mounts so they don't break. If you move the engine 1 inch a distance 1 foot from the centerline of the eccentic shaft and it took 120 ft/lbs of torque to compress/stretch the mounts then you accomplsihed 10 ft/lbs of work. That 10 ft/lbs is lost to the mounts as the RPM increases and moves up the torque curve. After peak torque some of the torque is returned to the engine.

In real race cars (cars designed from the ground up as race cars that is) the engine and transmission/transaxle the engine and trans is rigidly attached as it's part of the structure. With drag cars you can shock the tires more with solid mounts, but that's really only of benifit once you have a 3 or 4 link suspension.

WAYNE88N/A

No, you're implying that it's a constant 10 ft/lbs of torque over a time span here, and that ain't right. If that was the case, the mount would keep compressing on a linear scale, which it most certainly does not. In fact, once compressed to the amount that it does, it ACTS as a solid mount...

That 10 ft/lbs (a very high figure, BTW) is momentary, in other words...

RoadRaceJosh

I'm wrote: "If you move the engine 1 inch a distance 1 foot from the centerline of the eccentic shaft and it took 120 ft/lbs of torque to compress/stretch the mounts then you accomplsihed 10 ft/lbs of work."

That DOES NOT mean it takes away 10 ft/lbs off the torque curve. I was expressing how much work has been done. It's very little work. Lift a 10 lb weight one foot in the air and you've done 10 ft/lbs of work!

FC3S_Slider

Doesn' t a better fuel pump add horse power to the NA cause it affects air fuel ratio.

fastrotaries

The cheapest way by far is Nitrous. several friends already looked into this, not to mention this topic has been covered before. Too bad there's no search feature on this forum, or else i'd tell you to go use it.....oh wait. aahh nevermind. Anyway. it all depends on what you want the power for.

iceblue

The only thing I know is that I know nothing at all.


18yrs

__________________________________________________ ________________

Solid mounts will improve your reaction time / 10ft time however you want to break it down. As to power to the wheels it is not much if any. However your initial toque will be increased b/c they are not absorbed into the mounts. The spring back of the mounts does absolutely nothing. Actually making your car go faster down the road, is the torque and HP the motor produces and not your MM getting you down the road. Indeed it is at least some improvement and been race proven non-the less. You can argue it down or up all you want makes no difference just shows opinions until someone pulls a dyno slip out.

iceblue

N/A's already run rich. Leaning the mixture out with a fuel manager will improve HP.

WAYNE88N/A

If your arm is 1 foot long, yes. And it doesn't matter how high off the ground it is...

1 foot pound is 1 pound of weight at a distance of 1 foot from the fulcrum. Think of a see-saw that's 1 foot long with a 1 pound weight on one end...

The distance from the center line, or fulcrum, is the key. When we add a crow's foot or some other extension to the normal length of our torque wrenches, we have to use a conversion formula, because the torque wrench is no longer accurate since it's effectively longer.

J-Rat

iTrader: (2)

That would have put your racing career start at the ripe age of Three. So tell me, how is it that you can't spell the word F U E L ? You are full of BS, and everyone on this forum is getting wise to this.