[Supras] NAPA motor mounts

[Hacker J]

For MK3's with the fluid mounts, the best thing to do is to use the mounts from a 98 MK4 TT.  It
bolts right up after you grind off one extra aluminum locating pin.

They are completely shrouded in a metal case so they will not break, and they cost less then the
stock mounts, almost 1/2 the price ($52 ea from Jeff Watson)! They do have a rubber isolator
inside but it will not seperate like stock ones do. They are a easy fit for 89-up Supras, 7m or
1jz.

Jon
90T

> Jim and list:
> 
>     A few months ago I went though a similar search, and found the Anchor makes the mounts for
> NAPA as one of several suppliers.  I spoke with Anchor tech support, a very friendly guy.  He
> stated that he had one on his desk, and was looking at a crimped steel ring on the bottom half
> which appeared to be backup protection in case the bonding of the top stud plate to the rubber
> broke.  The mount was said to be oil filled.  Also found out from independent sources that
> Anchor is probably the best recognized aftermarket mount supplier.  
> 
>     So I ordered the "genuine" Anchor mounts from a local disributor, and found that the top
> stud plate (about 1-1/2" in diameter) was bonded to the rubber, without backup provisions.  The
> crimp the tech guy spoke with was to hold the rubber segment to the bottom plate (from which the
> frame stud protruded).
> 
>     By putting the mount in a vise with softwood blocks, I found I could bend the top stud at
> almost a 90 degree angle with a piece of 1/2 pipe over it since it was pliable.  Apparently
> there is no backup provision in these mounts.  The stock mounts are much stiffer, and have the
> black painted overtravel stops bolted between the engine-side mounting brackets and the mount. 
> The stock mount also has a rubber covered steel projection which backs up against the bracket. 
> I found that my '90 left side mount had been broken for some time only because of a rust line at
> the junction of the upper pad and the rubber.  The backup protection must have been keeping
> matters under control for some time.
> 
>     I got a pair of Transdapt Ford flathead buscuits and was going to make up mounts (at least
> one for the left side) which were captive since they use through bolts and a intermediate plate
> for the frame side mounting. but never took that project any further.  
> 
>     Also got new stock mounts and backup brackets and found the backup brackets to be thicker
> than the stock '90 pieces, a reassuring finding.  
> 
>     Work on a JDM rebuild, the major part of this project, has not progressed due to lack of
> time, so the mount situation remains unresolved.  Using the Ford buscuits does not address the
> side thrust due to twisting tendency of the engine (present since the mounts are low and close
> to the engine) although it addresses the left side lifting tendency perfectly.  So use of the
> buscuits would require fabrication of a center plate with rings on each side to fit into the
> circular voids in the buscuit rubber.  
> 
>     The Mazda engine is much smaller and much less torquey than a well boosted MkIII, although
> the lower first gear ratio may offset that difference to a very small extent (the force felt by
> the mounts is determined by both engine torque output and first gear ratio, since the engine and
> transmission are bolted together).  
> 
>     In the final analysis, I will probably wind up using the stock mounts, but with spacers
> screwed to the backup plates to make the assembly go solid dynamically with less stress on the
> mount rubber than in stock form.  At least engine noise wll not be transmitted to the frame at
> idle and cruise, although metal to metal contact would occur sooner at heavier throttle.  That
> seems like a good compromise, to keep the stock mount together.
> 
>             BernieK
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com