Maybe it is this part Dr Jeff. "4in square mud box" $9.50/10 which is close to 0.75 each. You may find something loose packed cheaper in the store.
Shock mounts - replacement
- Thread starter jovani
- Start date
Dr.Jeff
True Classic
Those electrical covers are typically a fairly stout stamped steel. Especially with the raised center dome adding some structural shape, it might add a bit of rigidity to the top mount area. I'm thinking it could aid to prevent the mounting studs pounding up into the body sheet metal (as both of my X's have done). Add these with the "big foot" doubler type plates under the towers (to sandwich the mounting area) and it should be a decent enhancement. At least in comparison to the thinner sink flanges and the like, as I was thinking they might be.
lookforjoe
True Classic
My rear coilovers have a modified rear perch to seat in the stock rubber mount. All my photo's are gone with PB, so I don't recall the exact end design I used. The Bilsteins have a 14mm shaft, so I drilled out the two mounts this afternoon. I'll take the strut apart tomorrow & figure what if anything I need to adapt the seat to the Focus mount.
Dr.Jeff
True Classic
Huss, I can offer my experience in doing that. Previously I modified a set of Koni's into coilovers. Then adapted coilover top spring perches to work with the stock Fiat top mounts. Recently I played a little with the Focus mounts and looked at the differences if I were to use my coilovers with them. Ultimately I decided not to use the Focus mounts because I'd have to make new top spring perches (and my stock factory mounts are still good - actually they're hard with age and more like a urethane mount).
Here's why the Focus mounts needed a different top perch in my setup:
The stock mounts are just rubber, no metal cones built in; the cone is a seperate piece (aluminum 'bell' in the front and steel 'bell' on the rear upper perches). On the other hand, the Focus mounts have metal cones (above and below) built into them as a one piece assembly. So with the stock mounts you need the top spring perch to have a cone (matching the shape of the mount) to seat inside the rubber cushion. But with the Focus mounts that cone may interfere with the existing metal cone on the mount - depends on the shapes of the two (it did in my case).
Due to the difference in these designs, the stock mount allows off-axis movement (deflection to either side with suspension movement) by the top perch articulating within the rubber cushion. While the Focus mount allows this movement by the give of the rubber cushion as it's built-in cone deflects within it. Same basic principle but slightly different arrangement of the components.
Therefore what's required to use the Focus mounts will depend on the particular design of your existing top spring perch. If it is pretty much flat, then you could make a "filler" piece (like Joviani did) to make the lower cone on the Focus mount into a corresponding flat surface (to match the top perch). If your top perch has a cone shape, and that profile does not fit into the Focus lower cone, then you will need to modify the perch.
Hope that made some sense. Unfortunately I did not take any pictures when I was experimenting with the Focus mounts.
Here's why the Focus mounts needed a different top perch in my setup:
The stock mounts are just rubber, no metal cones built in; the cone is a seperate piece (aluminum 'bell' in the front and steel 'bell' on the rear upper perches). On the other hand, the Focus mounts have metal cones (above and below) built into them as a one piece assembly. So with the stock mounts you need the top spring perch to have a cone (matching the shape of the mount) to seat inside the rubber cushion. But with the Focus mounts that cone may interfere with the existing metal cone on the mount - depends on the shapes of the two (it did in my case).
Due to the difference in these designs, the stock mount allows off-axis movement (deflection to either side with suspension movement) by the top perch articulating within the rubber cushion. While the Focus mount allows this movement by the give of the rubber cushion as it's built-in cone deflects within it. Same basic principle but slightly different arrangement of the components.
Therefore what's required to use the Focus mounts will depend on the particular design of your existing top spring perch. If it is pretty much flat, then you could make a "filler" piece (like Joviani did) to make the lower cone on the Focus mount into a corresponding flat surface (to match the top perch). If your top perch has a cone shape, and that profile does not fit into the Focus lower cone, then you will need to modify the perch.
Hope that made some sense. Unfortunately I did not take any pictures when I was experimenting with the Focus mounts.
lookforjoe
True Classic
Yeah, I forgot the rear perch has the cone integrated. Fortunately, I had the parts I put together as an alternate top perch when I was making the coil overs, so these work just fine with my coilovers. I don't have a standard rear perch anymore to compare how these could work with stock suspension.
Put in the 175/350 springs (for the K24) while I was at it.
Drilled 3/8" holes (tried 5/16" first, but that didn't allow enough deflection for when the mount conforms to the arc of the tower cap, I used the inner hole as the guide, then drilled the outer (fore/aft) two, using a cardboard template made from the focus mount. Bolted the doubler plate in place for drilling. Stud spacing is approx 83mm
Dr.Jeff
True Classic
So you have the Fiat front aluminum "bell" cones on the rears also? The shape of them seemed to be a little bit of a questionable interface with the Focus mount's lower cup, but it should work fine. It will be interesting to see how the cast aluminum holds up over time, riding against the steel cups.
My coilovers do not use any stock components and the top spring perches were not readily compatible with the Focus mounts. So I decided not to use the Ford part. But if the old stock Fiat mounts do not hold up well then I can go back and make new top perches to fit the Ford mounts.
My coilovers do not use any stock components and the top spring perches were not readily compatible with the Focus mounts. So I decided not to use the Ford part. But if the old stock Fiat mounts do not hold up well then I can go back and make new top perches to fit the Ford mounts.
lookforjoe
True Classic
The rear upper perch I made & had in place used the stock rear perch with a modified upper dome adding VW part
The pieces I used with the Focus mount were an alternate front layout. With the hardened washer shown palced in-between, there is zero 'rock" of the aluminum dome in the focus mount. I had aluminum spacers in the previous layout, which had held up just fine over the past two years of use.
EDIT: I may still need to revisit the aluminum cone, simply because I have about 1/2" space between the spring perch & the underside of the mount. The overall height of the perch/spacers/mount is still the same as the previous setup. My ride height (with 12" springs now, vs. 10" previously) has increased by 1/2", and I had to set them with almost no pretension, since pretension=ride height increase.
In my case, with heavier rate (175/350) springs, I would not have used these without the strut plate doublers, the stock metal is too thin to support the additional rigidity and load. The doublers were no longer flat, even with the 140/250 springs I had in place.
I think these mounts will defintiely provide greater support & longevity in my setup, so I appreciate Jovanni's work in figuring this out.
Last edited:
jovani
True Classic
The beauty cover/washer is made out of this electrical plate. I happen to have mighty bench metal sheers, belt grinder and drill press, so cut, drill, grind and mount takes me 15 minutes. Two other small mods are shown below: seat belt light is converted to "Open hood latch" light, ground switch is mounted behind latch lever.It is very helpful to me, I frequently drive with hood unlocked until I get to speedThank you again for the excellent idea.
That cover/washer looks great, please tell us what it is...something from the store, or did you make it from scratch?
The other photo shows matching switches, top is for my second cooling fan, powered all times (looks like air flow passing through something rectangular), and bottom is for.. anything you like, in my case radio with keys out of ignition .
Dr.Jeff
True Classic
Be sure the spring perch does not contact the Focus mount at the sides. Some gap is needed. As the strut moves off-axis (with suspension articulation) it needs to be able to swing freely without interference from the mount.
I'll try to demonstrate with your picture:
Attachments
Last edited:
rx1900
1981 X1/9
Hey Hussein. Something does not look right on your strut mount set-up......
Tough to say for sure from your pics, but......looks like you may have ended up with reduced shock compression travel. And that is not a good thing !!!!
Assuming you will be running a lower than stock ride height ( ? )....that lower ride height just eats into available suspension travel in compression. And...if you are running the VW Bilstein insert, I think it has a tad less compression travel that the stock Fiat strut. And...it would appear that your new upper mount has now reduced that compression travel by about an inch.
Combine all those...and I suspect you have ended up with very little available travel. And that is not a good thing.
Look at the pic below of a stock X1/9 rear ( the brown car ), and then look at the pic you posted of your car. Note the position of the top of the shock shaft in relation to the raised portion of the bodywork. It would appear ( although the angle of the pics may be deceptive ) the top of your shock shaft is considerably lower. This would result in you having less available compression travel before the shock bottoms out.
Do you have a proper bump stop on your struts ? Does it stop the shock travelling well before the shock bottoms out ? Under NO circumstances should you allow the shock to ever bottom out. That would destroy your fancy Bilsteins quite quickly. At your chosen ride height do you still have plenty of suspension travel remaining before the bump stops come into play ??
I suspect you will have to revise your upper mounts somehow........
Tough to say for sure from your pics, but......looks like you may have ended up with reduced shock compression travel. And that is not a good thing !!!!
Assuming you will be running a lower than stock ride height ( ? )....that lower ride height just eats into available suspension travel in compression. And...if you are running the VW Bilstein insert, I think it has a tad less compression travel that the stock Fiat strut. And...it would appear that your new upper mount has now reduced that compression travel by about an inch.
Combine all those...and I suspect you have ended up with very little available travel. And that is not a good thing.
Look at the pic below of a stock X1/9 rear ( the brown car ), and then look at the pic you posted of your car. Note the position of the top of the shock shaft in relation to the raised portion of the bodywork. It would appear ( although the angle of the pics may be deceptive ) the top of your shock shaft is considerably lower. This would result in you having less available compression travel before the shock bottoms out.
Do you have a proper bump stop on your struts ? Does it stop the shock travelling well before the shock bottoms out ? Under NO circumstances should you allow the shock to ever bottom out. That would destroy your fancy Bilsteins quite quickly. At your chosen ride height do you still have plenty of suspension travel remaining before the bump stops come into play ??
I suspect you will have to revise your upper mounts somehow........
lookforjoe
True Classic
Thank you Doug!
These were my observations when I installed the Bilsteins:
So. Measuring the strut insert travel from upper spring perch to spring seat, (with no spring & no gaiter installed) have 10" total free length, 5.5" inch fully compressed. So 4.5" total travel.
Installed in the car, I get 7" length before the suspension is fully compressed, so only 3" available travel.
I measured the height of the before & after top mount assemblies, and they were very close. I measured from the top flats of the mount to the base of the tube, and the revised setup was 1/2" taller (20 3/4" vs. 20 1/4"). I didn't think about the travel reduction that altering the strut shaft insertion through the mount would make - looking at another pic of mine, I've think I've lost more than an inch. I installed longer coils as well, so I was looking at the drop of the lower seat, not focused on the top. The revision added 1/2- 5/8" to the rear height with the spring at minimum compression, which still means about 1/2" less insert travel if I'm understanding all this correctly.
To get it back, I need a strut plate that allows the insert shoulder to rise higher relative to the top of the coil spring (pass further through the top mount), correct?
Looks like I may be putting the old mounts back until I figure this out. Fortunately I've only driven the car a short distance since installing them - the weather here has been miserable. losing the cone & adding a sleeve that fits inside the mount would give me as much as can be regained, I think.
Last edited:
rx1900
1981 X1/9
Thank you Doug!
which still means about 1/2" less insert travel if I'm understanding all this correctly.
No no Hussein.....you've lost a lot more than 1/2" of insert travel. Think about it........you've lost over an inch...
Look again at the "previous set-up" pic you posted. Note how much the top end of the shock insert sticks above that raised portion of the bodywork. Compare that to your current position. By your own admission, that is more than an inch ? Then that is how much shock - and consequentially suspension compression - travel you have lost !!! And that is not good......
Your upper spring mount to base of strut measurements are really meaningless. Any change you made that raises or lowers the upper spring perch ONLY effects the position of where you spin the lower spring perch to. Which in your case does not matter at all - it would only be important if your lower spring perch was fixed - like on a stock strut.
From the thread you referenced - you said previously you had about 2 1/4" of WHEEL travel from your chosen ride height to full compression. That is okay. But remember that wheel travel is more than strut travel, since the wheel is further out from the suspension pivot point that the strut. So that 2 1/4" of wheel travel is only about 1 3/4" of strut travel. Loosing a bit more that an inch out of that - as you have now done - only leaves you with about 1/2" of strut travel from ride height to full compression.......yeah not good....
So...back to the drawing board Hussein. Yeah, you will have to revise the upper mount or lose the aluminum cone or something. This suspension stuff is kinda tricky - any change you make effects something else. You really gotta think about it carefully......
Hint - dont worry much about the upper spring perch part of the upper mount - in your case that is pretty much meaningless. Do what ever you have to do to get the end of the shock insert as high as possible.
Feel free to PM me or ask here if you need any help or dont quite understand something.
Sorry to have waylaid Jovani's thread here a bit - but it is kinda relevant...
Doug
Edit - Hey Hussein....re-reading your reply....yes you understood correctly....if at the same time of installing your new upper mounts you also raised the rear ride height 1/2", then yes the NET effect would be only losing 1/2" of compression travel. i missed that bit ....but still you have lost about 1" of available compression travel in the end...
Last edited:
lookforjoe
True Classic
It really wasn't that much lost - the insert was not as low as it appeared -
This is now, after removing the additional seat & cone - about 1/2" total difference.
This is actually protruding further through the mount than the old layout. In addition to the nut spacer from the previous setup I had to add an extra 1/8" washer to clear the un-threaded section.
old:
New:
spring now sits up against the mount, with a spacer washer (cut down universal wheel spacer) to center the spring around the ridge on the underside of the mount
Dr.Jeff
True Classic
Huss, I do not believe that will work very well. If I am seeing it correctly, it looks like there won't be allowance for the off-axis angle of movement with articulation of the suspension? The spring and center shaft should connect to the lower cup (metal cone on the underside of the Ford mount), and not the base of the mount. The complete strut assembly needs to be able to "rock" side to side with relation to the vehicle body. Otherwise damage will result. The rubber portion within the top mount allows for this movement, but only if everything travels through the rubber portion without interfering with the rest of the mount assembly. That metal cup on the bottom of the Ford mount is the only portion of this mount that has 'motion' when the mount is attached to the vehicle.
As I said, IF I am seeing your new set-up correctly. It looks like the center shaft will be able to move off-axis, but the spring will not. Perhaps there is enough side flex in the spring to accommodate it, but I think it will bind this way. Ideally the spring can move in unison with the center shaft.
As I said, IF I am seeing your new set-up correctly. It looks like the center shaft will be able to move off-axis, but the spring will not. Perhaps there is enough side flex in the spring to accommodate it, but I think it will bind this way. Ideally the spring can move in unison with the center shaft.
lookforjoe
True Classic
Hmmm... as a final note on this - looking again at my two top mount/strut pass through pics above, the Ford version has the shoulder of the strut sitting about 1/4" lower than the Fiat mount, relative to the upper flat of the mount. I need to raise my ride height about 1/4"-3/8" to get that additional travel buffer back.
lookforjoe
True Classic
I know you mentioned this earlier, but I think you are mistaken.
There shouldn't be off axis movement of the mount relative to the spring or strut insert - think about it - normally there is a thrust bearing inbetween the spring and the outer surround of the mount where my spring seats. If off-axis movement occured in that area, it would bugger the bearing in short order.
This is no different than the factory (Ford) setup spring sits against bearing, bearing sits against outer seat, insert anchors in center...
kmead
Old enough to know better
In looking at the section through the mount, the inner mounting has articulation in the rubber relative to the fixed outer (fixed to the body and the spring) which does allow for the needed angular change of the strut in compression and rebound.
Hussien’s spring mount ensures the spring won’t impact the body of the mount.
Hussien’s spring mount ensures the spring won’t impact the body of the mount.
Dr.Jeff
True Classic
I follow what you two are saying, and it makes complete sense (although I'm not sure that sketch should be considered a reliable resource). I bought the Ford mounts without the bearings so I'm not 100% certain where they contact the mount. Frankly I'd have to look at it again, especially with the bearing, but I'll take your word for it. So long as there is some provision for unbound movement in the needed directions then it is good. The amount of off-axis movement needed is easily seen if you assemble the strut without the spring, mount everything to the car, then move the suspension through its full articulation. The change in angle of the strut is obvious.