Ulix
True Classic
Yes, that is correct.
Larry's flipped plate is interesting too. Has anyone tried pressing the stud out?
Transaxle/motor mount again
- Thread starter ArtBasement
- Start date
Yes, that is correct.
Larry's flipped plate is interesting too. Has anyone tried pressing the stud out?
ng_randolph
Bjorn H
My understanding (based on discussions here) is that the factory installed mounts were fine, but that one or more batches of replacement mounts had the plate facing the transmission welded on upside down. Karl Mead provided several links here.
Ulix
True Classic
I just checked my collection of mounts of varying age and sources.
If the theory were correct, then ALL of my mounts had the plate upside down (which is impossible in the mounts with the arm).
They are all made in the way that has the post in the upper position, which lowers the plate and therefore the transmission.
You can‘t really tell in the picture...
If the theory were correct, then ALL of my mounts had the plate upside down (which is impossible in the mounts with the arm).
They are all made in the way that has the post in the upper position, which lowers the plate and therefore the transmission.
You can‘t really tell in the picture...
Dr.Jeff
True Classic
I never noticed that the center pin isn't centered. Reversing that would achieve the offset needed to raise the drivetrain relative to the chassis. Assuming all of the holes are otherwise still aligned properly (i.e. not asymmetric).
Last edited:
Dr.Jeff
True Classic
Some of my old mounts have actually separated at the point where the center pin attaches to the plate. But no point in welding the plate back onto a bad mount.
I have tried to separate the rubber section from the center pin (between the red and green arrows). But it won't budge.
Last edited:
Dr.Jeff
True Classic
While searching for an image (on Google Image) to illustrate my point in that last post, I came across a pic of another mount that MWB must have listed at some time. It appears to be a modified mount of some sort? I think it is a solid steel one. Or maybe just a different design by a aftermarket maker? Not sure if this has anything to do with improving the lifespan of these mounts? Hopefully someone can enlighten me about this item:
LarryC
Curator of #10105275
Yes, the mounting holes form a perfect triangle. The stud in the middle of the current crop of mounts is offset upward from a centerline through the long dimension of the plate.
Getting more height on the transmission would only require cutting the stud, preferably as a circle around the stud and welding it back in on the other side of the plate. This would be done to a new mount not an old one for the mentioned reasons. So the rubber part of the mount stays on the stud. But you would want to make sure the angle of the part that attaches to the cross member is the same on the modified mount as it was on the original unmodified mount. This would give a good centimeter or more lift for the transmission based the mounts that I have on hand.
A somewhat side question, and one that I have frequently asked someone on here to do, is show an image of a known original mount as photographed vertically centered on the stud, and a similar picture centered vertical on the stud of one of the replacement mounts. The side by side comparisons are nice, but the perspective always destroys the useful measurements. Then we would know how the new mounts differ from the originals and make sure efforts to fix the geometry achieve that. Irregardless of answering that question, just flipping the freakin’ plate would be way better than what we have got.
It looks like Ulix has an original mount, so I salivate at the opportunity finally of getting an actual photograph of an original mount centered vertically on the stud. I can use any of my incorrect modern replacement mounts at that point to do a similar photograph for a comparison. Ulix, you’re up!
Getting more height on the transmission would only require cutting the stud, preferably as a circle around the stud and welding it back in on the other side of the plate. This would be done to a new mount not an old one for the mentioned reasons. So the rubber part of the mount stays on the stud. But you would want to make sure the angle of the part that attaches to the cross member is the same on the modified mount as it was on the original unmodified mount. This would give a good centimeter or more lift for the transmission based the mounts that I have on hand.
A somewhat side question, and one that I have frequently asked someone on here to do, is show an image of a known original mount as photographed vertically centered on the stud, and a similar picture centered vertical on the stud of one of the replacement mounts. The side by side comparisons are nice, but the perspective always destroys the useful measurements. Then we would know how the new mounts differ from the originals and make sure efforts to fix the geometry achieve that. Irregardless of answering that question, just flipping the freakin’ plate would be way better than what we have got.
It looks like Ulix has an original mount, so I salivate at the opportunity finally of getting an actual photograph of an original mount centered vertically on the stud. I can use any of my incorrect modern replacement mounts at that point to do a similar photograph for a comparison. Ulix, you’re up!
Mxgrds
True Classic
It looks that the rubber part is inside a metal case to prevent sacking out.
ng_randolph
Bjorn H
With (mostly) planar parts like this, I find a flat bed scanner often works better than a camera. After-market part from my pile below.
LarryC
Curator of #10105275
Agreed. I used a flat scanner for mine, too. But I don't have an original equipment mount. That's what we need. But that is such a good image that ..and with a scale... that I am going to add it to my collection for comparison with my results.
We need an original mount scanned folks.
We need an original mount scanned folks.
lookforjoe
True Classic
I have the back plate & pin from my original 87 mount (with the arm) - I can take a pic of that. I don't have an early version.
GregS
ProjectX
I have a late model (88) mount with the long arm cut off. From the back of the 8mm thick plate you can't see where the shaft is welded but I have some measurements if it helps. The shaft is 25mm dia, the one currently on the car is only 19mm dia. There is also a larger 33mm dia bush bonded in to the rubber to spread the load over a larger area, maybe that is the difference between a 1300 and 1500 mount? The 2 large holes I put in to reduce the weight a bit.
fiatfactory
Steve Cecchele
original Fiat 4 speed mount, 4204387, new.
the pin does not go thru the back plate, it is fully welded on the other side
original Fiat next to the current AKRON production (made in italy) these are very good quality and firm rubber, Steel thickness is as per OE (this is what I sell in my ebay store)
lined up from left, OE Fiat, AKRON, Imperium brand (also made in italy and marked as such) the metal on these Imperium branded ones is much thinner, the pin goes thru the back plate, partly welded on the other side, rubber is not as firm as the other two, this is just on the shelf as a sample and was sent in error by an overseas supplier.. not what I would use or sell.
SteveC
the pin does not go thru the back plate, it is fully welded on the other side
original Fiat next to the current AKRON production (made in italy) these are very good quality and firm rubber, Steel thickness is as per OE (this is what I sell in my ebay store)
lined up from left, OE Fiat, AKRON, Imperium brand (also made in italy and marked as such) the metal on these Imperium branded ones is much thinner, the pin goes thru the back plate, partly welded on the other side, rubber is not as firm as the other two, this is just on the shelf as a sample and was sent in error by an overseas supplier.. not what I would use or sell.
SteveC
GregS
ProjectX
I have repaired one with a 19mm shaft that had broken at the weld by welding on a larger collar with the 19mm shaft a light press fit in it, also welded the shaft from behind. If you were doing this you could weld it on in a higher position to raise the engine. The bit on the end is for a torque rod brace.
Ulix
True Classic
Larry,
which one of my mounts do you think is original?
As I stated, I looked at all of my mounts and they are all the same in the respect that plate is installed such that the transmission is in the "low position". If the plate were flipped, the transmission and motor would be raised ("high position").
If you want I can take vertical pics of the mounts but it will only show the fact stated above.
ArtBasement
Erwin Timmers
My comments on this photo: It seems to be an late mount with the exhaust bracket extension. The pin is positioned so the engine/trans would be in the "low" position. I can't tell what's happening with the rubber below the pin
ArtBasement
Erwin Timmers
Yes, easy to tell from the center one with the extension. Does the one with the yellow arrow show your grinding?
ArtBasement
Erwin Timmers
I saw in the previous thread you had made a larger umbrella structure to spread the load of the pin over a larger area. How is that holding up? Any updates? Was the top of the mount just solid rubber, and easy to cut into, or is there a metal covering as well?
dllubin
Don
When did they start adding the extension again? The extension was used on the 74 USA model (and I suppose other non catalyst cars elsewhere) to hold the muffler. I assumed that 75 and later used the mount without the extension but from what you are saying, it was added back on later models. If it was, is it the same extension as used for 1974? No reason it should be the same unless they started mounting 74 style mufflers again.