Everyone seemed so eager to jump on board. Now there's like 4 for sale in the classifieds and there's no install pictures.
Printable View
Everyone seemed so eager to jump on board. Now there's like 4 for sale in the classifieds and there's no install pictures.
Maybe everyone remembered they aren't driving dedicated race cars? Lol
Sent from my RM-845_nam_vzw_100 using Tapatalk
Because solid mounts are so much cheaper than some massive billet aluminum 7075 mount... That thing is like super expensive...
Because Nelson.
Because as usual, people like to talk big and buy "because race car." And then don't want to put in the effort to actually install it. If I had the cash, I probably would buy and install it and sell my polys.
because the people serious enough to install them don't go posting around in forums. Scott seems pleased with his.
I got one but my car is still not ready. It's very light and I am able to have a more complex turbo manifold design because it'll open so much more room. My manifolds will be both facing up instead of one facing up and the other facing down. :)
Coop is putting one in. I think he is pretty close to dropping the engine in.
Not sure how close he is, didn't he get held up due to the powder coating stuff? Was supposed to be done a few days ago on his day off and it wasn't. I am lookin forward to seeing it finished and how he feels about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by green-lantern
Close in coop build time, so sometime before the year is up :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by sergechronos
Well, doubtful he makes BRG with it. Perhaps the fall GnC? Besides, I can't talk, my car has been 95% done for over a month now and it's still not on the road..
Anyhow, didn't some folks have an issue with it needing to be clearanced?
I think Andre had issue with it only?
I know at least one person did for sure and posted pictures, vaguely remember a couple other people saying something as well. Not sure.
Either way, should still be fine for 99% of people. Don't remember what Andre's issue was due to.
Andre's issue was the fact it was a RHD car and Nelson's design was for a LHD.
How does that matter? The motor mounts are in the same place regardless of which side the driver is on.
April showin up with the answers. Shazam.
There ya go. So yeah, should work for 99% of people who bought it (and I think Andre did make it work just needed minor adjustments), most people who bought them just bit off more than they could chew I maintain.
Because he had a 6 speed with billet endcase and the subframe is different on a RHD... at least that was I read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff V.
Subframe is different due to steering rack position etc. Plus billet endcase. He had to shave about 30mm off the blocks on the end to low the entire engine to make it fit. The reason not many people have done it is it's over kill when a simple set of solids will do the job. It is however an awesome option for those doing a 6G74 or 6G75 conversion as you no longer have to worry about 3 of the engine mounts lining up with the block etc.
Pretty sure he only shaved off 10mmQuote:
Originally Posted by GTOJOE
The reason I didn't install mine was because of something nobody ever brought up, drive line angle. The plate moves the transfer case over a 1/4inch which effects drive line angle in the same way a rwd truck would if the thrust angle was altered OR from a sagging trans mount (drive line inclination) it is going to create a vibration.
So basically it sounds like no real R&D was done then.
not as extensive as it should have been for a part of this nature which has to be extremely precise. that being said i would have no problem using this in any fwd 3s application. going back to drive line angle.. 3000GT/Stealth International Message Center nelson admits that his plate raises the the front power-train slightly and angles it to help oil get to the sump which may be true but overlooks driveline angle which is very important to the lifespan of cardan joints,bushings and mainly the reduction of driveline vibrations.Quote:
Originally Posted by stealthee
-matt
Quote:
Originally Posted by fullracegt
This doesn't make sense at all to me. if you raise the front of the engine the rear head has a harder time draining. raise the rear, front drains poorly. raise the transmission then a 6-speed doesn't fit under the frame rail, raise the engine and the oil moves away from the pickup....
Pretty sure NO R&D went into it. Surprised [insert shop here, right Rakuny?] didn't sell them, LMAO.
The front and rear mounts are roll stopper mounts. They were only ever meant to arrest the motion of the engine....not support it. Deleting one load bearing side mount and suspending the entire weight of the engine assembly from the rear block flange and roll stopper subframe mounts seems like a piss poor idea no matter how you align it.
My biggest issue with them has always been that it's aluminum and all of the stress is on a couple welds. I guess the engine won't fall far when they invariably crack and fail (maybe it takes a decade of hard abuse? Maybe it takes a year? Nelson's "testing" was not even remotely close to long term). If it were thinner and stainless steel, I would like it more. If I were doing some crazy turbo set-up, it would be hard to resist, though.
I think if you're pulling the motor frequently, it's kind of a moot point as you are liable to see any stresses/cracks before they get too bad. Certainly wouldn't be a set it and forget it type of install though, you're right on that. Eventually the aluminum will fatigue and fail. Although, stainless would be pretty expensive. Let's just go with titanium :p
Yeah i think we were all waiting for someones engine to fall out of the car onto the groundQuote:
Originally Posted by AdamVR4
It was an interesting concept that could have used a few tweaks. Maybe one day when I have more time...
Engine plates are nothing new. Actually Nelson's plates are a bit thicker than the ones it's used on most high power drag cars. If you don't feel safe with the design you can modify it so you can use bolt to secure it but I don't see this to be necessary. IMO Nelson't plates are designed better than the one used here.
http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/9784/hpim0608kh2.jpg
You may as well be comparing apples and cinder blocks. That plate is nothing like Nelson's.
1> Your example plate is on the FRONT of the engine. The rear of the engine is still supported by the transmission, as it was designed to be.
Nelson's plate supports the transmission, and lets the engine hang suspended in thin air.
2> Your example plate is mounted to the frame rails.
Nelson's plate attaches to the front and rear cross members, which were never designed to bear almost the entire weight of the powertrain.
3> Your example plate does not relocate driveline parts which have critical geometry requirements.
4> Due to the previously mentioned point of suspending the engine by its rear flange, the transmission mount no longer has weight being loaded in a downward direction. The tail end of the transmission is now being forced up into the mount. I can't imagine that changing the stresses on the transmission housing is a good thing. We already have enough problems with these transmissions.
In short, if Nelson's mount took driveline geometry into account, and more importantly retained the drivers side frame rail mount, most of these problems would go away.
what's stopping you from continuing to use the driver side mount again? change in engine position?
I was under the impression you were still supposed to run the driver side mount with it.
It's possible I'm mistaken. There's at least one person I've talked to that thought they could get rid of the drivers side mount.
I also went back and looked at some photos of Nelson's car. The mount is definitely gone. But upon closer inspection, I can see there's some kind of custom bracket that goes from the front of the block near where the alternator would be, down to part of his front tube frame. So maybe that's where some of the confusion is coming from.
you lose the trans mount with his setup unless you make it fit (which I would), but the driver side mount is still usable.
Is that welded to the frame? The fu..? What's going on there?Quote:
Originally Posted by mehrshadvr4
Most of the images I can find show that the engine plate is mounted using bolts through the plate, often with polymer bushings. Not bolts through a welded-on bracket. Some stress analysis or any validation of the design beyond, "itz gud enuff for nelson it gud enuff fer yu!" would be nice.
For some reason I read this- "itz gud enuff for nelson it gud enuff fer yu!" in some kind of Scottish accent.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamVR4
As far as the mount goes, the real input that's important here would be from those who have used and are using the plate currently. I do agree that the right amount of R&D wasn't put into it. But I understand the concept was to make it easier and to help clean things up.
His setup retains the upper mount but deletes the trans mount. I doubt it will fit even if you wanted it as like stated engine height has changed.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
I usually don't reply one sentence at a time, but I'm bored. so here we go. LOL
here is for a change. A engine that is supported by the rearQuote:
Originally Posted by Jeff V.
http://www.candbmotorsports.com/proj...e/00000187.JPG
If you guys are worry about the weld breaking, I would be worry on the front side only since that is the one seeing pulling up motion on it when launching so you can support it by using two L shape bracket and bolt it on top of the plate and drill hole through the plate to bolt them together. Something similar to this.
http://www.rhphoto.com/images/DSC_1480.jpg
No, it's not. There's a reason the front and rear mounts are called 'roll stopper mounts'. There's a reason the side mounts are 2x ad big, and attached directly to the frame rail. There's a reason you can remove the sub frame entirely and have the engine still be supported in the car. The front and rear mounts wear out faster because they're smaller and they're tasked with arresting the motion of the engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by mehrshadvr4
It's common sense. "The little ones carry the weight and the big ones are just along for the ride". Does that seriously make sense to you?
No, it's not supported by the rear. It's supported by those two brackets on either side of the k-frame, AND the transmission mount.Quote:
Originally Posted by mehrshadvr4
It'll probably work, but normally a u-joint shares the opposite angle with the other end of its shaft. Like if you had a one piece shaft and moved one end of it over then the joint's angles cancel each other and the total angle is always 180. This ensure both ends of the shaft and each yoke piece is trying to turn at equal speeds. Due to our multi piece shaft this isn't the case.
Look at the wobble caused by a one ended u-joint on a ratchet. Now put 2 u-joints spaced by an extension on the same setup and notice it smooths right out.
I absolutly love it! I can pull my engine out and set it back by myself in a couple minutes. I welded v-band clamps in all of my exaust connections which took a lot of set it - pull it - set it - pull it moves and with the Nelson plate all you have to do is lower the engine and stab the bolt through the upper mount. Super easy, and if you think the driveline is an issue, ill let you know if I experience any issues. So far I have not even noticed any more vibrations than my poly mounts provided.
There is really not enough visible to take a picture of once everything is back in the engine bay.