Most liked posts in thread: TSW Engine Mount Prototype

Re: MSCa: Rather than speculate, we'll have to do a test fit to be certain, once we have the production pieces in hand.

 

Scott / Mike - I offer my 2005 MCS automatic as a test vehicle to see if the mount will fit. I'm pretty certain it's time for (another) motor mount.

[email protected]

 

OK Gary, get with Jeff since he'd have to get you and Nathan together at TSW WHQ to test fit the prototype. We're still working to get the production pieces started (don't get me started, ugh).

 

I see that AXC is taking orders for these now, with expectation of shipping within a week.

 

Not to mention on his site it almost sounds like he came up with the idea, designed it, and is directly responsible for how and where it's produced...:frown2:

Yeah, Jeff and Mike probably just riding Dustin's coattails, as usual....

Hard to tell who's the vendor and who's the producer from Dustin's sight....

 

Join the club, one of my pics on that site likewise.

 

OK, so call me another TSW fanboi! Between our three MINIs we have everything that TSW has ever offered including the MDM brake kit. The only part we're lacking is their coilovers. My '05 MCS has been a test mule for their v3 springs and the adjustable camber plates, and I beat the snot outta my car on the AX track and 5-6 DEs a year. I've been more than pleased with all they have done and am really looking forward to this addition having gone through two OEM engine mounts. Dr. Mike knows his stuff!

Although the DE season is in a lull due to the Texas summer heat I'll report back in as soon as I have one installed with an AX or two under my belt with it in place. And more later when the DE season picks back up/

 

The problem is, you can also beat the crap out of a newly installed OEM mount for a few months and it probably won't fail either. Although the product looks promising, it is way too early for conclusions. Perhaps of even more concern than heat is how it holds up in a Minnesota winter.

 

True, but if it's not filled with a fluid that gets all over everything and otherwise functions the same as the stock mount then it's still an improvement.

 

It's true that we cannot put X0000 miles on the prototype before offering it for sale. But we are working very hard to ensure that the design (and the rubber used) is up to the task - to the point that we appear to be taunting our vendors and loyal customers.

It's a surprisingly fine line between letting a simple product like a motor mount out of the gate too early, and testing and improving it for so long that it is not needed or wanted when, or if, it ever appears. We at TSW are not at all ashamed to admit that we will always be learning how to exercise the best judgment in such cases.

On a separate note, I have no comment regarding the recent exchanges between certain people regarding testing, design, or photos of TSW products.

I will say this, though. The idea to make a replacement motor mount was not my idea. The idea was passed to me by Jeff and Scott, and I do believe that Dustin had the idea in the first place, and asked TSW to give the idea some serious thought. The first e-mail to me from Jeff was in mid-August 2008.

In early September, I passed around the concept design (full CAD renderings) to Jeff and Scott. There is no record of any communication between myself and anyone else regarding the design, so I believe that the design is entirely my own, whether or not anyone else had a design idea, because I did not discuss the design with anyone. This is also true for the tooling I designed for the prototype castings, and it is also true for the Revision A prototype that is now on Nathan's car.

In conclusion, the facts show that:

1. Dustin DID contribute to the project in a crucial way, by contacting Jeff with the idea to create and sell a replacement motor mount.
2. Jeff then asked me to look at feasibility and to make a concept design.
3. I designed the parts, the revised parts, and all of the tooling entirely on my own.
4. Nathan has provided, and continues to provide, a very valuable service by testing both the original prototype and the Revision A prototype at the track and on the street.

I do feel that we are taking the time to create a quality product. After more than nine months of design, development, testing, and preparation for production, we are finally on the verge of offering the motor mount for sale. Trust me when I say that TSW will be THRILLED to get this product online and into our customer's hands!

 

Yes, but nothing that changes the production molds, so it won't cause further delays, fortunately.

 

Doc et al., can you provide a bit more insight into the composition? Is this actually composed of Urethane, or is it perhaps Chloroprene or Flourine rubber? If indeed Urethane, where does the material you're using fall on the hardness scale, and what kind of heat/cold resistance do you expect?

Thanks much...keep up the great work.

 

Hot polyurethane resin is pressure-injected into an evacuated mold to create the rubber parts. The parts are then baked for an hour or so to ensure that there are no bubbles remaining in the rubber. The parts are then allowed to cool and to sit for several days to allow the rubber to reach full strength. The target hardness is 70 Shore A. We expect this rubber to survive in ambient temperatures from about 0F up to about 120F. To be confident that the parts would do well below temperatures of 0F, the parts would have to be tested that cold.

 

Excellent! Appreciate the quick response.

 

Might be a silly question, but...

Is 120F high enough to withstand the engine bay on hot track days? I know Nathan is testing it in Texas but thought I would ask anyway :idea:

 

Not a silly question. I should be less cryptic.

I quoted 120F ambient which means 120F air temperature "out in the open."

Definitely the mount with do fine in the much hotter engine compartment.

 

Ahh, I get it now
Thanks for your answer