Seeing as how these are starting to ship out and people should begin receiving them in the next few days, I thought it appropriate to share this write up. For future reference this document is located at
http://www.levelzeromotorsports.com/docs/mount_rebuild/index.html. Shortly we will also do up instructions on how to convert it to a true solid mount.
Ecotec/LD9 Upper Mount Rebuild/Modification
The following instructions will help you rebuild your mount, or if you choose increase the stiffness by preloading the bushings. Unfortunately we can not be responsible for any increased wear attributed to over stressing the bushings, which is why we offer replacements at little cost.
Step 1. What you will need
A clean working area
Your Ecotec/LD9 upper motor mount
Loctite
5/8th's wrench
A piece of paper
A marker
Loctite
Replacement bushings (optional )
(3)7/16th's washers (optional)
Step 2. Measuring the height of you mount
Begin by folding the paper in half so you can stand it on end. Stand it next to your motor mount and mark the bottom edge of the upper plate. This will be your reference for when you reassemble the mount. You can also use a ruler or any appropriate measuring tools.
Step 3. Disassembly
Using the 5/8ths wrench remove the nylon lock nuts from the top of the mount. Remove the washers, upper bushings, top plate and the lower bushings.
Step 4. Modification (OPTIONAL)
If you want to stiffen the mount place the 3 extra washers on top of the aluminium columns.
Step 5. Reassembly
Reassemble the mount in the reverse order, using the new bushings if applicable. The order is lower bushings, upper plate, upper bushings, washers and lock nuts. Before you put the lock nuts on apply a drop of loctite to each bolt. Be sure to only tighten the nuts a half turn at this point.
Step 6. Tightening
Starting from the middle turn each nut a half turn until the top plate lines up with the mark on your paper again. As you get closer tighten each nut a quarter turn ensuring the resistance feels the same for each nut. If you are using a ruler or other measuring device the distance from a flat surface to the bottom of the top plate should be 2.625 inches.
Step 7. Your Done
Your mount is now rebuilt/modified. If you've modified it you should notice the bushings are now preloaded more and firmer to the touch.
Awesome pre release write up. a lot of time went into this i can see, well minus the whole fold a piece of paper over haha. you should send out a plastic T, that you lay down upside down and mark on that with dry erase marker or put tape on it haha. good write up though. good job and CANT WAIT FOR MINE!!
and since they are being released now..... MANIFOLD !!!! haha
Vincent Morris wrote:Awesome pre release write up. a lot of time went into this i can see, well minus the whole fold a piece of paper over haha. you should send out a plastic T, that you lay down upside down and mark on that with dry erase marker or put tape on it haha. good write up though. good job and CANT WAIT FOR MINE!!
and since they are being released now..... MANIFOLD !!!! haha
Honestly if I'm doing it personally I use a dial indicator precise to 0.001" .... but not everyone has one of those. Everyone has a pen and paper. I did also include the proper measurements for anyone that wants to be slightly more anal retentive about it. The plastic T is a good idea, I don't want to have to charge more for the mounts though so maybe I will include it with the replacement bushings and as a separate item for those that just want to have it.
Great writeup
Can't wait for the LD9 and Lowers with Bushings
well i will buy the replacements with the t for sure ha ha. cant wait.
Absolutely beautiful mount LZO.
It looks really strong and a design that begs to be different from all the rest.
Nice stuff man.
I'm waiting for some reviews before I make some decisions on your mount with the new engine.
Misnblu.com
Newbie member since 1999
Thank you Dave and JBO! 
are those rubber or urethane bushings
JBO since July 30, 2001
When we where first testing the mount we started with an A65 polyurethane but found it was slow reacting, especially in the cold. We were fortunate because a guy I made some custom bike parts for, works at an industrial rubber place and was able to give me samples of 7-8 different rubbers. We ended up choosing a neoprene rubber. It had the right durometer for our application, excellent chemical resistance and well as the elasticity we were looking for (neoprene is a synthetic rubber, polyurethane is a chemical compound). It is also more weather resistant then polyurethanes which should lead to increased bushing life. Both score very high across the charts but the neoprene edged out as the better choice in the most critical areas for this design. Normally it would have been cost prohibitively expensive to go with neoprene but because of the relatively low quantity we needed, we were able to custom make a cutter that could punch out the bushings, and our supplier swung us a special deal for enough material to last us for a long time. It's a bit more labor intensive but the design of this mount is not based on using a stiffer rubber, it's based on using a soft rubber but in plane with the rotation of the engine as it torques under load.
You certainly have my interest in this.
I saved this thread on pdf file for future reference and before it get's overpopulated with posts.
Again, love your mount man, and am holding a deep interest in this.
Misnblu.com
Newbie member since 1999
Thank you Dave and JBO!
Soooo..... Any pics of the fully solid mounts assembled? I would assume we wouldn't have to deal with rebuilding them since there won't be anything to wear out.
Cody@RDFabs.com wrote:Soooo..... Any pics of the fully solid mounts assembled? I would assume we wouldn't have to deal with rebuilding them since there won't be anything to wear out.
Sorry for the delay in getting the pics. Art is low on the list of things that have to get done around the shop
Here is one image
For more images see this thread:
http://www.j-body.org/forums/read.php?f=46&i=384054&t=384054
I asked this in the other thread as well but,
I've never seen grade 8 hardware in silver.
In the pics, there are only the three marks on the bolts.
I've only seen that on grade 5 hardware.
The 8s have always been bronze with 6 markings I believe.
And are bronzish colored.
Arps were not marked at all, and were ss.
Are those grade 8 bolts?
Thanks,
-M
Remember....syringes go in the RED waste basket.
You listed loctite twice lol.
---------------------------------------------------
4 Cams...32 Valves...5 Liters...This Could Get Fun!
Mastin wrote:I asked this in the other thread as well but,
I've never seen grade 8 hardware in silver.
In the pics, there are only the three marks on the bolts.
I've only seen that on grade 5 hardware.
The 8s have always been bronze with 6 markings I believe.
And are bronzish colored.
Arps were not marked at all, and were ss.
Are those grade 8 bolts?
Thanks,
-M
You are absolutely right. When we were originally planning and designing the mount we picked grade 8 hardware as a starting point. Somewhere along the line we added the center column and increased the bolt diameter. After crunching all of the numbers we realized that the grade 8 bolts were overkill even by my standards and swapped out to the grade 5 because it looked better and was still complete overkill. I don't think there was a noticeable difference in cost from my supplier and becasue we had the flexibility we decided to go with what looked best. I don't have the notes in front of me but the grade 5 hardware worked out to around 30,000 lbs of shear strength. Because of the design none of the weight rests on the bolts. The bolts are simply there to hold the mount together and preload the bushings. I don't know where it still says grade 8 hardware but I'd like to change it so people aren't confused of mislead. That being said if anyone wants grade 8 hardware just let me know, I have a box full of it that was ordered early on and am more then willing to include them free of charge.
Skunk - Now With Petey wrote:You listed loctite twice lol.
It's that important
Level Zero Motorsports wrote:Mastin wrote:I asked this in the other thread as well but,
I've never seen grade 8 hardware in silver.
In the pics, there are only the three marks on the bolts.
I've only seen that on grade 5 hardware.
The 8s have always been bronze with 6 markings I believe.
And are bronzish colored.
Arps were not marked at all, and were ss.
Are those grade 8 bolts?
Thanks,
-M
You are absolutely right. When we were originally planning and designing the mount we picked grade 8 hardware as a starting point. Somewhere along the line we added the center column and increased the bolt diameter. After crunching all of the numbers we realized that the grade 8 bolts were overkill even by my standards and swapped out to the grade 5 because it looked better and was still complete overkill. I don't think there was a noticeable difference in cost from my supplier and becasue we had the flexibility we decided to go with what looked best. I don't have the notes in front of me but the grade 5 hardware worked out to around 30,000 lbs of shear strength. Because of the design none of the weight rests on the bolts. The bolts are simply there to hold the mount together and preload the bushings.
No weight rests on the bolts?!?!?!
You have pretty good forces on those bolts. Not saying grade 5 wont do it fine, but done say there is no load. Those bolts are being stretched when the mount is loaded and you actually have created a pretty high energy torque moment on there with vibrations also. Plenty enough reason to use grade 8 for me, I'd have to know the weight of the engine, diameter of the bolts and distance the bolts are away from the engine to tell you what you got and a "factor of safety" to see if grade 5 is sufficient but it might be. Also, the bushing pre-loading also sends you further strains the bolts so I'd also need to know the linear k factor of the rubber and how much pre-loading you have on them. I'd think grade 8 would be needed, but again the bolts look kinda small but if they are big enough then fine. Looks nice tho!
"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous
^......but DON'T say there is no load............... -sorry, lost the edit
"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous
Well after much debate and alot of thinking along with the questions of the posters having legit inquiries of the product, I bought the upper mount in candy red.
I also bought the lower mount for the LD9 to replace the 7 year old RK mount and both of these should go well with the new engine and tranny that'll be going into the car in the near future.
I also like the weight savings of the upper mount over the TTR mount along with the weight savings over the factory mount.
You've sold me LZM.
Misnblu.com
Newbie member since 1999
Thank you Dave and JBO!
Joshua Dearman wrote:
No weight rests on the bolts?!?!?!
You have pretty good forces on those bolts. Not saying grade 5 wont do it fine, but done say there is no load. Those bolts are being stretched when the mount is loaded and you actually have created a pretty high energy torque moment on there with vibrations also. Plenty enough reason to use grade 8 for me, I'd have to know the weight of the engine, diameter of the bolts and distance the bolts are away from the engine to tell you what you got and a "factor of safety" to see if grade 5 is sufficient but it might be. Also, the bushing pre-loading also sends you further strains the bolts so I'd also need to know the linear k factor of the rubber and how much pre-loading you have on them. I'd think grade 8 would be needed, but again the bolts look kinda small but if they are big enough then fine. Looks nice tho!
Sorry for the delay in replying. Was tied up in the shop.
You are correct. I was simplifying things drastically as last time I got overly complicated people didn't seem to appreciate it.
At rest there is very very little tension on the bolts. I attempted to measure it with a torque wrench but it's in the inch pounds range and I don't have a gauge accurate that low. Under load there will be more tension applied to the rear bolt and to a lesser degree the middle bolt. The front bolt will experience little to no tension as the bushings will compress and the weight is transferred down into the bushings and column. As the engine reverses direction the loads will shift from front to back. During testing we found that the rubber bushings did a much better job then expected of absorbing any twist and deflection.
I wish we'd taken some pictures of the stress testing. We bolted the mount down to a work bench and bolted a 10' length of pipe to the upper plate. We were able to hang the weight of one guy off of the end of the pipe without the mount or bolts failing, which is approximately 2000 ft/lbs of force. The bushing closest to the weight compressed significantly, the rear upper bushing only compressed slightly. Under full compression we were able to remove the rear locknut without the upper plate moving, only the bushing decompressed. This is because the weight is still fully supported by the front column and to a degree the middle column. We are using a softer rubber then most aftermarket mounts. It's still stiffer then OEM, but due to the design there is significantly more surface area of the bushings allowing the load to be transferred and dispersed more efficiently.
We do try to think about the worst case scenarios though. Due to the design it is very very unlikely you could ever snap all three bolts simultaneously. Under engine load when the mount is subjected to the most force, the inside and outside bolts are experiencing opposite loads. If some how the bolts did snap there is still the center column. and this is part of the reason we added it. It's complete overkill as far as the weight loads go, but it provides a fail safe at little additional cost to weight or performance. All that being said we make parts for some of the craziest owners. We design all our parts to take the beatings these guys put them through and if they fail due to something that is our fault we will make it right.
I have mounts similar in concept to these in one of my cars, except they only have one bolt instead of three. I drive the car like I stole it everyday and I have yet to have any problems. I'm not saying problems can't arise but we have done everything we can to ensure they won't and if they do we will stand by our products and support our customers. It's one of the reasons we offer replacement parts for the mounts and our BSD kits. We are gear heads and we design everything as such. A prime example of this is we are working on making kits to allow people to convert from one mount to another in the event of an engine conversion. This is not a product that we would ever expect to sell more then 4-5 of, but for those few people that bought our mounts and decided to convert their engines we want to be able to help them out and continue to support them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote the reply earlier this morning. Just as i was almost finished a customer showed up to try out the mounts. He already had aftermarket upper/lowers but wanted to try ours out. I told him to try them out and only buy them if he liked them so we used a sample mount that hasn't gone through final finishing. From his initial impressions he's very happy with them and coming back next week once we powder coat his actual mount to match his color scheme. I think he may post his thoughts after he's had a chance to drive around a bit, but I do have some installed pics for those that were curious.
The one big thing we noticed when installing the upper mount was that we actually had to reposition the engine slightly. We braced the engine so it wouldn't move when we took the original out. When we went to drop the new one in, the holes didn't quite line up. I checked the dimensions and everything looked right. After examining the mount we took out I realized the holes were oversized and that the engine had been sitting slightly crocked the whole time. You could also see the slight angle the engine had been at when looking at the top on the head in comparison to the strut bar. Once we moved the engine slightly to line up with the new mount everything appeared much more square and true to the chassis.
Thanks.
One of the interesting side effects is because it's such a low profile mount it frees up a fair bit of space for anyone that needs to run charge pipes through there
I just dont see enough support. I'd imagine the trans mounts are holding much more load than they were before. The mount design looks very effective stopping sway from side to side but a terribly design holding weight. Not enough offset in the bolt towers to keep torque moment at bay and actually lift the engine up. When you mention a 10' pole and stuff I can only imagine you only tested twist? since you talk about end middle an top? I honestly wouldn't care much about the twist as I would properly lifting the motor and keep stresses off of the trans. You mount looks awesome at stopping twist I just dont think it's doing what it actually should do properly....lifting the motor. I'm just not seeing enough offset from the front two posts to the back post to actually hold the load without the bolts taking it in the teeth trying to keep from bending/snapping...obviously depending on how tight the holes in the top plate are around the bolts. I think if you pushed the back tower away from the front towers a good 2" or so this mount would be great, you'd probably have to move the front towers towards the motor to achieve this but that would make it that much better.
Nice looking parts as usual tho.
"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous
Quote:
The one big thing we noticed when installing the upper mount was that we actually had to reposition the engine slightly. We braced the engine so it wouldn't move when we took the original out. When we went to drop the new one in, the holes didn't quite line up. I checked the dimensions and everything looked right. After examining the mount we took out I realized the holes were oversized and that the engine had been sitting slightly crocked the whole time. You could also see the slight angle the engine had been at when looking at the top on the head in comparison to the strut bar. Once we moved the engine slightly to line up with the new mount everything appeared much more square and true to the chassis.
I know messing around with my two LD 9s., that engine ricking and misalignment happened everytime when I removed the bolts for the other aftermarket mount.
Also, when getting 'spares' from the junkyards, all of the engines (Ecotec, LD9, 2200) rocked foward a lot.
It seems like the engines are in the bay at an angle?
I could never get the engine to lift straight up even using a scissor jack.
I wanna go full solid, and there is gonna be the tension on the engine bolts comparing front to back.
Still, its a pretty piece and I'll get in on one.
:-)
-M
Remember....syringes go in the RED waste basket.
I WANT ONE FOR MY 2.4!
FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!
Joshua Dearman wrote:I just dont see enough support. I'd imagine the trans mounts are holding much more load than they were before. The mount design looks very effective stopping sway from side to side but a terribly design holding weight. Not enough offset in the bolt towers to keep torque moment at bay and actually lift the engine up. When you mention a 10' pole and stuff I can only imagine you only tested twist? since you talk about end middle an top? I honestly wouldn't care much about the twist as I would properly lifting the motor and keep stresses off of the trans. You mount looks awesome at stopping twist I just dont think it's doing what it actually should do properly....lifting the motor. I'm just not seeing enough offset from the front two posts to the back post to actually hold the load without the bolts taking it in the teeth trying to keep from bending/snapping...obviously depending on how tight the holes in the top plate are around the bolts. I think if you pushed the back tower away from the front towers a good 2" or so this mount would be great, you'd probably have to move the front towers towards the motor to achieve this but that would make it that much better.
Nice looking parts as usual tho.
Very valid comments, and I do appreciate the point of view.
When we tested it we tested twist in both directions as well as our patent pending "3 guys trying to break something" method. We spent a little over an hour trying to break one before giving up. The 10' pole was simply the easiest solution we could think of to get ample leverage on the mount to stress it. It also allowed us to simulate engine torque easily. We started out methodically testing twist on both axis and then moved to testing twist on both axis simultaneously. This was followed by the "Rowing a boat" test. Eventually it was reduced to "What if I do this really fast/hard?". It's always a fun day in the shop when you get to try and break things.
As for lifting the motor it's more then capable. Maybe I'll make a test rig to measure deflection VS the oem mount if I can find some free time this week. The weight as carried by the rubber bushings. The top plate that bolts to the engine can be considered part of the engine as all does is extent the motor outwards. All of the weight is transferred down from the plate. This is true in both out mount and the OEM mount. On the OEM mount I can deflect the top plate roughly half an inch by pressing on it with two fingers. With our mount you actually have to put a fair bit of effort into getting it to deflect at all. If we round up and assume a fully dressed engine with trans is 600lbs it means the 3 load bearing mounts (upper and 2 trans) are only supporting 200lbs each, which is very little for a rubber bushing, let alone 3 of them.
I understand what you are saying about moving the center post outwards, but I I disagree about it having a significant impact on the load bearing ability in this application. The motor doesn't pivot across the two inside posts, or I should say not more then the trans mounts will allow it to. The weight is pushed down into the bushings.
Granted we are discussing fairly complex issues here that involved movement along various axis, trying to do so via the internet is always hard. You can't wave your hands in the direction you are talking about over the internet
... lol hell this would be easier to explain with two creamers and a sugar packet
another thing that is hard to convey through pictures is the actual feel of an item. holding and twisting the stock mount it just feels sloppy and soft. Our mounts feel very solidly constructed and comparatively there is no question that they are much beefier. I'm not saying this is a valid measure of their strength or durability, just that pictures sometimes can be misleading.
Mastin wrote:I know messing around with my two LD 9s., that engine ricking and misalignment happened everytime when I removed the bolts for the other aftermarket mount.
Also, when getting 'spares' from the junkyards, all of the engines (Ecotec, LD9, 2200) rocked foward a lot.
It seems like the engines are in the bay at an angle?
I could never get the engine to lift straight up even using a scissor jack.
I wanna go full solid, and there is gonna be the tension on the engine bolts comparing front to back.
Still, its a pretty piece and I'll get in on one.
:-)
-M
I know what you're talking about as I've pulled mounts from wreckers, but this was different. We made very sure to brace the engine so it would not move when the bolts were removed. When the two nuts and two bolts were removed the mount still sat perfectly lined up and flush just like it had before we undid the bolts. It's hard to describe, but the engine was slightly forward and down. Not more then a 1/6 of an inch in either direction but enough that we noticed when trying to drop the new mount in. The engines do sit in the bay at an angle, but the upper engine bracket should be parallel to the frame rail.
Wade Jarvis wrote:I WANT ONE FOR MY 2.4!
Well I just happen to have a bunch
