It's 280 ftlbs * 3.77 first gear * 3.55 final = 3747 ftlbs, right?
Your math is pretty good. In their original longitudinal application, they use 2 of these mounts, one on each side . The transmission is supported in the center, so that mount does little to resist torque. I figure 4 of the mounts plus a dog bone on top and I should be ok.
Originally posted by Daryl M: Your math is pretty good. In their original longitudinal application, they use 2 of these mounts, one on each side . The transmission is supported in the center, so that mount does little to resist torque. I figure 4 of the mounts plus a dog bone on top and I should be ok.
The longitudinal setup the engine mounts don't experience the final drive torque multiplication due to the 90 degree angle change at the rear end. This means your engine mounts will have to resist 3.55 times the torque loads as the longitudinal setup, so doubling up on the mounts helps, doubles the torque load holding... Granted there is a safety factor built into the mounts, so it they will likely keep the drivetrain in place, but it could move more than you expect.
This is what I always use 4 corner mounts with lower control arm bushings (fully encapsulated and pretty stiff) and space them as far apart as possible.
The longitudinal setup the engine mounts don't experience the final drive torque multiplication due to the 90 degree angle change at the rear end. This means your engine mounts will have to resist 3.55 times the torque loads as the longitudinal setup, so doubling up on the mounts helps, doubles the torque load holding... Granted there is a safety factor built into the mounts, so it they will likely keep the drivetrain in place, but it could move more than you expect.
This is what I always use 4 corner mounts with lower control arm bushings (fully encapsulated and pretty stiff) and space them as far apart as possible.
Very good point. I too placed the mounts as far apart as practical. It will be interesting to see how this experiment works out.
