like the subject says, is it worth it to replace the engine damper shock? I am purchasing parts for my engine rebuild (heads & block at machine shop currently) and am curious if this is really seen as something that should be replaced or not worth the $... Thanks.
People often mistake the shock absorber for an engine mount. It doesn't actually help to hold up the engine, or hold it in place. It's there to dampen vibration. It must have something to do with the pre-'88 engine cradle or lower engine mount design, because the '88 Fieros don't have it.
So, do you need that shock absorber thingy? I can't definitively answer that question. But I ran my V6 without it for several years with no ill effect. Then I swapped in an '88 engine cradle, which doesn't use it.
[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 06-14-2016).]
BTW, I have heard of these being called Torque Dampers...
quote
Originally posted by Blacktree:
... then deleted it for the '88 model year.
People often mistake the shock absorber for an engine mount. It doesn't actually help to hold up the engine, or hold it in place. It's there to dampen vibration. It must have something to do with the pre-'88 engine cradle or lower engine mount design, because the '88 Fieros don't have it.
So, do you need that shock absorber thingy? I can't definitively answer that question. But I ran my V6 without it for several years with no ill effect. Then I swapped in an '88 engine cradle, which doesn't use it.
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 06-15-2016).]
Not entirely sure what GM thought was a good idea in the '80s is indicative of the actual value of a thing in 2016.
I would agree, IF during the removal, a better solution was used to make up for the loss. Removing an engine damper and not making accommodations for the loss doesn't mean things are better because it is 2016. Just saying.
Is it necessary? No. Does it do something (when new)? Yes. Again, why would GM ENGINEERS put this in place if it wasn't necessary? Maybe it was an inside joke or maybe they had a bunch of shocks to get rid of, but I doubt it.
I would agree, IF during the removal, a better solution was used to make up for the loss. Removing an engine damper and not making accommodations for the loss doesn't mean things are better because it is 2016. Just saying.
Is it necessary? No. Does it do something (when new)? Yes. Again, why would GM ENGINEERS put this in place if it wasn't necessary? Maybe it was an inside joke or maybe they had a bunch of shocks to get rid of, but I doubt it.
Rarely are things "strictly necessary". The damper is there because someone at GM thought the car would be "more optimal" with the damper, according to their judgement.
If we re-evaluate things with our own criteria, who's to say that you would make the same judgement call as the original design team? It's arbitrary.
Here's my speculation:
Probably while dumping the clutch, someone thought that the rubber mounts/dogbone allowed "too much" engine movement. Again, what constitutes "too much" movement is subjective. How much clunk noise is acceptable? Subjective. How much should fuel/coolant lines be allowed to flex on such a maneuver? Kind of open for discussion.
On a clutch dump, the damper would become rigid and hold the engine in its place. The rest of the time, the damper does nothing, and it's rather the rubber-bushed dogbone holding the engine. So the damper solution would allow for the good NVH characteristics of rubber most of the time, but a more rigid mounting than rubber under hard shifts/launch.
GM put it there because they screwed up the motor mounts so bad. Why do they always mount transverse drive trains with sooo much movement? To sell more mounts?
I put my DOHC in with 4 rubber mounts, no dogbone, no shock, no excessive movement and no problems.
This, of course, my opinion. If GM did everything right, we wouldn't be here modifying everything.
------------------ 1986 SE Aero coupe.
3.4 DOHC swap is complete and running, now just have to finish the rest of the car...
Rarely are things "strictly necessary". The damper is there because someone at GM thought the car would be "more optimal" with the damper, according to their judgement.
If it wasn't seen as necessary (engineers, mind you), then it wouldn't be there. Bean counters would have nixed it.
Good luck finding a replacement, anyway! To eliminate it, I would consider upgrading at least some of the rest of the mounts with poly mounts. Especially the upper dogbone. This may help compensate for removal of that damper.
Good luck finding a replacement, anyway! To eliminate it, I would consider upgrading at least some of the rest of the mounts with poly mounts. Especially the upper dogbone. This may help compensate for removal of that damper.
Didn't they also change the front mount in 88? I can tell you that having hit the twisties hard every year in Run For The Hills, with a lot of up and down shifting, I could feel the engine shifting when my engine shock absorber went bad on one car, and when the mount broke on another. It isn't as noticeable in regular highway driving until other mounts and bushings start to wear, but when doing hard acceleration and deceleration, you can feel it.
Many mounts go bad when engine/trans are push to limits. Even new mounts can tear apart and Not just Fiero setup but Most of them for inline RWD setups too.
Common is to mount cable/chain across the Left (RWD) or Front (FWD/Fiero) mounts to stop tearing them. Cable/chain is installed just loose enough to let engine move for normal driving. Some Aftermarket and OE Mounts are made to resist this force. Some designs you easily see this, others hide the feature. "Shock" and dogbone are design to limit mount tearing forces too.
Later versions of "OE" bones are crap. See my Cave, Torque Strut at bottom.
------------------ Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. (Jurassic Park)
