Some guy drilled the engine mounts to empty all the fluid and then filled with 80a liquid urethane, and the same for the trans mount!

What would one gain with such a modification?

Anyone tried something similar?

Attached Thumbnails

     

__________________
---------------------------------------------------
Mercedes fanatic

1985 200D (w124) and totaled 190D

I'm intrigued...
The #3 picture shows cleaned and painted mounts?

I can almost envision how "He" drained the motor mounts and refilled with
Urethane...

BUT, the transmission mount is two pieces of metal separated/held together
by rubber blocks...How did he (What are the mechanics of) Urethane-ize It ?
It looks as if he just filled in the open spaces in the Tranny mount with "LU"???

Tell us MORE!

'Will he Urethane-ize other MB mounts if sent to him???????
OR,What's the process

[What's "80a" Urethane?

__________________
'84 300SD sold
124.128

I think the filling part is quite simple, the urethane is liquid and mixed with a hardner than poured to the mounts, it dries inside!

80a is the hardness level!

I came across this on a w201 forum!

Let me find the link...

__________________
---------------------------------------------------
Mercedes fanatic

1985 200D (w124) and totaled 190D

think rollerblade wheels. they used to range from 78-85A higher number being harder.

__________________
1985 300D cali 190K

http://mercedes.thatchermathias.com/mw300d.jpg

http://community.190revolution.net/members-rides/19868-project-c-wtf-190e-m104-transplant-2.html

Post 31!

__________________
---------------------------------------------------
Mercedes fanatic

1985 200D (w124) and totaled 190D

It would make them much stiffer, for racing okay = quicker response.

For street, just hard and noisy.

__________________

Gone to the dark side

- Jeff

This will be harder, noisier, and harsh.

I would not want it on my car...

Er, I would think that this would be the exact opposite of what one would want for these diesels.

One our fleet vehicles is a semi-sports car (well, it was marketed as such) and the OEM subframe mounts were no longer available and so I went with some aftermarket urethane bushings. The handling "felt" tighter but if one were to objectively judge there probably wasn't a material improvement. However there was a substantial increase in the vibration felt in the cabin. So a worse ride in exchange for no improvement in handling.

The car is driven by a salesman who knows nothing about cars. It didn't bother him - he was happy that the "clunking" went away and I think that he liked the greater vibration "feel". So YMMV.

nothing to do with RWD cars like ours, but poly mounts is a fwd car prevent wheel-hop during an aggressive launch, moreso than you'd think.



my VW is getting poly mounts everywhere.

__________________
-1983 VW Rabbit LS Diesel (5speed, VNT/Giles build)

I always try to experience what the engineers were working towards.
(Before I go ahead, anyway, and Totally F**k things up.)
1.Break Away capability ? (So the engine goes UNDER the PC). Aluminum Arms
fulfill that function.So there MAY not be a Safety issue.
2.Vibration Reduction (that would be the Big Job for the mounts)
3.What effect on OTHER components would/will the change(s) affect?

The Urethane mods sacrifice comfort for longevity and stability....Maybe!

Hell,I've got a set of 186K MMs I'll sacrifice to the experiment
(Although,when and in what order they fall in priority is up for guesses.)

An almost Fluid,LOW Viscosity form of Urethane would be most advantageous...
If such a Urethane exists?

__________________
'84 300SD sold
124.128

Now that actually makes sense. I could see that being the case. If this is true then I could see a handling improvement on rougher surfaces by preventing the drivetrain from bouncing around. Thanks for the information.

Gene Horr

The Urethane guys offer down to a "20"

BUT the PSI rating on this "40" looks most suitable.

http://www.forschpolymer.com/index.html

Attached Thumbnails

     

__________________
'84 300SD sold
124.128