Saw it on their website. Its less than ttr and rksport. It's not quite availing yet.
Clicky
The first post was in photos and media. Considering it's a performance mod, it can't hurt to put a thread here also.
I want to see it installed, confuses me really looking at the current picture.
FU Tuning
The Rksport one is $99 now too btw. But, the LZM is money. I'm in line.
i would also like to see install photos and a review before i put in for one but it is on my list of things to look/get. so until that time i wait
any of you guys still have your OEM-Stock motor mount (in good condition)? I just listed a want ad for one in the classified section. Thanks.
mark mouton wrote:any of you guys still have your OEM-Stock motor mount (in good condition)? I just listed a want ad for one in the classified section. Thanks.
PM'd
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Sunday, February 22, 2009 10:22 PM
Install pics and reviews should be ready shortly. We are in the process of finishing up the first batch (25+ mounts) and getting the preorders shipped out which will be later this week. We've tried to design it for both comfort and performance but at the end of the day it was originally designed as a race part and as such it can never be as comfortable as a stock mount. The one big thing we addressed is ensuring the mounts have the ability to not only be run solid or with rubber bushings, but to make sure that when the bushings do begin to wear out they are easily replaceable at a very affordable cost.
about how much will the replacement bushings be for the mount
Jason Linderman wrote:about how much will the replacement bushings be for the mount
Still working out the final numbers but I'm expecting $15-$20 shipped for all 6. We don't really plan to sell these for profit, just enough to cover cost/labor/shipping. We appreciate our customers continuing support and making it easy/cheap to continue to run our products is a small way for us to show our appreciation.
How good do you think it could be? I honestly think that TTR or RK have a better mount. The mount in the link is putting ALL the stress on those three bolts. I see bolts snapping in it's future without talking about all the wear that will occur on the bolts holes. It nowhere as solid as the two other available mounts.
On the stock mount, the Rk mount or the TTR mount for the 2.4, the stress is not only on the bolts.
The stock mount send the stress in the open space and the rubber of the mount.
The Rk mount send the stress to the metal mount itself. It does send stress to the bolts but they are in contact with solid steel.
On the LZM mount, those three bolts take all the stress. As soon as the engine will move, those bolts will move and they will wear or snap.
IMO, it's not a good desing.
My .02
Gilles
2.3 Ho
Wow talk about a lot of stress on that thin aluminum. I hope they test it
a lot. It looks as if it is 1/2" 6061 aluminum? That is the equivalent to it being steel and ONLY .166" thick....
6061 aluminum is 1/3 as strong as cold rolled steel, the benifit is that aluminum is 1/3 the weight of steel.
Which means bottom line, you need just as much weight of both material to have EQUAL strength...
Honestly, I just hope they tested it on a 400+ HP engine at the track... Multiple passes... Otherwise you may start to see engines dropping due to broken mounts...
-Aaron
www.TurboTechRacing.com
Performance Parts For Cavalier, Sunfire, Cobalts and More!!!
The weight is not on the bolts, it's actually the opposite.The weight of the engine is fully resting on the bushings. Technically you could hold the engine up with out the bolts, but for obvious reasons this is a bad idea. As the bushings compress the forces are transferred down into the aluminum bushings and then into the base plate and onto the frame. The bolts would actually be free floating under compression if it was not for the upper bushings absorbing the slack. This mount was specifically design to have the largest contact area to transfer the engine torque which helps manage vibrations as well as increase the durability of the bushings.
We have also tested the mount to 500lbs of static force, roughly 1500lbs of shock force and 30 degrees of deflection with nothing more then slight rubbing of the aluminum components due to the extreme deflection.
But for arguments sake lets say all of the force was going to be transferred into the bolts. A 7/16th's grade 8 bolt has a shear force of 13559lbs (+/- 1
. Because there are three bolts the mount has an approximate shear value of 40677lbs.
Turbo Tech Racing wrote:6061 aluminum is 1/3 as strong as cold rolled steel, the benifit is that aluminum is 1/3 the weight of steel.
Which means bottom line, you need just as much weight of both material to have EQUAL strength...
Unfortunately this is not right. Ignoring the various grades of 6061 alone there are various ways that strength is measured. Compression strength is not an issue, so lets focus on tensile and yield.
There are many grades of steel but 1018 hot rolled is one of the most common and cheapest which is why many parts are made from it.
1018 Hot rolled steel:
Tensile Strength - 68,000 psi
Yield Strength - 50,000 psi
Elongation - 36%
Weight - 0.28lb per cubic inch
There are also many grades of aluminum but 6061-T6 is what we are dealing with here.
Tensile Strength - 42,000 psi
Yield Strength - 35,000 psi
Elongation - 10%
Weight - 0.10lb per cubic inch
This means one cubic inch of 6061-T6 aluminum has roughly 61% the tensile strength of 1018 steel and 70% of the Yield Strength. This means 0.500" 6061-T6 is the equivalent of approximately 0.325" steel plate if you average the yield and tensile. Aluminum Weights 36% as much as the steel. So you are getting 65% of the strength for 35% of the weight. This is why airplanes, fast boats, high end cars and anything where weight is a concern are all made from aluminum and other light weight materials.
The main difference between the two is in the elongation or elasticity. Steel is much more forgiving to bending and flexing then aluminum is, which is why tall buildings are made from steel. Skyscrapers are constantly bending and flexing due to various forces, the primary being wind. This constant bending and flexing exceeds the 10% elongation provided by aluminum which is why steel must be used. Although I have read about a few new engineering projects of building over 100 stories where the top floors are using aluminum structures to save weight.
Now if we for a second assume I don't know what I'm talking about and all of my math is wrong, our mount is still as strong or stronger then the OEM mount. The oem mount has a 0.150" stamped steel structure, with a 0.600" cast aluminum connection to the engine. Using your numbers that means a 0.450" Aluminum plate is of equivalent strength to the base. As for the cast part lets just call it a wash as I don't want to get into explaining the differences in forged aluminum versus cast and the impact that grain structure has on strength.
I'm not trying to be an ass, I welcome all comments, questions and criticisms as I'm more then willing to do my best to explain the math and engineering that has gone into many of the decisions that have been made. We don't know everything and if someone can in a scientific and valid way show us any weakness or possibility for improvement we are more then happy to take it into consideration and implement it where possible.
Wow and wow again, we just stated we hope you tested it...
-Aaron
www.TurboTechRacing.com
Performance Parts For Cavalier, Sunfire, Cobalts and More!!!
Vincent Morris wrote:when i went to replace it the last time, this is what i noticed. there was enough weight for the mount to rest on itself and cause a decent intent into the mount....
LOL This may cost me a sale but a quick look at the pictures and I think I know what the problem is. It appears that either the bushings is not capable of holding the weight or that the center line of the bushing is in the wrong place. This is causing the engine support (the piece that connects to the engine) to sit on an angle, resulting in the lower portion of the bushing to be worn down and eventually the metal on metal contact.
If you were to place 1-2 washers on the bolts that connect to the engine this will space the engine support upwards and should help eliminate the problem. This is not really in ideal solution as it will result in the engine shifting downwards a bit, changing the angles of the CV's and potentially leading to increased wheel hop. A slightly better option would be to put a solid aluminum plug in on of the holes of the bushing and have it at the bottom. This would help stop the bushing from compressing.
Granted this is just speculation from looking at a few pictures. Without seeing it in my hands and having proper measurements it's hard to say for sure. But if you're in a pinch and need to get the mount working it gives you a few things to try.
Oh and pursuant to my previous post, I'm fairly sure it's not the bushings as for the weight they have to support and the durometer that they are they should be more then capable. The center line being out can be from a range of things. One of the most common things I've seen is minor accidents leading to slight twisting in the frame. This is really commonly seen in the lower rad support. Even a small bump that leaves little to no damage makes it so the lower support doesn't bolt on quite right ever again.
Turbo Tech Racing wrote:Wow and wow again, we just stated we hope you tested it...
LOL sorry sometimes I geek out a bit when it comes to discussing engineering and the mechanical properties of stuff. . The short answer is yes, we tested it extensively in a purpose built test rig and were unable to break it.
Excellent replies LZM.
Very mature in the discussion and has me looking at the LZM mount for a future purchase.
I like the idea of a lighter weight too.
Once question though and you may thing it a silly question.
LZM, the bushings that you offer with your mounts, can they be replaced with bushings similar to end link bushings?
What would be the difference between what you have to offer, other than the thickness involved in your design, and what is available in universal aftermarket bushings?
If this is off topic to the conversation, sorry.
Misnblu.com
Newbie member since 1999
Thank you Dave and JBO! 
Valid question.
There is nothing that would stop you from using a different bushing as long as you set the height correctly. We went with a relatively soft bushing to try and take care of the low rpm vibrations. It's still firmer then stock, but not as firm as say an end link bushing. Engine torque is prevented by the compression of the bushings. Because of the size there is not allot of compression available which helps eliminate wheel hop. Unfortunately it's hard to design a mount that can meet everyone's needs in both performance and comfort, which is why we have done the write up to show people how to tweak our mount. We designed it to be modular, so there is no reason to not experiment with different bushings it you are after a very particular feel/response. Not everyone will want to do this, and they don't have to. But there has always been that breed of motorhead that will tinker with something endlessly to get it just they way they want it, we've tried to give them that option.
Thank you sir for your feedback.
I'll be patient and waiting for some reviews before I make that decision.
Nice stuff man and good to see some ingenuity out there for our cars.
Misnblu.com
Newbie member since 1999
Thank you Dave and JBO!
So, you're using a soft simple rubber bushing as the option and not urathane?
How about switching to ARP hardware?
-M
Remember....syringes go in the RED waste basket.
Mastin wrote:So, you're using a soft simple rubber bushing as the option and not urathane?
How about switching to ARP hardware?
-M
It's not a simple rubber, but it's also not a urethane compound. Switching to ARP hardware would be complete overkill as the hardware we are using is already excessive. The big advantage to most ARP hardware is in tensional strength, there is very little requirement for tensional strength in the mount, it's all shear strength.
I posted this in another thread but I will repeat it here as it is applicable.
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.
