ajamesc

Only people who can comment on weather it’s an issue or not is the people who make and sell them. If there was an issue but as there on lots of cars there isn’t lol but if there was a problem would have come to light and they would have been asked for a refund or solution. They obviously fault about them and designed them that way for a reason. Plus once bolted up to the floor the bush sandwiched round the beam 100% sits square to the floor on mine so is bottled up without issue

markk

iTrader: (2)

I don't see the problem here. Trying to measure the height of a two piece versus a one piece is ridiculous.
once fitted the ally bushes locate top and bottom with the difference being left as a gap in the middle.

Used in rallying for years, was a group N mod originally.

Marc sierra

iTrader: (1)

Measuring the height is not ridiculous. There will indeed be a gap in the middle where the top and bottom part clamp on the subframe. But this should only be something like 2 mm. So this is not making up for the 2 cm difference in the total height. As a result the guide plate at the bottom will be bolted up too far and bend, which is clearly visible in Ajamesc's picture.


If other people are happy putting this on their car it doesn't bother me. But in my opinion it is not designed correctly so I am not putting it on my car. Mark has offered me a refund which is very decent of him, so I am happy too. I will leave it at this as we clearly have different opinions on what is a good design and what is not.

markk

iTrader: (2)

Why should it be 2mm? The gap does nothing other than prevent the 2 parts touching.

I've ran these on rally cars without issue. You are reading too much into the combined height. Fit them then measure the total height. Every beam has different wear/clearances.

Or just send them back and dont whine.

PAUL S

iTrader: (8)

Its astounding that some of the people on here pay a fortune for modified beams then happy to wind in a large bolt by such a significant amount, causing the bolt and the mount to bend, and throw that beam all to kilter.

I only just clicked as to who supplies these to MSD and just to re iterate I would happily bolt their lovely group A RS500 suspension to my wheelbarrow! but the design of these needs changing to incorporate the step the OP shows. Its a simple fix.

ajamesc

Wear on earth are you getting this bolt and mount bent from? I’m in Basingstoke come look at mine nothing is bent

PAUL S

iTrader: (8)

I recall how you also failed to grasp that a wheel spacer of a certain size was physically impossible to be made hub centric!

Right, I would suggest you first look at exactly what the OP has posted.

-The pin in the centre of the Ford rubber mount is a fixed length, the top of it butts to the captured nut in the chassis, the base of it butts to the lower plate. That exact length means the plate then bolts exactly parallel to the chassis and so does the beam. The large bolt then simply keeps that in place under the correct torque and the rubber fills the gap totally.

-The pin of the solid beam mount the OP has is quite a lot shorter, so given that the two bolts at the front of the plate that attach to the chassis cannot move, the only thing that can take up the slack formed by the shorter solid mount is the big bolt. In doing so it raises/bends the plate in an arc relative to the two bolts on the chassis plate, rather than directly upwards, placing side loading into that bolt, not just torque.

-If yours/others solid beam mounts also have a shorter pin than the Ford rubber ones, then yours is doing the same, however if the pin on yours is the same length as the Ford rubber ones then the gap above it cannot be reduced and the top of the mount wont sit on both the chassis and the plate at the same time, hence the big gap remains.

-However if your solid mounts have a pin the same length as the Ford rubber ones and your mounts are the same thickness as the Ford rubber ones then it will mount correctly. The pictures suggest thought that is not the case.

-The OP and others are not stating that all solid mounts are shorter than they should be, just the ones in question here.

Now I cannot make it simpler than that!

I had the same issue years ago with some poly beam mounts which were thinner than the Ford rubber one and used a shorter pin, as soon as I realised what was happening then in the bin they went and they were replaced by new correct Ford ones. The poly ones were so much thinner that the big bolt was actually running out of thread and the captured nut was starting to strip its thread as a result whilst a gap still remained. I imagine that is why so many people end up knackering those captured nuts in the chassis doing the same thing.

ajamesc

No I wanted a certain size wheel spacer with a lip built into it that would fit inside my wheel in place of the removal but ring. Maybe I didn’t come across that well.

markk

iTrader: (2)

There is no steel pin in the alloy mounts. Its a section machined to the top part purely for location.

I still cannot see any bent lower plate nor have i ever seen a bent lower plate with these fitted.

PAUL S

iTrader: (8)

Take a look at the pic in post 17 it clearly shows the difference side by side.

markk

iTrader: (2)

No, post 17 shows a rubber insulator (a 1 piece) versus a 2 piece aluminum mounting.

The only sharing element being they fit in the same holes. The engineering principles are totally different. One is designed to insulate the occupants from as much NVH as possible by allowing compliance by using rubber.
The others are totally opposite. No compliance, no insulation from NVH and are engineered to fit with different parameters.

PAUL S

iTrader: (8)

Well unless the law of physics is different up north they both need to fill the same parallel sized gap between the plate and the chassis! or they are not doing the same job to keep the beam straight regardless of what they are made from.

ajamesc

when you google search these bushes there is loads who have fitted them over the years and the guys above are using them in rally cars. Maybe they should do a product recall as they all have them fitted with bent bolts now
I’m happy with mine and don’t see any issues

markk

iTrader: (2)

I give up.

PAUL S

iTrader: (8)

Funnily enough I had come to the same conclusion.

You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.

Anyone with half a brain can see the only way to close that significant gap produced by these particular solid beam mounts is for them not to sit parallel, thus bending the beam plate by taking up the slack with the bolt, causing the upper face of the solid mount not to sit parallel to the chassis and putting undue stress on the big bolt. FACT! whether you understand it or not, others reading this thread now do.

The OP and others have posted a fix, and pics to show the reasons why and I have detailed what is happening, if you pair are too blinkered to believe physics that's your problem. A pair of bolt on experts! keep buying the bling and the latest new fads gents and if I hear about a "stage car" on here one more time I will scream.

If Stu from MSD, Tony from Turbosystems, Mark Shead etc come onto the thread and detail why the OP and I are wrong then fair enough I would listen, their silence on the matter though is deafening.

colins2

I honestly don’t see the problem, if the top tube is machined in to the solid mount once you put both parts on your beam surely the overall length would be the same as the rubber bush pin? fair enough there would be a space within the beam eye but that’s clamped together with the bolt.
Maybe MSD Mark and Tony are sitting laughing at this post

ajamesc

That’s how I see it when there sandwiched around there location on the beam there be a gap in the middle and there end up the same height as the original.
The picture of them sat side by side on a table is meaningless

Marc sierra

iTrader: (1)

On the picture with them sat next to each other you can see that the tapered part on the original rubber bush is about the same height as the tapered part on the solid mount. So because of that it is clear that the cap between upper and lower part of the solid mount won't be far apart, which is why I said it will probably only be about 2 mm or something. So it will definetely not making up the 2 cm that the solid mount is lower than the original bush.

Mr RS500

iTrader: (6)

Paul

have you ever looked at an eggenberger beam ??

If its good enough for eggenberger , then its good enough for me and every other sierra

ajamesc

The rubber is about the same heigh! It’s clear in the picture he says what utter rubbish lol and these guys talk like there really technical with long replies as to why there right. Ok then

Mr RS500

iTrader: (6)

ajamesc

That’s exactly the same as mine like in the picture I put up but my picture is a little dark. Apparently I’m told my mounting plate and bolt are bent

Mr RS500

iTrader: (6)

The pictures above are Marks Bushes fitted to a gen group A touring car and they fit perfectly

ajamesc

Mine are msd but they look the same design

PAUL S

iTrader: (8)

Paul that beam plate on the race car is sitting parallel to the chassis, so yes in that example it is completely correct.

However that is a very modified race beam designed for that exact application with solid mounts only and also its not a standard road shell either.

There in lies the issue, the height of the solid beam mounts as originally designed for such an application, if you fitted the Ford rubber mounts into that race beam then it would sit higher than it currently does, having the opposite problem to those fitting solid mounts to a road beam.

Facts are facts, sat side by side with a rubber beam mount there is a significant depth distance with the sold ones, I do not understand why people cannot see that. That difference does not simply vanish somewhere.

PAUL S

iTrader: (8)

Paul can you measure the platform height from the chassis to the point where the 2 bolts mount the beam plate on that race car? and then measure the same distance on a standard road car platform.

I am hazarding a guess that the platform on the race car has been shortened to compensate for the shallower solid mount, allowing the beam plate to still sit parallel. It does look the case, but hard to confirm on a pic.

Loomer

Why would they modify the beam to compensate for a bush that they could have just made differently to save the agro of modifying the beam?
surely it would be easier just to make the part ,that they had to make anyway, fit properly if it doesn't?

markk

iTrader: (2)

Lol at this, stupidity at its best.

Caddyshack

The debate goes on

Mr RS500

iTrader: (6)

Paul

neither the beam or the shell on this car have been modded at all , they are exactly the same as a std road car .

If im honest Paul , i think you looking into it a bit to much , the position of the plates is not as important as you think , as long as the plates are there and bolted in then the beam cant move , and few MM up or down wont matter at all

PAUL S

iTrader: (8)

Its not a few mm though Paul, its the thickness of the adapter plate the OP has made to take up the slack.

As you know they tried every trick in the book on those cars, making the bush thinner and shortening the platform would reduce the centre of gravity by the thickness of the adapter the OP has made. One of the biggest complaints bout the 500 was it was top heavy, they would have tried anything to get them lower.

I am trying to find a rational reason why the solid mounts are much thinner than the rubber ones. Its been done for a reason, otherwise they would be the same thickness.

PAUL S

iTrader: (8)

To clarify that I am not some textbook theorist or backstreet bodger, here is something I was building just today. 3 times the number of cylinders as a YB, all alloy, and putting out as standard even more bhp than a group A RS500. Tolerances of a few thou being checked, where a mm may as well be a mile!

Caddyshack

What is that Engine?

Adam-M

Just seen your sig James has someone pulled you up for “advertising” ? Do they know you can do it all on Facebook for free and is the reason forums are dead?

Caddyshack

I hate Facebook for finding out info, the forums are where it’s at for people helping people....I hope Facebook dies out and we return to forums.

Loomer

Turbo Zetec

iTrader: (1)

ferarri v12 by the looks.

PAUL S

iTrader: (8)

Spot on 575 Maranello updated to 612 spec.

Caddyshack

Where do you work (if that is a work photo). One of my friends has a 575m with the Fiorano pack on it and a 430, nice cars and the 575 has trebbled in value since he has owned it (rhd manual)

PAUL S

iTrader: (8)

Its not going back into a 575, its heading for this little project instead. Been a while since I have tinkered on a cossie.