I've no idea what's happening here really but won't the bigger standard rubber mount be compressed under load so ends up the same size as the solid mount once fitted ?

 

No, as the torqued up depth is dictated by the central pin also shown in the side by side pics.

 

Lol I’ll live with it as is as dose all the others who have fitted them

 

Dissagree to a point, the alloy or TAS (trans auto sport anyone remember them?) composite ones that I use do hold the beam fine,the bolts line up correctly and the cars I've prepped or seen prepped have been straight when checked.
Granted the OP pic doesn't look right with the plate on an angle where as the pics paul posted do fit exactly as expected.


Steve

 

Thats why I stopped commenting.😒

 

Just out of interest
What’s the torque setting for the bolt that fixed the mounts
Cheers

 

Depends if it is bent, or not?>..........I’ll get my coat, shall I?

 

🤷*♀️🤷*♀️🤷*♀️🤷*♀️🤷*♀️

 

Do them up with a 3/4 inch air gun as you have to bend the bolt and plate if you have solid mounts lol (mine did up easily though odd that and neither is bent)

 

Has anyone measured to see if the both halves going together into the beam leaves a gap in between them to make up for the height difference?

 

No need there’s a picture of them side by side on a table and some very intelligent people have told us there wrong.
When I put the engine back in mine I’ll take mine to work remove the bolt and plate take that measurement and get more detailed pictures

 

Yeah got to admit bolted mine up tight and it’s not bent owt

 

I just did mine as tight as I could with a long spanner and no, it wasn’t bent.

 

Thanks

 

Keep calm guys, this is an interesting debate with lots of great info. We can have differing opinions but it helps everyone.

 

I agree Toby no point slagging each other or trying to make someone look stupid, quite simple, insert an alloy bush into the rear beam and measure the overall height and compare to the height of a poly bush/standard bush then case closed. No need for 3 pages of nonsense.

 

With homologation it will stipulate where mounting has to be I.E turrets axle wheelbase and track ect but there wont be things like fixing plates listed and seeing as there were several teams building cars they would differ from others and its still the same today . And Paul s by the looks of your pics thats a group a rally beam not a circuit car beam

 

out of interest whats a djr1 and djr2?

 

Dick johnson

 

As I stated all along, its not about the current owners, its about the cars with me.

Having done some more research and also now had it confirmed by an independent RS500 expert, I wanted to rectify a statement I made on this thread about Pauls Ringhausen LUI RS500 but unfortunately someone on passionford has decided to censor the debate and removed all my associated posts!

Rather than bring it up again, to the very few people what would have read my statement at the time, I seek to now confirm that I had in fact mixed Pauls car up with its identical sister Ringhausen RS500.

For that I apologise, it was a genuine error based on what happened to the sister car at the time and its subsequent replacement.

All the other information I provided about the spec of Group A RS500s in general and their components I still stand by, however if I later find I have been incorrect on any of that I will also rectify such information.

I am a neutral party in relation to these cars, have no axe to grind with anyone, I just like facts and not conjecture, and if proved wrong will happily acknowledge such.

I do not agree with one sided censorship in a debate, so have no plans to keep posting anymore on this matter on passionford so I suggest interested parties also do their own independent research.