Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkB
Persactly what I was getting at but it's a package and both ends of the diff need to be fixed properly which also means the chassis needs to be able to take the force. It all needs to work together.
|
I agree it all needs to work together but that can only happen when we understand how it works. To this end we must understand how it was originally designed to work in the donor vehicle. (See my earlier post.)
I have seen no evidence to suggest the chassis doesn't take the forces placed upon it which arn't great in the donor vehicle anyway. The two mounts for the diff carrier are just as they are in the vehicle I looked again at the ones in my MX5 at lunchtime. Whilst I suspect the NTS/Saturn front bracket would crack adjacent to the weld that was not the point of failure in this case. It was the rubber ex-engine mount not being the correct type to restrain the diff nose verticle movement that has caused the failure and judging by some posts on locost usa some MNR builders are having similar problems. Two or three bloggers I looked at last night are experimenting with different stiffnesses of mount to try and overcome diff carrier cracking so I'm by no means convinced MNR have it right either, and I know the westfield miata has had problems.
CTWV50 has the right idea but I seriously doubt engine mounting rubbers will be sufficiently stiff to control the diff voided bushes will still have too much movement. Something along the lines of a poly bush at around shore 90 acting as CTWV50 has his will control the diff leaving the two isolators in the diff carrier largely to do what they do in the donor car which is to soak up vibration.
Indeed it may make more sense to ingore the two mounts on the diff carrier altogether and go for robust mounting of the diff via the PPF mounting system.
Has anyone considered using the back part of the PPF and mounting that to the chassis I wonder.
BV
