We have no issues answering questions about our mounts, as long as it is practical and not trying to flame (which you are not)

Everything has a severity, detection, occurance (DFMEA talk). That is why any good company after it is designed will do a DFMEA, ranking if it needs to be improved in areas. It will help prevent what Toyota is going through.

 

Well interesting. I haven't bothered to read all of the posts, but Powell makes one post, and TTR make more than a dozen defending their position.

Looks to me like Powell has the stronger position.

 

We just care to explain in detail, differences that are being noted and the "why things are what they are"

Also the thread was started to be informative to show the differences, not to state one is better than the other (as they each have pro's and con's as all products do). As the OP posted in the very end of his post.

 

I see no problems with this thread. If the morons show up send me a pm and I will be happy to give them a vacation.

 

Excellent informative write up

 

1. "The two mounts are different, the threaded holes are dull in the TTR mount, not shiny like the competition."

That is becuase that mount was media blasted prior to coating, to adhiere the powder coating properly... They are shiney if you would get a pure machined one, non coated, as they are not media blasted.

2. "The 0TTP bushings are machine cut on a lathe and well finished to a precise size, every spacer is identical in width.."

Forgot to add that the bushing in the OTT mount is 1/2" diamter (over sized from what it should be) for a metric bolt. Ours is ~.474" diameter, a presize fit for the bolt. The sleeve in ours is a light press floating in the poly, so it can shift (float left to right, as to why it works with our upper mount). It is a M12 bolt in which goes through the sleeve, which is ~.472 in diameter. Great presision fit, no slop or room for movement.

3. Also ours is a 1 piece bushing, not 3, no fumbling around with little spacers.

4. Also ours comes with a 6 page COLOR install guide, step-by-step. Other brand, nothing (this has been posted by members confused on how to install the other brand.

 

Nothing a little tack glue can't fix......now that's grasping for straws.

 

One of the many 2" X 6" X 12 foot bars:



The ASM markings on the bar, 6061 T6 as stated:



If the OP cannot tell the differnce between billet and cast, watch out. Look at the very nice grain structure also

 

wow bump for a great thread with no drama and great info.

 

Yes, we are happy members can ask legitimate questions, without turning it into bashing. Right now it is clearly a great comparision of 2 brand products, pros and cons to each.

 

agreed. and this helps me because I need to get some mounts here in about a month

 

If you have any direct question about our product, let us know, we will be happy to provide you with the information, pending we have an answer (which we should).

I am sure OTT/Powell will be happy to do the same on their product.

 

yep. will do

 

man its people asking questions and getting ansers

 

Bingo, we felt some details were left out of the first post. There are pro's and con's to each mount, added throughout this thread.

We have actually had 3 customers purchase these since this thread started. Some from PM's on this forum.

Each have their own choice in which brand they want.

 

I have a question here as I am unsure of the geometry that the stock mounts put the axle alignment in. When using either of the rotated mounts (as the rotation is similar), do the mounts lower the driveshaft output points at all or to they stay pretty close to the same point vertically in the engine bay and only change their horizontal (front to back) alighment? I only say this as if you lower the car, you would be changing the geometry of the output shafts in the vertical direction.

I am a noob with suspension and drivetrain data so I have no clue whether changing the geometry of the driveshafts in the vertical would generate wheel hop or other issues.

 

I beg your pardon! I have explained precisely the reason for rotation of the mounts on this site, those posts were deleted,not by me. Its not a trade secret, but I am not going to put out the drawings . But never mind its in the GM BUILD BOOK....I developed the rotated mount in 2004...end of story...
As an FYI, I will send the mounts out for testing, it will take a few weeks but we will get the answers and let you and everyone else know what we find.

Informed buyers can make their buying decisions.

 

i guess ill need stage 2's lol 360-380 hp

 

Never once did we not say you were the first to offer this for the "cobalt/redline". Axle alignment is a standard practice in the industry for shafts. Maybe not "sport compacts" but in other applications.

Send them out for "testing," we have not had a failure, providing one is stronger than the other, does not matter, because neither one has ever broke.

As you have previously stated track testing > any engineering testing.

Since we dont want everyone looking for this info, here is what WE use for numbers, which I am sure is very close to Johns, as he already stated they are very close to one another:

Front:
X Change .669"
Y Change .020"

Rear:
X Change .508"
Y Change .169"

(X is up and down, Y is front to back, orientated as they are bolted on the tranny/frame stock)

We will not state if the front mount X is front or back, and the Y is up or down on these numbers, as again both brands have already been sated they are moved in the same direction. We dont want to let all our research/work out. So if anyone else wants to make them, half the work is done


As you can see the numbers are very small.

 

As I understand it, the Delta cars were designed around an automatic transmission. The Supercharged car was an interim model from GM PD as the time it was taking to develop the DI LNF turbo motor was too long. The M35 axle out put flanges are located differently compared to the automatic transmission. In 2004, while we were contracted by GMPD to build some Cadillac CTS V race cars for testing in SCCA T2/GRANDAM SS configuration, we also did some Redline testing for GM pd. In late fall 2004 GM PD contracted us to build some Cobalt race cars for Grand Am and find some teams ready to invest in racing them.

Right after thanksgiving 2004 we got some bodies in white and some donor cars, and in less than 90 days had built a full running car that tested at Daytona in early January. By the time the first race came around end of January we had built 2 more. We were then contracted to build the Time Attack car. We did that, tested it, and won the Time Attack outright. The car was awesome and John Heinricy (then director of GM PD and now sadly retired) drove it with fantastic skill, beating Tarzan Yamada the Japanese Time Attack ace (evo 8) at Buttonwillow in November 2005.

In November 2004, ww were working day and night, struggling with the Cobalt car build and working on Ohlins Coil Over 4 way adjustable shocks. While doing all the many design checks on the car that folks do when building cars for racing, I found the axle output of the trans to be 17 degrees out of horizontal alignment with the center line of the wheel hub at the knuckle, when measured at ride height.

The rotated mount fixes that. The racing mounts vibrate so bad its silly so I developed a way of making it with a voided nvh bushing. I offered these mounts to TTR to sell, they declined. OTTP accepted...end of story.

 

Cool, I guess changing the vertical alignment between the hub and the transmission output is a different matter altogether (more suspension than mounts). I guess with that the only problems with lowering a car would be binding or excessive wear if you went too low which I doubt is an issue with the cobalt chassis (and wouldn't be for me since I went with Pedders).

 

qft

 

Proper amount/ratio of poly will yield in a better reduction of vibration, as members have already stated vibs in most cases go without knowledge, with these STOP mounts. The light vibs that are there are desired by our customers; it gives them a sense of "feel". We did not want to just sell a rubber rotated mount; yes we did decline your offer. We wanted and still do believe a poly mount is desired by many, and this hold true as we still ship out on average 10 upper mounts a week. Maybe not all, want a firm setup, but there is a demand for them. We wont ever use rubber in this application, our product was not developed/designed with the desire for rubber. We are happy you do use rubber and we use poly, it gives more options to the consumers.

You have a rubber mount, we have a poly mount, 2 seperate demands by consumers, if you truely feel rubber is better, great, I am sure the market reflects this. The market reflects very well on poly mounts for us.

And explained why just above this post...

 

/thread?

 

At this point it should NOT be deleted, way to much good info here.