Will, in all fairness, it sure as hell seems like you're ignoring valid points matt has brought up. Ride height on your car will affect the level of misalignment of axles. Your amount of front end lift will affect the amount of misalignment on axles as well. These seem to be huge variables that you are overlooking. So whether or not they rotate anything does nothing to resolve the issue of "one size fits all"

 

Our mounts aren't designed to align the axles on the vertical plane. So different ride height or lift under load doesnt matter. If your outside cv is moving front or back under load you will need control arm bushings.

 

In all fairness the center line location of the tranmission out put shaft does not change with ride height. Take the spring out and sweep the strut through travel and you will see the knuckle center line doesnt change much at all through ride travel.

So you missed the point of rotated mounts.

and Matt and Zoomer are just fishing for dimensions.

^^^this. Josh I am sure ZZP and anyone using a road wheel dyno will see the amazing amount of fore/aft travel of the drive wheels on the rollers with stock cabs, and even more so with bad cabs. Time to bury this bs thread....

 

well then matt or zoom should address your response to me and explain why they thought otherwise or why they think that it mattered. and let the debate continue, hopefully leaning more towards civility like it did in the beginning. Personally, i dont even care who is right, as i dont even own a cobalt at this point, but when others ask me what they should get, I want to know what i am recommending is working the way it is supposed to on ALL cars and i want to have a firm understanding of how it does what it is doing.

I had always recommended the OTTP mounts, but matt and zoom are bringing issues up that i would prefer technical answers to. Instead, for a long time in this thread, there were responses like Wills that just stated that it works without explaining why (im referring to #120 Will, not your last one). For example, i think this is actually the first time any of you three (OTTP and john) actually rebutted matt's claim of ride height and lift affecting the effectiveness of your mounts (unless i just missed it).

That is the kind of information i am looking for when i view these threads. I couldnt give a **** about either of your companies helping customers of the other company because they didnt like their parts or some other nonsense, because i realize no matter how perfect a part from ZZP or OTTP is, there will always be people who are unsatisfied and will likely go to the competitor for a solution. So forget all of that nonsense and lets get back on track with these mounts. Zoomer/matt, i think you're up on defending your ride height/lift claim, unless the OTTP side would like to maybe include some pictures of the axles alignment before and after mount install. That would likely end the "is the motor actually rotating" side of this debate.

 

Hunter killer you want information email me. Or read the pretty thorough posts I have made here, or go to ************** for reason.The GM build book also talks on chapter 1 page 13 about the mounts. The problem is, Matt and Zoom are not reading posts they are one part preaching and one part fishing. that is all. Otherwise, I am out of the silliness.

 

No, they wouldn't have already taken them into consideration. Most people don't know that they need to take those things into consideration when modifying their suspension.

As I have stated, there are more variables to consider than simply looking at the axles when the car is sitting still. There are 3 separate and (for the most part) unrelated movements taking place at the same time. Putting the axles in line with the car sitting still does not mean they are aligned under full power.

As far as GM Racing using mounts of this type- They also used different upper mounts and modified control arms. It makes a difference.

Yes, this is correct. As the control arm bushings compress under load, the 5/8" of horizontal misalignment on my car disappears. The 1.5" of vertical misalignment is more than eliminated by the rise of the front end, leaving misalignment in the other direction. But then again, you need to consider the engine rocking back a little which moves the intermediate shaft down and forward a little more. All of this taking place is why it's not a good idea to simply look at the alignment of the axles with the car sitting still.

No, that is not all. I'm all for having an intelligent discussion about this suspension. I will not accept answers like, "beause GM Racing used them" or "everyone had great results"(when there is a thread on the front page with people who did not have good results), etc... With you claiming 17 degrees in a place where I measured less than 3, I can assure you that I'm not interested in your dimensions for anything other than a forum discussion.

 

ps NOTE YOU SAY:" But then again, you need to consider the engine rocking back a little which moves the intermediate shaft down and forward a little more" How can a smart guy like you say something so totally WRONG

FACT:the intermediate shaft is bolted to the engine block and inserted into the tranmission .it does not move UNLESS the engine moves.

ps. in 2005 when the build book was written, GM racing Grand am cars used stock control arms with joints made here in our shop, and used Ground control top mounts with Ohlins shock absorbers

 

You must have mis-read what I wrote. I mentioned the movement of the engine first and then commented on the movement of the intermediate shaft. I stated that the rotating engine moves the intermediate shaft and you responded by saying that I'm wrong because they are bolted together.

When the engine rotates under power, the top of it rocks back. Since the intermediate shaft is bolted to the motor, it rocks down and forward a little, correct? That is exactly what I am witnessing. It is caused by the rotation of the engine and trans vs. the rotation of the tires. You know, the equal and opposite reaction.

Thanks for verifying that GM was using multiple non-stock components to work correctly with the offset mounts.

 

Ok so what makes the zzp mounts better than ours if all of these variables exist?

 

I never said they were better. In some cases your mounts would work better. In some cases our would work better. I simply never cared for the blanket statement that your axles cure axle alignment issues when there is more to consider.

 

Oh would you guys just shut the **** up ...lol

 

ZZP buys competitors parts all the time. Anyone familiar with our company knows this. We spend tens of thousands researching, disecting and testing competitors products. Sometimes we publish the information, sometimes we use it for our ourselves. It's nearly laughable to think we need numbers published for the OTT mounts so we can have them.

Our point in asking for data is to show the community that our competitor doesn't have them and this thread has done well at proving that. Saying "GM racing does it, look it up in their book" and "they align the axles" is similar to a company selling magnets for the fuel line and saying they "atomize the fuel". It's just some BS you say to sell a product. When asking for data, it's just that data. Saying the car gets better mileage with the magnets or your friend loves his or the car is faster now and pulls way harder is not evidence. Similarly the information received on the OTT mounts is not data either.

The point of this thread wasn't to bash the OTT mounts. I think I've stated numorous times to that effect. The point is that they are being advertised incorrectly because consumers believe there is some axle mis-alignment that is automatically cured with the OTT mounts and this is stopping wheel hop. This just isn't true.

The ZZP mounts use a solid rubber piece instead of a partial rubber piece as in the OTT mounts. They look different. Some may be personal preference but in the end the pieces are similar I guess (in my opinion). Either should be somewhat effective in reducing engine travel under load.

 

Oh how about you just go the **** to a nissan forum!

 

...Lol

 

grow up kid, stop coming to every thread that i make a post in and start ****.

 

I'm not an engineer, or a parts vendor, or a mechanic by any means, but I've been modding and drag racing for quite some time now. With that said, I'm having a tough time accepting some of the claims regarding why the rotating mounts do what they do. I'm reading a lot about misaligned axles, vertically, horizontally, off 17 degrees, etc. That all/partially may be true, I wouldn't know either way. What I do know is that "wheel hop" is a major problem with many cars other than the Cobalt. My S197 wheel hopped like a SOB. I used stiffer control arms and poly bushings to HELP with it. The wheel hop was due to the soft bushings and weak control arms allowing the axle to bind and start bouncing. The stiffer arms and bushings almost eliminated it. I also had a mazdaspeed3 that wheel hopped. Guess what caused that one to hop, same thing.... soft bushings, too much flex, etc. Instead of swapping bushings, I installed an Ingalls TD, and this helped greatly. Both cars responded with less wheel hop and better traction, BUT exhibited a good bit of vibration at certain speeds over stock. The OTTP mounts obviously work, or else they wouldn't receive so many good reports and compliments. Like I said before, I'm nothing more than another gear head that does a lot of research, as well as trial and error, but IMO it appears as if the OTTP mounts are simply stiffening up the engine and trans resulting in reduced wheel hop and this whole axle thing is MAYBE just bs. From what I've seen, the more you firm up the drive wheels and everything around it, the less wheel hop and more traction you get. Please educate me on this if I'm way off base.

The example given a few pages back using a bush hog PTO shaft as an example wasn't a good comparison imo. I grew up on a farm, and in order to bind a PTO shaft to the point of it lifting the mower deck up and slamming it back down is nearly a 45 degree angle. Are the Balts axles angled that much and how in the world do you get that much more lift to go from zero bind and smooth sailing to suddenly having bind equivalent to that of a tractor PTO at a fully lifted position? I ain't buying the reasoning thus far.

I'm not trying to come off as being hostile, btw. I'm just trying to understand.

 

We received an anonymous email with some Cobalt mount pics and diagrams requesting some center bushing alterations. As it turns out, they are showing the offset as 17mm. I measured(and posted) 5/8" horizontal misalignment on my car, which is 16mm. At this point, I'm going to assume that quikredline was remembering 17 and was thinking 17 degrees rather than 17mm. In this case, 17 degrees would have been over 100mm, which is why I found it to be such an unrealistic claim.

 

Matt, where are you measuring for the axis and endpoint to get 100mm for 17 degrees?

 

17mm sounds about right

 

http://www.zzperformance.com/miscftp...ifications.ppt

 

link is dead

 

The axles flex at two points approximately 14" apart. I didn't take one apart for exact measurements, but it's close. Either way, 17 degrees would require approximately 4" of misalignment. 17mm would be about 2.8 degrees which is very close to what I measured.

 

so now you got the drawings. Anon. Amazing. Zoomer will now figure out how to bluff his way through he didnt mean what he said about rotation. And for the community which you seem intent on saving, well you haver corrected my comments. Matt, while you are on a mission, once you fix the downpipe leaksos ZZP flanges, perhaps you could revise your ZZP turbo inlet so that it doesnt run into the engine. All4glh's pictures were not pretty.

Just fix it for the community, and publish your corrected drawings.

 

The thread isn't about any other products and we did not correct your comments, we proved they were wrong. The drawings aren't meant to show much other than publish technical data which you believe we are lacking but refuse to show any yourself.

My point stands that you are not eliminating wheel hop by changing axle alignment. It's eliminated by reducing engine travel.

2nd point, as Matt brought up, is that you do not know what the axle misalignment is, you cannot correct whatever it may be with a mount when all the other variables are changing.

In conclusion I don't need to backtrack on anything. The OTT mounts are not advertised properly. This is not to say they don't work, just that the information given is misleading and inaccurate. So ZZP can follow suit and tell people our mounts correct axle alignment as well to compete on a level playing field or go this route and educate people on what really is happening.

 

Thats what this was all about? Your mounts use the same location as stock, so how are they rotating the engine? We do actually move the engine with the mounts