Originally Posted by Its_Go_Time

It's interesting to note that the FWD drivetrain in my glorious '95 Intrepid is actually quite analogous to our Vettes torque tube set-up. It's got a longitudinally mounted engine with the transaxle mounted solidly to the engine. I rebuilt the engine a couple of years ago, and when I got it back together, I drove it around the block a few times with no hood on it to make sure all was well. As I was driving, I could look down at the entire drivetrain system. When you accelerate the car, these systems have only one torque applied to them. Its torque as seen in the side view, not the front view. An extreme example is when a car lifts its fronts. In a torque tube C5, the engine/torque tube/trans/diff unit lift, and carry the rest of the car with it. When you jam it, the torque applied to the drivetrain tries to spin the engine UP arount the rear wheels, not to the left or right. A little freaky, and a lot unusual on front engine RWD cars. On our C5's, the engine is far from the rear wheel centerline, so the torque developed has a hard time delivering big displacement. Not so on my Intrepid. The engine/transaxle mass is distributed very close to the wheel centerline. Result: The nose of the engine pitches way up when I nail it. Not left. Not right.

In my humble opinion, the mount that this thread was originally about is a beautiful solution to a problem that never existed. Straight up.

Originally Posted by deadcafe

Ran like butter prior. Now the pretty much solid transaxle mount from VBP has no forgivness. I will probably end up replacing it with the rubber stock mount.
Same clutch assembly as my friends 03 Z06 and his car is smooth.

Originally Posted by ajg1915

Again your friend does not use the Pfadt mount. Put it in his car and see what happens.

- Race vehicle parts are notorious for causing / creating vibration generated noise.

- Go and buy a thin sheet of rubber and stick it in between the metal to metal portion of the mounts.

Go look up McMaster-Carr as they sell it in various sheet thickness. 1/8 or 3/16 should be good.

Originally Posted by deadcafe

So what you are saying I should do is place a little bit of rubber in between the pinch points of the Mount and the carriage and the mount and the transaxle? maybe a bit of adhesive?

Originally Posted by ajg1915

I have the same similar mounts as you except for they are the C6 rear Pfadt transmission mounts.

Where there is steel on Aluminum in the center mount, throw in a layer of rubber and will cut down on the vibrations that you are hearing and feeling.

I'm going to do the same thing on mine. I'm putting in a C6 Z06 differential and tranny into my C5 from ny left over project car.

Tony

Originally Posted by Its_Go_Time

It's interesting to note that the FWD drivetrain in my glorious '95 Intrepid is actually quite analogous to our Vettes torque tube set-up. It's got a longitudinally mounted engine with the transaxle mounted solidly to the engine. I rebuilt the engine a couple of years ago, and when I got it back together, I drove it around the block a few times with no hood on it to make sure all was well. As I was driving, I could look down at the entire drivetrain system. When you accelerate the car, these systems have only one torque applied to them. Its torque as seen in the side view, not the front view. An extreme example is when a car lifts its fronts. In a torque tube C5, the engine/torque tube/trans/diff unit lift, and carry the rest of the car with it. When you jam it, the torque applied to the drivetrain tries to spin the engine UP arount the rear wheels, not to the left or right. A little freaky, and a lot unusual on front engine RWD cars. On our C5's, the engine is far from the rear wheel centerline, so the torque developed has a hard time delivering big displacement. Not so on my Intrepid. The engine/transaxle mass is distributed very close to the wheel centerline. Result: The nose of the engine pitches way up when I nail it. Not left. Not right.

In my humble opinion, the mount that this thread was originally about is a beautiful solution to a problem that never existed. Straight up.

Originally Posted by ajg1915

- Go and buy a thin sheet of rubber and stick it in between the metal to metal portion of the mounts.

Originally Posted by lionelhutz

I don't see that as a great solution or you could call it an incomplete solution. The mounting bolts would have to be left a little lose for the rubber to have an effect. Then, under power the rubber would compress and let the nuts on mount possibly come lose. Also, the side with the rubber may absorb vibrations but the side with the nuts against the cross member would still vibrate and they can now move so it would wear too.

You need to make a plate and sandwich both sides of the cross member in rubber for this to have any hope of helping. Use lock nuts so the bolts can be snugged but not cranked right tight.

Peter

Originally Posted by lionelhutz

I don't see that as a great solution or you could call it an incomplete solution. The mounting bolts would have to be left a little lose for the rubber to have an effect. Then, under power the rubber would compress and let the nuts on mount possibly come lose. Also, the side with the rubber may absorb vibrations but the side with the nuts against the cross member would still vibrate and they can now move so it would wear too.

You need to make a plate and sandwich both sides of the cross member in rubber for this to have any hope of helping. Use lock nuts so the bolts can be snugged but not cranked right tight.

Peter