Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Will it sit the engine 10mm higher than std location?

Silvia guys report some issues with the SR20 sitting higher.

Anyone notice this on there R32 GTR or not really?

My concern is basically my new exhaust fitting exactly how it should.

Cheers.

Edited by mr skidz
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/461455-nismo-engine-mounts-question/
Share on other sites

yes, and yes. I can measure a nismo one if that helps but I noticed no difference

nah it's all good I'll soon find out lol.

I've already installed my engine with the Nismo mounts in just waiting for racepace twin 3 into 4 front pipe and since it merges to 4" I was just curious if it's going to fit after reading the Silvia guys comments.

Do you notice the difference with engine movement and gearbox as I fit all 3 of them.

Does it really help pulling gears at RPM

I have noticed absolutely no issue with the nismo mounts, nor before I had them. nor in my stagea which has standard mounts.

in the end I just went the nismo ones because they cost about the same, and why not try "upgraded"

I suspect that unless the current mounts are broken you won't notice a difference either

  • 6 years later...

I'm just wrapping up a CD009 install on an R32 and wanted to drop the front of my engine a tad to get a better driveshaft angle. I thought I'd chime in on this post with conclusive info as I have both new OEM and Nismo R32 mounts. 11220-02U03 vs 11220-RS585.

I'm confirming without a doubt that they are both the exact same height and both have the same "Squish" when installed. I ended up notching my engine mounts like the RB30 guys do. The height difference people see must just be the difference between settled old mounts and new fresh mounts. 

Cheers. 

 

Edited by TurboTapin
  • Like 1
On 19/08/2022 at 9:16 AM, GTSBoy said:

Correct. Nismo mounts are OEM mounts with Nismo tax.

They do come in a nicer box that looks great sitting on the shelf though.  Worth it for that.......

  • Haha 1

Same thing with the Nismo gearbox crossmember mount. I broke one and bought a Nismo one. They are IDENTICAL. I've now mixed it up with the other standard ones I have, as even the casting part number in the rubber is the same, so I don't know if I'm using a Nismo one or not now !

On 8/18/2022 at 8:16 PM, Piggaz said:

Then they end up like this.

Junk. 

Went to the same place as the twins, the bin.

 

IMG_8534.MOV 21.04 MB · 3 downloads

Lol always the exhaust side. I wrapped mine with gold reflective tape to see if it gives it a few extra years. 

Edited by TurboTapin
On 8/18/2022 at 7:16 PM, GTSBoy said:

Correct. Nismo mounts are OEM mounts with Nismo tax.

 

On 8/18/2022 at 8:49 PM, BK said:

Same thing with the Nismo gearbox crossmember mount. I broke one and bought a Nismo one. They are IDENTICAL. I've now mixed it up with the other standard ones I have, as even the casting part number in the rubber is the same, so I don't know if I'm using a Nismo one or not now !

 

I noticed the Nismo engine mounts had the OEM part number in the rubber but I presumed this was due to Nissan using the same mold for both but with a harder rubber for the Nismo. I didn't see the need in creating two identical molds.

You gents think they are in fact identical parts ? It did cross my mind as a possibility... 

Edited by TurboTapin

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...