Is there a major difference between solid rubber mounts and hydraulic mounts?
- posted
20 years ago
Is there a major difference between solid rubber mounts and hydraulic mounts?
"Phillip Schmid" wrote
What are you asking? If one style will interchange with the other, or the difference in their construction?
Ian
I'm not really sure what I'm asking. For my car I can either get hydraulic or rubber mounts and I honestly don't know which kind I should get. To me it seems like the hydraulic ones would dampen the vibration more but it would also allow more movement, but I'm not sure.
Yeah thats kinda how hydraulic mounts work. However they dont seem to last as long. They like to rip open and spill oil on the ground. I like a more positive feel from my engine so I know when and if its running rough.
"Phillip Schmid" wrote
A lot of the primary engine mounts on GM engines are hydraulic (probably better to call them "oil filled"). They seem to work fine, some of them take an extra amount of beating and don't last that long. Cadillac's are famous for splitting their front engine mount apart. I haven't seen too many failures on the other car lines.
It's not dogbone style mounts you are talking about, is it? If so, there were dogbone mounts that came from the aftermarket that looked like little shock absorbers. They were crap...I'd go with the solid original factory style ones.
Ian
Yep, dogdone kind. I was most likely going to go the OE style just wanted to make sure what the differences were.
All right, thanks for clearin that up.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.