[Guest]

We have never heard of this with our mounts. After reading this I took a couple pictures comparing our CTS-V mount to a brand new OEM mount. They are the same height. Here is the proof:

View attachment 99410

Right. But the stock ones compress under the weight of the motor. I can't wait to feel the difference after I modify my shifter so the linkage doesn't hit the trans. Maybe the additional height from the trans mount insert in combination with the motor mounts just raises them both a tad too much.

 

[NC-V]

Right. But the stock ones compress under the weight of the motor. I can't wait to feel the difference after I modify my shifter so the linkage doesn't hit the trans. Maybe the additional height from the trans mount insert in combination with the motor mounts just raises them both a tad too much.

The trans mount insert definitely raises it up higher than it would sit with a brand new factory mount, but obviously it can only sit so high due to the limiter built in to the factory mount. I have motor mounts and the trans insert and a modified shifter similar to how you modify them and didn't run into any issues.

I can't comment on the motor mount height because mine have been shot since I bought it.

 

[sssnake]

I am installing the Edelbrock TVS 2300 and will have to clearance the hood slightly to make things work. So in my case the extra height is a bad thing. If these are trimmed slightly to support this type of application I assume the warranty would be voided. Is that a good assumption?

 

[Guest]

Trimming isn't possible with how the polyurethane is formed around studs/bracing materials.

 

[Revshift]

Right. But the stock ones compress under the weight of the motor. I can't wait to feel the difference after I modify my shifter so the linkage doesn't hit the trans. Maybe the additional height from the trans mount insert in combination with the motor mounts just raises them both a tad too much.

This is simply not true.

We have to keep the facts straight. We want everyone to be correctly informed and understand how things actually work in real life.

After reading this comment we decided to do another test and provide proof. First off, some facts: the engine in a cts-v weighs about 400 lbs with accessories and with fluids, there are two motor mounts, each motor mount is supporting no more than 200 lbs. We took a brand new OEM motor mount and measured it with no weight applied and then measured it with 250 lbs applied. When the 250 lbs was applied we saw a compression of 1/16 of an inch. That is 0.065 inches. The weight what was applied was more than what is applied to the mount when installed in the vehicle. The mount barely compressed at all. Here is proof again:

As you may notice, the weight we applied was a person. He weighs 255-260 lbs. His entire weight was balanced on top of the mount. Another person was helping him balance but was not supporting any of his weight.

Now, to say that our mounts raise the motor is completely false. In fact, the cts-v in the background of the picture has oem motor mounts, which are very used but still good, and they are compressed less than an eighth of an inch. The sagging and compression of the oem motor mount is from wear. Over time, the rubber compresses more and more. Once the mounts start leaking they really start to sag and compress.

My point is that a brand new oem mount will put the motor in the same spot as our polyurethane mounts which is where the GM engineers intended it to be. The difference is that, over time, our polyurethane mounts don't sag and compress like the oem mounts.

Pisnuoff, I believe your issue is due to your modified shifter linkage, not our mounts.

I will continue to debunk misinformation as necessary.

 

[Guest]

Debunk the trans mount insert raising the height of the transmission.

Maybe you should relax a little and see that I wasn't saying your product was bad or that people shouldn't buy it. Saying the issue is simply due to my modified shifter is ridiculous. My shifters are in 175 CTS-V's with only issues with the first generation when combined with a UUC trans mount that is known to be 3/8" taller than stock.

 

[pato]

op2:

 

[Revshift]

Debunk the trans mount insert raising the height of the transmission.

Maybe you should relax a little and see that I wasn't saying your product was bad or that people shouldn't buy it. Saying the issue is simply due to my modified shifter is ridiculous. My shifters are in 175 CTS-V's with only issues with the first generation when combined with a UUC trans mount that is known to be 3/8" taller than stock.

Don't take it the wrong way. I didn't realize that you are a vendor and that you sell shifters. I thought you were saying that you modified your own shifter linkage and nothing else. I am not trying to start an argument or anything like that. We simply want to keep the facts straight. There are a lot of people who read these forums and, as we all know, people tend to believe what they read on the internet. My goal is to present correct information that has real life data to support it. You said "Maybe the additional height from the trans mount insert in combination with the motor mounts just raises them both a tad too much". This statement is speculation. We have already proven that our motor mounts don't raise the motor. Now, we will have to test and measure the trans mount insert. It's not a problem because we want the correct information to be out there. When you speculate things and post them on the forums it not only hurts us but it also hurts the community who wants to know the truth.

 

[Guest]

Ok. I know the trans mount raises the height of the transmission. I was trying to be nice and not call out your product directly. My thought was you might take a look at it before lashing out at someone who says your stuff makes my shift linkage hit or I installed the Revshift trans mount insert and now I have all this driveline vibration. We have seen this with the UUC trans mount. I can get exact measurements but I'm sure that you'll have measurements before I get to my shop and do it.

Personally, I don't mind that the trans is raised because it gives me a chance to do more research and learn more about our cars. I have made an insert and modified the hold down plate inside the center console to allow the entire shifter assembly to raise up into the cabin. This will keep the linkage from hitting while I test out different modifications to your insert for different heights while checking for shift effort and driveline angle vibration.

I'll PM you the results when I get around to finishing up the testing. It's been raining and cold up here in the northeast so I haven't been to motivated to take the car out. Some of us actually aren't Internet toolbags that just troll misinformation.

 

[Revshift]

It has been a long day here at the Revshift shop but I did manage to compare a brand new CTS-V trans mount with no insert to the same brand new trans mount with a Revshift insert.

The old worn out trans mount was removed from the vehicle (it was really bad). I then installed a brand new OEM trans mount with no insert. All the bolts were tight and nothing is supporting the drivetrain other than the mounts at the time the picture was taken. I then removed the new trans mount and installed a Revshift insert into it and reinstalled the trans mount with insert onto the vehicle. The pictures show that the new trans mount sits at the same height as it does with the trans insert installed.

We designed our trans insert to keep the trans mount at the same height that a brand new stock mount sits. This is where the GM engineers intended the trans to sit and our insert keeps it there.

Pisnuoff, it is possible that you are comparing the position of a sagging trans mount to the position of a trans mount with our insert. This is like comparing an old worn mount to a brand new mount. There will definitely be a difference. I know nothing about your shifter/linkage but, with all due respect, I think it may be possible that your product was designed around a transmission sitting on a worn trans mount.

 

[Mn800r]

Great information as always, both you guys are great for the community. Please keep up the good work as we all benefit from your diligence.

 

[HAMSTAR]

Great information as always, both you guys are great for the community. Please keep up the good work as we all benefit from your diligence.

x 2!!!

 

[Guest]

Ok. I had a chance to look at it today. The pivot ball on my shifter was wiped out and allowing it to sit low. I replaced it with a spare and all is fine again. Plenty of clearance with the revshift motor mounts and trans insert.

 

[HAMSTAR]

Ok. I had a chance to look at it today. The pivot ball on my shifter was wiped out and allowing it to sit low. I replaced it with a spare and all is fine again. Plenty of clearance with the revshift motor mounts and trans insert.

Great news! Is the shift action also improved at all with the new pivot ball?

 

[NC-V]

Great information as always, both you guys are great for the community. Please keep up the good work as we all benefit from your diligence.

^^^ this right here. And bravo Rev Shift for doing your homework, testing your product and being able to back it up. If only all aftermarket manufacturers practiced that. Pisnuoff: glad it was an easy fix and you were able to get your issue sorted!

 

[MotorMounts]

Hey everybody, hows it goin'? I am the owner of Creative Steel, we make several parts for the CTS-V's...perhaps you have heard of us. It has been a few months since I have been on the forum on a daily basis, since then there have been a lot of new screen names added to the community. This is why I almost feel like I need to re-introduce myself...kind of a weird sensation since I've been a member and vendor here for 3 years.
The "Truth" is a funny thing, it seems to be a full time job to make sure it doesn't get distorted. One would think that once the truth is spoken that would be the end of it.....not so. Once you stop spreading the good word about yourself or your products the door is left open for others to ooze in with their deceptions and misleading statements. We just finished a presidential debate that is a prime example of this situation. There are so many lies and half truths being said by both parties for such an extended period of time that the public is confused and irritated and not sure what to believe.
Case in point: The idea that Creative Steel has ever used a urethane in our products that was intended as a windshield adhesive/sealant is so absurd that it is sad. I realize that many DIY folks out there have tried this method in an act of desperation to repair a failed/worn urethane part and I commend these people for thinking outside the box, that's how progress is made. But, saying out loud in public that Creative Steel has built a business making motor mounts out of windshield adhesive...that is going too far. There is something fundamentally wrong with people that will say anything to make themselves look better or more successful in the eyes of strangers at the expense of someone else. Why would someone need to fabricate a false statement to instill doubt in another companies product if their own product was as good as they say it is.
It's true that we had some major problems with our gray motor mounts and a few with our first generation black mounts. All problems were heat related which is why we still supply heat shields with our current generation of mounts. No matter what you read read on a website, heat is the enemy of urethane. The higher the temperature the faster any given urethane will deteriorate. We were mislead by our previous supplier of urethane as to what temperatures their products would perform at while exposed to a "near exhaust" environment which is the reason we don't use their product for motor mounts any longer. The bad thing is that we didn't realize the problem until approximately 30 sets were already sold, the good thing is that we warrantied all sets that were brought to our attention even if the claim was made by the next owner of the car and will still to this day replace a gray set of our mounts for no charge.
Another interesting fact: If you see any pictures of our mounts that have failed....check the date of when the picture was taken...it will be over two years old and will have been posted before. It won't be "New News". We haven't had a failed mount in years, which is why if someone wants to throw rocks at us they need to go back to the archives for their information.

One more big chuck of "TRUTH", you will not find better products or support than you will find at Creative Steel. Call me right now if you like, ask me questions about our cars. If it's a topic that I know about, we can talk for an hour if you like. If it's a topic that I don't know about, I won't blow smoke up your skirt to make myself sound smart.

Hope all you guys have a mondo great day.....out

 

[Revshift]

First off, this is a thread about Revshift products. I feel the need to explain everything that I possibly can so that everyone has a clear understanding of what our products are and are not. Max has stated that he feels our polyurethane products are not the best. I will now explain why he is mistaken.

Our competitor, the one in question, uses a type of polyurethane adhesive sealant which is similar to urethane windshield caulk. It is not acceptable material to use as mounts or bushings

Max, We never claimed you use windoweld. I said you use and/or used something similar to it (chemically). I will go into more detail. We have held your mounts, inspected your mounts, and performed a chemical test on the urethane. Considering our history as competitors, you shouldn't be surprised by this. We found that you are/were using a product called Devcon Flexane or a product of the same type. Devcon offers two hardnesses, 97A (Flexane 94) which is black and 87A (Flexane 80) which used to be grey. Both products are now black. In case you are wondering, the PU that you were/are using is a polypropylene glycol prepolymer cured with a dicyclohexylmethane diisocyanate. This chemical composition tends to have poor compression set (mounts compress/sag over time), mediocre tear strength (mounts rip/break), and poor hydrolytic stability (water damage). All three of these characteristics are extremely important when engineering a PU part intended to be used as an automotive isolator. Now, if you don't mold the parts yourself then I strongly suggest you have a serious talk with whoever is being contracted.

http://www.devcon.com/products/products.cfm?family=Flexane® 94 Liquid
http://www.devcon.com/products/products.cfm?family=Flexane® 80 Liquid

The numbers don't lie. When comparing our professional polyurethane to flexane, we find that in any of the important specifications our polyurethane is 250%-400% better. We have not had a single failure of Cadillac motor mounts or bushings to date. Now, if we were ever to have a customer end up with broken parts, we simply send new ones free of charge.

I would say "feel free to call me and discuss the science behind engineering polyurethane elastomers" but there are a lot of trade secrets involved and we are very busy designing and making parts. I apologize if I come off a little harsh but we are engineers, not politicians. :bouncy:

 

[Guest]

I feel like I logged in to LS1tech.

 

[DaveSRX]

Will either of these trans mounts help my issue?


http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=/#/watch?v=D8iZzzZaha0

 

[Guest]

Yes. Mine did that (actually a lot worse) and is now tighter than a gnat's ass.