Powerflex dogbone bush debate...

[r8byb]

Right ive been reading for the last few day's loads of threads about how great the dog bone bush is and then how bad it is too in terms of fitting a powerflex bush?

My question is..

Why do people say not to fit it when it reduces engine movement which is always a good thing ? And how can it damage gearboxes because of this :s

I fitted one of these to my saxo vts and it was the best 30 quid i spent, totally transformed the car, but reading what some of the "pro's" on here say its best to go standard although there doesnt seem to be any valid reason why ?

Cheers Rob.

 

[bmh.01]

http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showthread.php?t=227182&highlight=powerflex

Thats what it did to mine. It was far to firm imo, engine vibration at idle was bloody annoying too. Yes it did make the gearchange better and reduced movement, but the standard mounts are soft for a reason.

There may be a happy meduim between a firm mount and the standard one but the powerflex one isn't it imo. And tbh the 1*2 setup with the 4th mount mine hardly moves anyway.

 

[r8byb]

That looks more of a coincident than the powerflex causing it, powerflex do have flex believe it or not, try a group N metal bushes then youll realise powerflex have movement lol.. I just still got my head around how it can affect a gearbox etc.. if anything it should be better, due to less movement i would of thought, thats what i really want to know..

 

[bmh.01]

To be blunt b****cks is that coincidence, that was the second time i'd had the gearbox off and none of it had happened before. It hasn't happened on my 172 nor the 1.2 before the 1.6 and even after a month of so when I refitted it and checked on it it hadn't got any worse on a standard dogbone.

Think about it, the standard mounts are soft for a reason. You remove the complaince from the mounts where else is it going to go? The next weakest thing, which in my case was the gearbox casing as its an alloy casting.

 

[r8byb]

The next weak thing would be the other mounts, i cant get my head around it, saxo's have the same setup, and i fitted a powerflex bush had it on for 14k and it was the best mod i did.. i cant see how less engine movement puts strain on a gearbox..

 

[Fred@BTM]

i'm sure renault spent a few quid more than powerflex developing the engine mounts, just a thought

 

[.GAZ.]

1 for sale here

http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showthread.php?t=314193

if any1 wants 1

 

[Mark One]

hmmm certinally makes you think.

Damn, I really want one of these....gutted.

 

[Martin_172]

my 1.2 16v box the bolt rounded the hole enough so that only half the bolt was holding the mount on, it then snapped the bolt!

 

[.GAZ.]

hmmm certinally makes you think.

Damn, I really want one of these....gutted.

buy mine

 

[bmh.01]

my 1.2 16v box the bolt rounded the hole enough so that only half the bolt was holding the mount on, it then snapped the bolt!

I'm pretty sure thats what would've happened to mine if I hadn't found it first. I'd lost the first 4/5 threads or so, was lucky its a deep hole and a long bolt.

 

[Martin_172]

yep exactly, i had one on my 172 but the vibration was too much (didnt seem to notice it on the 1.2 16v as much for some reason!? maby it was due to coilovers and being stripped etc it was more hardcore so wasnt as obvious?

 

[Mark One]

hmmm certinally makes you think.

Damn, I really want one of these....gutted.

buy mine

£25 delivered?

 

[r8byb]

i'm sure renault spent a few quid more than powerflex developing the engine mounts, just a thought

Im sure they did too Fred, in making sure the car was comfortable etc.. if the mount was much stiffer than standard there would be vibration at idle which wouldnt sell i imagine