SaturnFans.com
what's new (beta) - classifieds - forums - photos


Go Back   SaturnFans.com Forums > Models > Saturn S-Series > S-Series General
Register FAQ Members List Groups Calendar Chat Room Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-01-2011, 10:03 AM   #41
DonP
Master Member
DonP will become famous soon enoughDonP will become famous soon enough
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 3,582
 

1995 SL2
Default Re: There's nothing to "frownie" about with the Anchor engine mount

Quote:
Can we also agree that there is a bit of hyperbole surrounding the use of the Anchor frownie mounts? I can't speak to the longevity of the mount, but people were not just trashing the mount's longevity...
The anchor (frown design) replacement mount I installed on my '95 lasted about 24 month before it failed and in the process snapped two of the three studs in the chain cover. The frown design mount does tend to fail early - no doubt why Saturn abandon it after a a short run. Some folks get better life than others - probably depends on the luck of the batch and the specifics of their driving conditions.

Note that the box, the DOAN-branded label mount box has the anchor logo/design on the side, if that means anything. Different brandings are available, same design and possibly from the same factory in Asia. A lifetime warranty is nice, but relatively worthless if it leaves you stranded in need of a tow. But it my make sense if you plan to sell the car in a few months (i.e., make it someone else's problem).

Also, beware of Anchor transmission mounts. See my photos for comparisons. The new Anchor mount (from AAP) was more compressed and noisier than the 14 year old OEM I was replacing. I ended up getting an OEM tranny mount and all became happy again.

As to torque on the nuts and studs. Follow the FSM guidance. To do otherwise is to invite unwanded consequences.

And torque is a measure of rotational force, not linear force. The torque on the nut is a measure of the rotational force trying to screw the nut down the stud, and results in a tensioning of the stud that clamps the mount to the chain cover. The amount of tension is related to the thread pitch. Too much tension puts the chain cover at risk, too little and the mount is not held sufficiently firmly.

It is your car, your money, your risk. You can accept the advice offered here, or ignor it.

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to DonP's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help DonP reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
DonP is offline   Reply With Quote
SaturnFans.com Sponsored Links
Old 06-01-2011, 10:37 AM   #42
regenoldiii
Member
regenoldiii is on a distinguished road
 
regenoldiii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 364

1995 SC1
Default Re: There's nothing to "frownie" about with the Anchor engine mount

Quote:
Originally Posted by trottida View Post
Does the Doan mount look like this?

http://www.showmetheparts.com/BIN/im...nchor/2827.jpg
Basically (see picture, I posted a picture at start of thread). The big difference is that the finish on mine looks nicer than the finish on the one in that picture and the 3-hole engine-side mount is not pained (looks very similar to OEM).

...
Vehicles:
----------
'95 Saturn SC1 (single owner)
'99 Mustang GT (sold)
'09 Toyota RAV Sport
'09 BMW 135i

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to regenoldiii's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help regenoldiii reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
regenoldiii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2011, 11:20 AM   #43
Warshark73
Member
Warshark73 is on a distinguished road
 
Warshark73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Fresno, Ca.
Posts: 114

1995 SL2
Default Re: There's nothing to "frownie" about with the Anchor engine mount

Quote:
Originally Posted by madpogue View Post
Seems like a LOT of folks buy old Saturns as a "winter beater" or "tide me over 'til....." vehicle, and then find out how cheap and easy they are to keep on the road, and .....
Well, I never had any intention of getting rid of mine unless it got totaled, but I am surprised at how easy the car is to work on. It's nice not having to be a contortionist or take apart half of the engine bay to get to something minor, like a sensor

@ reginoldiii:
I sincerely hope that your "frownie" mount doesn't cause you any grief. But there is a reason that GM issued a TSB which basically stated: "Cease & desist all installation & distribution of Gen. 2 ("frown") mounts. We are going back to Gen. 1 (solid) mounts because they are far superior."

...
Overkill is underrated

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to Warshark73's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help Warshark73 reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
Warshark73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2011, 11:39 AM   #44
alordofchaos
Super Member
alordofchaos is a splendid one to beholdalordofchaos is a splendid one to beholdalordofchaos is a splendid one to beholdalordofchaos is a splendid one to beholdalordofchaos is a splendid one to beholdalordofchaos is a splendid one to beholdalordofchaos is a splendid one to behold
 
alordofchaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Central MI
Posts: 11,568
 

2002 SC2
1998 SL2
Default Re: There's nothing to "frownie" about with the Anchor engine mount

Quote:
Originally Posted by regenoldiii View Post
Can we also agree that there is a bit of hyperbole surrounding the use of the Anchor frownie mounts? I can't speak to the longevity of the mount, but people were not just trashing the mount's longevity... they were stating things like "the engine vibrated so bad that I took it out and put the old one back in." I can tell you first-hand that the mount works, the metal and rubber appear to be high quality, and the price (at least from Rock Auto) is shockingly reasonable.
Well, for some people like yourself, the mount seems to work fine for a while. For others, it is a pile o crap out of the box; and for yet others they work fine for a while and then fail in a spectacular and costly fashion.

Should we, as a community, endorse the product because it seems to work well for some people who have reecently installed it, or should we warn others of potential failures based on many reports of bad experiences? This is not to say that using a frownie mount will be the end of the world, just that many people have had bad experiences and this mount should be avoided, to be on the safe side.

TSB; seeing as how many things Saturn let slide or considered acceptable makes it significant (IMO) that Saturn abandoned the frownie mount.
http://alordofchaos.com/Documents/TSB-01-T-30A.pdf

...
I'm not worthy to grovel in the shadow of Signmaster's wisdom

11/2016 red 2002 5 spd SC2 124k DD
7/2010 Craigslist white 1997 SC2 project
12/2008 eBay silver 1998 SL2 5 spd 102k, now 201k+ miles

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to alordofchaos's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help alordofchaos reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
alordofchaos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2011, 11:43 AM   #45
OldNuc
Super Member
OldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond repute
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Far Southwestern Iowa
Posts: 64,445
 

1998 SC2
Default Re: There's nothing to "frownie" about with the Anchor engine mount

@ Warshark73: Keep in mind that some people are never convinced by facts or the experience of others, they have to learn by their own experience that relieving themselves on a weed burner fence is not a good idea.

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to OldNuc's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help OldNuc reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
OldNuc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2011, 11:58 AM   #46
madpogue
Super Member
madpogue has much to be proud ofmadpogue has much to be proud ofmadpogue has much to be proud ofmadpogue has much to be proud ofmadpogue has much to be proud ofmadpogue has much to be proud ofmadpogue has much to be proud ofmadpogue has much to be proud of
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Madison, WI USA
Posts: 25,713
 

1996 SW2
Default Re: There's nothing to "frownie" about with the Anchor engine mount

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldNuc View Post
@ Warshark73: Keep in mind that some people are never convinced by facts or the experience of others, they have to learn by their own experience that relieving themselves on a weed burner fence is not a good idea.
Tell someone that there are a hundred billion stars in our galaxy, and a billion galaxies beyond, and they'll s/he believe it. Tell her/him that the paint on that park bench is wet, and s/he still has to touch it to be convinced.....

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to madpogue's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help madpogue reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
madpogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2011, 12:04 PM   #47
ehunter
Senior Member
ehunter has a spectacular aura aboutehunter has a spectacular aura about
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Pacifica by San Francisco 5sp Engine rebuild with the help of people here at 177K due to 500mi/qt oil consumption. After 2yrs I am back to 40mpg+ after discovering the refirb head I used was bad. Car runs better than a top. Now at 214k.
Posts: 1,456

1996 SL2
Default Re: There's nothing to "frownie" about with the Anchor engine mount

This thread reminds me of 16yo teenager that believes hes smarter than his parents. Mom and dads advice is avoided with spiteful overtones regardless of the wealth of information around him. The contradictory comments really get frustrating as well.

We tried very hard to steer him away from the mount in another thread. That advice fell to the waist side. Now there is nothing but confusion and uncertainly in the way the product was installed which has created a big mess of a thread. Normally this issue needs anywhere from 3 to 10/15 posts.

Like I posted before: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6Ggb_Ozl4E&NR=1

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to ehunter's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help ehunter reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
ehunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2011, 12:16 PM   #48
Warshark73
Member
Warshark73 is on a distinguished road
 
Warshark73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Fresno, Ca.
Posts: 114

1995 SL2
Default Re: There's nothing to "frownie" about with the Anchor engine mount

And right after I post about it, there comes someone to link the actual TSB itself. "Speak of the devil..." as they say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldNuc View Post
@ Warshark73: Keep in mind that some people are never convinced by facts or the experience of others, they have to learn by their own experience that relieving themselves on a weed burner fence is not a good idea.
I know. Which is why I wished him well. Hopefully nothing catastrophic happens as a result. Or, hopefully, he gets the one-in-a-million "frown" mount that doesn't fail.

...
Overkill is underrated

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to Warshark73's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help Warshark73 reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
Warshark73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2011, 12:45 PM   #49
trottida
Senior Member
trottida is a splendid one to beholdtrottida is a splendid one to beholdtrottida is a splendid one to beholdtrottida is a splendid one to beholdtrottida is a splendid one to beholdtrottida is a splendid one to beholdtrottida is a splendid one to behold
 
trottida's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North of North of Toronto, Northern Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,969
 

1999 SL2
2001 SL1
Default Re: There's nothing to "frownie" about with the Anchor engine mount

But does the rubber insert look the same as the picture in the link or like your second picture?

Quote:
Originally Posted by regenoldiii View Post
Basically (see picture, I posted a picture at start of thread). The big difference is that the finish on mine looks nicer than the finish on the one in that picture and the 3-hole engine-side mount is not pained (looks very similar to OEM).

...
Current rides
2001 SL1 MT (410,500 km @ 11/2017)
1999 SL2 MT (251,500 km @ 11/2017)
2011 Suburban LT (101,450 km @ 11/2017)

:canada:

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to trottida's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help trottida reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
trottida is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2011, 01:18 PM   #50
alordofchaos
Super Member
alordofchaos is a splendid one to beholdalordofchaos is a splendid one to beholdalordofchaos is a splendid one to beholdalordofchaos is a splendid one to beholdalordofchaos is a splendid one to beholdalordofchaos is a splendid one to beholdalordofchaos is a splendid one to behold
 
alordofchaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Central MI
Posts: 11,568
 

2002 SC2
1998 SL2
Default Re: There's nothing to "frownie" about with the Anchor engine mount

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warshark73 View Post
And right after I post about it, there comes someone to link the actual TSB itself. "Speak of the devil..." as they say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by madpogue View Post
Tell her/him that the paint on that park bench is wet, and s/he still has to touch it to be convinced.....


The solid mount is Saturn's recommendation, too... in case anyone does not believe us that the park bench is wet

IIRC, average life span of the frowny mount runs about two years. Long-term update will be interesting.

I have a frowny in my SC2 (finally getting around to working on it again). Will need to start scouting around for a good mount

...
I'm not worthy to grovel in the shadow of Signmaster's wisdom

11/2016 red 2002 5 spd SC2 124k DD
7/2010 Craigslist white 1997 SC2 project
12/2008 eBay silver 1998 SL2 5 spd 102k, now 201k+ miles

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to alordofchaos's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help alordofchaos reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
alordofchaos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2011, 02:09 PM   #51
syncro87
Member
syncro87 is on a distinguished road
 
syncro87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Missouri
Posts: 317

2000 SW2
2001 SL2
Default Re: There's nothing to "frownie" about with the Anchor engine mount

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldNuc View Post
The STUDS are torqued into the timing cover to 12ft-lb. The NUTs on the studs are torqued evenly in stages to 37ft-lb. Re-read what I posted.
I want to thank you for posting this correct torque and tightening info.

I went out, just for the heck of it, and mine were not even close. The studs were not the whole way into the timing cover, torques were all wrong etc.

I took everything out and put it back in the proper way with a torque wrench.

Good info. Thanks.

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to syncro87's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help syncro87 reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
syncro87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2011, 06:47 PM   #52
regenoldiii
Member
regenoldiii is on a distinguished road
 
regenoldiii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 364

1995 SC1
Default Re: There's nothing to "frownie" about with the Anchor engine mount

Okay, wow, a lot of hostility over an engine mount... Richpin never warned me about this in his YouTube video. So...

@alordofchaos -- Thanks for the TSB, that was one of the more helpful responses I've received. It does appear that my original mount was a solid mount (and not a "frownie"), but new mount is a "frownie." None-the-less, the info in that TSB could be very useful for others that read this thread. So, this answers trottida's question as well... the old mount was a solid and the new is a "frownie," and this appears to explain the reason for the extra long studs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ehunter View Post
This thread reminds me of 16yo teenager that believes hes smarter than his parents. Mom and dads advice is avoided with spiteful overtones regardless of the wealth of information around him. The contradictory comments really get frustrating as well.

We tried very hard to steer him away from the mount in another thread. That advice fell to the waist side. Now there is nothing but confusion and uncertainly in the way the product was installed which has created a big mess of a thread. Normally this issue needs anywhere from 3 to 10/15 posts.
Wow, ehunter... your response is more appropriate for a Dr. Phil intervention than a car repair blog. Not sure where the "spiteful overtones" are coming from, but they're not coming from my postings. Although, you must admit it's more than a bit ironic to complain about the number of postings and then create another posting about frustrations with teenagers and contradictory comments. By the way, I would suggest this thread has some value as many of your previous comments suggested that the Anchor mount was such garbage that it wouldn't even work after installation... now that I've verified that it does work, and very well at that, now the conversation has morphed into... well, they won't last longer than 2 years. Okay, I'll take that risk for $14 and less than an hours worth of work.... now should I go to my room and think about my spiteful overtones?

Quote:
Originally Posted by madpogue View Post
Tell someone that there are a hundred billion stars in our galaxy, and a billion galaxies beyond, and they'll s/he believe it. Tell her/him that the paint on that park bench is wet, and s/he still has to touch it to be convinced.....
Okay, madpogue, forgive me for questioning the paint on the park bench (by the way, is fuschia really an appropriate color for a park bench?)... at any rate, don't forget that I received responses like this from other posters when I asked about the Anchor mounts: "I have used the anchor mount and my car literally beat itself around with them in there. Granted, my car was running on three cylinders which caused excessive vibrations, but the frowny mount started to rip itself apart in a week. I kept my receipt thankfully and returned it under the limited lifetime warranty along with the tranny mount. The top mount had started to rip the anchor out of the rubber." In that case the poster stated that the mount only lasted a week before it started to "rip itself apart." If that were the case, then I better order another mount from Rock Auto ASAP... as I only have maybe another 3 or 4 days left...

For what it's worth, I think this thread has been a very useful debate. There's little doubt in my mind that the over the Anchor frownie mounts has been a bit hyperbolic. At the same time, I'm not a ... I realize that there are some negative user experiences as well as a TSB from Saturn (R.I.P.) recommending that broken/worn-out frownie mounts in S cars be replaced with the original first design solid blocks. My question is not whether the OEM has better longevity... my question is whether or not the OEM has better vibration dampening and whether it is worth a $45 - $60 premium over the Anchor (esp. considering the Anchor has a one year warranty... how long is warranty on GM OEM???). In addition, I was reading all different types of torque ranges on the studs and bolts. It turns out that the Hayne's manual that so many deride was exactly correct regarding 37 ft. lbs on the nuts ... but the stud torques have been all over the place. I've read 18 ft lbs., 10 ft. lbs., and 12 ft. lbs.... according to the Saturn TSB, the studs are to be torqued to 10 Newton Meters, or 89 inch pounds, or about 7.5 ft. lbs. And, the recommendation to use thread lock was also a good one... I did use Loctite on two of the studs that had come loose... and for your info, ehunter.... I did wait for the thread lock to dry prior to torquing the bolts.

...
Vehicles:
----------
'95 Saturn SC1 (single owner)
'99 Mustang GT (sold)
'09 Toyota RAV Sport
'09 BMW 135i

Last edited by regenoldiii; 06-01-2011 at 06:59 PM..

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to regenoldiii's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help regenoldiii reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
regenoldiii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2011, 07:05 PM   #53
adventureoflink
Master Member
adventureoflink has a spectacular aura aboutadventureoflink has a spectacular aura aboutadventureoflink has a spectacular aura about
 
adventureoflink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: 255.255.255.255
Posts: 6,853

1997 SL2
Default Re: There's nothing to "frownie" about with the Anchor engine mount

Quote:
Originally Posted by regenoldiii View Post
Okay, madpogue, forgive me for questioning the paint on the park bench (by the way, is fuschia really an appropriate color for a park bench?)... at any rate, don't forget that I received responses like this from other posters when I asked about the Anchor mounts: "I have used the anchor mount and my car literally beat itself around with them in there. Granted, my car was running on three cylinders which caused excessive vibrations, but the frowny mount started to rip itself apart in a week. I kept my receipt thankfully and returned it under the limited lifetime warranty along with the tranny mount. The top mount had started to rip the anchor out of the rubber." In that case the poster stated that the mount only lasted a week before it started to "rip itself apart." If that were the case, then I better order another mount from Rock Auto ASAP... as I only have maybe another 3 or 4 days left...
Part of that guy's problem was running on three cylinders. this is a 110% AMERICAN MADE S-series with fuel injection, not some fakey-american made car which is really a japanese import ripoff Geo Metro which is carburated.

Coupled with FROWNY MOUNT, and the extra vibrations must've killed it that quickly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fetchitfido View Post
My "frowny" is going on 4yr's old. Still holds the engine stiffer then the OEM mount does brand new.
Good Frowny.
Was this REALLY a frowny style mount inside? Daaaaaaaamn.. good to know I stuck it out with the OEM style mount

...
97 SL2
DOB: 3/19/97
Date Obtained: 5/30/07
Status: Alive, 1/2 exhaust

2004 Merc G.Marquis GS
DOB: 2/4/04
Date Obtained: 7/6/12
Status: Alive, no heat

Last edited by adventureoflink; 06-01-2011 at 07:11 PM..

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to adventureoflink's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help adventureoflink reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
adventureoflink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2011, 08:16 PM   #54
OldNuc
Super Member
OldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond repute
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Far Southwestern Iowa
Posts: 64,445
 

1998 SC2
Default Re: There's nothing to "frownie" about with the Anchor engine mount

Saturn has changed the torque specs on those studs into the timing cover over the years to deal with several real concerns. If you read the TSB carefully it directs cleaning out the threaded holes in the timing cover and cleaning the studs. If you actually do that using the methods in the FSM then hand tight is just fine. But as I know that these values have been from 18ft-lb to 89in-lb depending on the year of publication and the higher torque values were to compensate for poor mechanical practices, failure to follow proper cleaning procedure, 10-12 ft-lb seems to work out the best for all users. There is a generic torque value for every diameter fastener taking into consideration the fastener material, fastener grade, material threaded into, and thread pitch. These tables are available and once you find one and compare the values in the applicable table you will find they match the FSM. You may want to look at this: http://www.saturnfans.com/photos/sho...hp?photo=48816 That chart should provide a clue as to why 18ft-lb was discarded ans a recommended torque.

Quote:
Originally Posted by regenoldiii View Post
Okay, wow, a lot of hostility over an engine mount... Richpin never warned me about this in his YouTube video. So...

@alordofchaos -- Thanks for the TSB, that was one of the more helpful responses I've received. It does appear that my original mount was a solid mount (and not a "frownie"), but new mount is a "frownie." None-the-less, the info in that TSB could be very useful for others that read this thread. So, this answers trottida's question as well... the old mount was a solid and the new is a "frownie," and this appears to explain the reason for the extra long studs.


Wow, ehunter... your response is more appropriate for a Dr. Phil intervention than a car repair blog. Not sure where the "spiteful overtones" are coming from, but they're not coming from my postings. Although, you must admit it's more than a bit ironic to complain about the number of postings and then create another posting about frustrations with teenagers and contradictory comments. By the way, I would suggest this thread has some value as many of your previous comments suggested that the Anchor mount was such garbage that it wouldn't even work after installation... now that I've verified that it does work, and very well at that, now the conversation has morphed into... well, they won't last longer than 2 years. Okay, I'll take that risk for $14 and less than an hours worth of work.... now should I go to my room and think about my spiteful overtones?

Okay, madpogue, forgive me for questioning the paint on the park bench (by the way, is fuschia really an appropriate color for a park bench?)... at any rate, don't forget that I received responses like this from other posters when I asked about the Anchor mounts: "I have used the anchor mount and my car literally beat itself around with them in there. Granted, my car was running on three cylinders which caused excessive vibrations, but the frowny mount started to rip itself apart in a week. I kept my receipt thankfully and returned it under the limited lifetime warranty along with the tranny mount. The top mount had started to rip the anchor out of the rubber." In that case the poster stated that the mount only lasted a week before it started to "rip itself apart." If that were the case, then I better order another mount from Rock Auto ASAP... as I only have maybe another 3 or 4 days left...

For what it's worth, I think this thread has been a very useful debate. There's little doubt in my mind that the over the Anchor frownie mounts has been a bit hyperbolic. At the same time, I'm not a ... I realize that there are some negative user experiences as well as a TSB from Saturn (R.I.P.) recommending that broken/worn-out frownie mounts in S cars be replaced with the original first design solid blocks. My question is not whether the OEM has better longevity... my question is whether or not the OEM has better vibration dampening and whether it is worth a $45 - $60 premium over the Anchor (esp. considering the Anchor has a one year warranty... how long is warranty on GM OEM???). In addition, I was reading all different types of torque ranges on the studs and bolts. It turns out that the Hayne's manual that so many deride was exactly correct regarding 37 ft. lbs on the nuts ... but the stud torques have been all over the place. I've read 18 ft lbs., 10 ft. lbs., and 12 ft. lbs.... according to the Saturn TSB, the studs are to be torqued to 10 Newton Meters, or 89 inch pounds, or about 7.5 ft. lbs. And, the recommendation to use thread lock was also a good one... I did use Loctite on two of the studs that had come loose... and for your info, ehunter.... I did wait for the thread lock to dry prior to torquing the bolts.

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to OldNuc's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help OldNuc reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
OldNuc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2011, 08:18 PM   #55
trottida
Senior Member
trottida is a splendid one to beholdtrottida is a splendid one to beholdtrottida is a splendid one to beholdtrottida is a splendid one to beholdtrottida is a splendid one to beholdtrottida is a splendid one to beholdtrottida is a splendid one to behold
 
trottida's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North of North of Toronto, Northern Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,969
 

1999 SL2
2001 SL1
Default Re: There's nothing to "frownie" about with the Anchor engine mount

OK, just to throw another wrench into the debate.

There are also non-OEM solid block mounts out there being sold along side the frowney and they use the longer studs like the OEM. I was digging to see if this is what you bought but as it turns out it wasn't.

So guys, what's the official word on these? Are they comparable to OEM; somewhere in between or have an expected short service life as the controversial frowney mount?



Quote:
Originally Posted by regenoldiii View Post
So, this answers trottida's question as well... the old mount was a solid and the new is a "frownie," and this appears to explain the reason for the extra long studs.

...
Current rides
2001 SL1 MT (410,500 km @ 11/2017)
1999 SL2 MT (251,500 km @ 11/2017)
2011 Suburban LT (101,450 km @ 11/2017)

:canada:

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to trottida's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help trottida reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
trottida is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2011, 08:29 PM   #56
td1238
Master Member
td1238 will become famous soon enoughtd1238 will become famous soon enough
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 2,108

1999 SL2
Default Re: There's nothing to "frownie" about with the Anchor engine mount

The mount that was on my car when I bought it was the 'solid' mount. The car vibrated badly, and I could slip a pen between the rubber and the bracket. I replaced the mount with another solid mount, as that's what the store had. This reduced vibration, but didn't eliminate it. Also, the old mount fell apart in two pieces when I removed it. Again, for those who didn't read the first time, it was a SOLID mount.

I just recently installed the frownie mount, and love it. It's super quiet. I cannot see how either mount's failing would cause mounting studs to sheer off or rip out, unless someone is badly mistreating their engine and/or isn't inspecting their engine on a regular basis, and/or the torque absorbsion braces have failed and are allowing for ridiculous engine movement. The old solid mount was broken in two pieces, and did not damage the mounting studs in any way. Matter-of-fact I am using the original mounting studs to this day. They were used for about 3 years with the new 'brick,' and are now being used on the frownie mount. I do not see them or the timing chain cover failing anytime soon. I also do not over-torque them, but tightly snug them, probably at 12 foot pounds, but I have never used a torque wrench to be sure. They have never come loose, and I know not to torque them more or else I'll strip the aluminum.

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to td1238's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help td1238 reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
td1238 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2011, 12:38 AM   #57
td1238
Master Member
td1238 will become famous soon enoughtd1238 will become famous soon enough
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 2,108

1999 SL2
Default Re: There's nothing to "frownie" about with the Anchor engine mount

Perhaps the reason why GM discontinued the mount is because it is weaker and more prone to failing, and probably didn't make it past the warranty period, which is all that GM wants.

Again, I cannot see either mount failing in a way that would break the mounting studs, unless someone is beating on their engine. If someone drops their clutch and/or allows the mount to deteriorate to the point that it has absolutely no control over engine movement, where the engine can build up quite a bit of momentum before the mount does anything to stop its movement, yes, then it is likely that damage will occur. Otherwise, no.

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to td1238's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help td1238 reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
td1238 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2011, 06:46 AM   #58
OldNuc
Super Member
OldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond reputeOldNuc has a reputation beyond repute
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Far Southwestern Iowa
Posts: 64,445
 

1998 SC2
Default Re: There's nothing to "frownie" about with the Anchor engine mount

Those are not just engine mounts, they are part of a tuned mounting and vibration damping system. When you start tossing in parts that do not meet the OEM spec strange things happen. Some people have managed to use polly inserts in the torque axis struts with no increase in vibration and others have failed. This is a very complex system and all of these aftermarket TAM mounts are suspect. Every one on here who has installed the OEM components to restore the system to OEM have been impressed with the improvements. It all comes down to this: You get what you pay for.

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to OldNuc's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help OldNuc reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
OldNuc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2011, 08:24 AM   #59
alordofchaos
Super Member
alordofchaos is a splendid one to beholdalordofchaos is a splendid one to beholdalordofchaos is a splendid one to beholdalordofchaos is a splendid one to beholdalordofchaos is a splendid one to beholdalordofchaos is a splendid one to beholdalordofchaos is a splendid one to behold
 
alordofchaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Central MI
Posts: 11,568
 

2002 SC2
1998 SL2
Default Re: There's nothing to "frownie" about with the Anchor engine mount

Quote:
Originally Posted by regenoldiii View Post
For what it's worth, I think this thread has been a very useful debate.
Agreed, more data points is a good thing.

I have a set of autolite double-platinums ready to go into one of my Saturns eventually; just out of curiousity and because they were relatlively cheap. Came out of debate on platinum plugs for the s-series - however, like OldNuc who knows more about cars than I can even think to ask, I still would not recommend platinum plugs to anyone else for these cars

Quote:
well, they won't last longer than 2 years
Seems to be the mean time before failure. But you may be on the far end of the bell curve good luck, and don't forget to post back on this thread in 2~6 years.

...
I'm not worthy to grovel in the shadow of Signmaster's wisdom

11/2016 red 2002 5 spd SC2 124k DD
7/2010 Craigslist white 1997 SC2 project
12/2008 eBay silver 1998 SL2 5 spd 102k, now 201k+ miles

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to alordofchaos's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help alordofchaos reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
alordofchaos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2011, 09:03 AM   #60
td1238
Master Member
td1238 will become famous soon enoughtd1238 will become famous soon enough
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 2,108

1999 SL2
Default Re: There's nothing to "frownie" about with the Anchor engine mount

Quote:
Originally Posted by alordofchaos View Post
Agreed, more data points is a good thing.

I have a set of autolite double-platinums ready to go into one of my Saturns eventually; just out of curiousity and because they were relatlively cheap. Came out of debate on platinum plugs for the s-series - however, like OldNuc who knows more about cars than I can even think to ask, I still would not recommend platinum plugs to anyone else for these cars

Seems to be the mean time before failure. But you may be on the far end of the bell curve good luck, and don't forget to post back on this thread in 2~6 years.
Platinum tipped plugs should likely be of no concern. The problem comes from Bosch platinum wire plugs. The wire is very thin, and burns away. This increases the spark gap and stresses the coils, as the spark will look for the easiest path of travel, and if there is less resistance between coil windings than at the plugs, it will jump there instead. Once a carbon trail is formed, the coils are destroyed, and will put out reduced voltage.

Those who say that platinum is not as good a conductor as nickel or copper don't understand electricity. The difference in resistance in that small amount of material is a difference of less than 1 ohm, and is of absolutely no concern for a high tension electrical system such as this. There is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more resistance in the plug wires and in the in-plug resistor (for RFI suppression).

If, on the other hand, we were talking about switching from copper to platinum in the wiring that leads all the way from the power plant to your home, that may be of concern, as it would probably add up to 100s of ohms at a very high amperage rate. Voltage drop across a resistor depends on amperage. When current draw (amperage) is very low, there isn't much voltage drop. Voltage is strength, and amperage is amount. A resistor restricts current flow, and so if there is a lot of current, there will be a lot of restriction. If there is little current, there will be little restriction. There is an extreme amount of voltage in the high tension circuit of your car, and very little current. The ratio is so great that it makes for almost non-existent voltage drop over ordinary conductors, and not enough to be of concern over the 10K ohm or so of resistance in the spark plug wires.

Platinum tipped plugs that have the regular style electrodes, of thick and robust design, are actually a good thing, as the gap will stay sharper longer, and will not erode as quickly. Erosion makes the gap wider and the edges more round, which makes it more difficult for the spark to jump the gap.

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to td1238's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help td1238 reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
td1238 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
top motor mount won't "seat" correctly charzii S-Series Tech 22 11-23-2010 06:34 PM
Engine mount "adjustment"??? Lodogg2221 S-Series Tech 4 08-03-2010 12:07 PM
How "screwed" am I? Ignition control tranny plate mount jcm22 S-Series Tech 4 03-14-2010 10:23 PM
upper motor mount "in progress" question papayamon2 S-Series Tech 9 01-26-2010 09:25 PM
Where to buy "shock absorber" type engine mount for 91 SL2? snooop1e S-Series General 2 04-05-2007 08:32 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:19 PM.

Advanced Forum Search | Advanced Photo Search


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SaturnFans.com. The Saturn Enthusiasts Site.