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 07-21-2011, 06:41 AM   #81
Signmaster
Master Member
Signmaster is a splendid one to beholdSignmaster is a splendid one to beholdSignmaster is a splendid one to beholdSignmaster is a splendid one to beholdSignmaster is a splendid one to beholdSignmaster is a splendid one to beholdSignmaster is a splendid one to behold
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 5,996
 

1995 SL1
Default Re: There's nothing to "frownie" about with the Anchor engine mount

Quote:
Originally Posted by STRNFAN93SL2 View Post
Wow, I think this is the longest thread about a top motor mount I've come across.

regenoldiii, while I applaud you for "sticking to your guns," I'm at a loss to the point of your thread other than "Look at this $14 motor mount, this is great." BTW, RockAuto has a "private label" mount for $11.85, they only have 18 left. Low cost does NOT equal value

Your reasoning is flawed and potentially damaging to Saturn owners who don't know any better when you tell them the aftermarket frowny mount is fine when Saturn issued a Technical Service Bulletin and stopped using the Rev. 2 design. Why do you think that is? Why do you think the vast majority of aftermarket companies offer the frowny design (by the way its probably manufactured in one plant and marketed by many companies)?

What most likely happened is a company approached Saturn with a sweet deal supplying them with their mount (the same company who supplies them now). Maybe they offered Saturn $2 a mount if they'd buy in volume. The bean counters looked at the price and said we need to do this. Saturn QE department obviously didn't do their FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis). The deal was made. Then Saturn started getting failure reports out on the field. I suspect it was catastrophic failure with a percentage of these mounts (like the stories we've heard about). Saturn wasn't about to take the financial responsibility for this so they switched back to the Rev. 1 design.

Side Note: I find it hard to believe Saturn would have switched back just for vibration/longevity complaints. They would've sold more of them and had more people in for service like the ECT sensor debacle. Sure took them a long time to get a brass ECTS.

Do you think Saturn managers and engineers sat around and said, you know what, lets just change the mount again and go back to Rev. 1. Do you think their decision was based on statistical data of failures rates out on the field? Do you know how much money it costs Saturn to do that? All the updating of their systems, issuing a TSB, training (communicating the change), their reputation, etc. The decision Saturn made was purposeful and it cost them lots of $$$.

You stated "the weight of the Anchor mount, the thickness and quality of the steel was as good as the OEM that I removed."
It has nothing to do with the weight, thickness or quality of the steel. It's a design problem.

You stated "First of all, the new Anchor "frownie" mount has been a huge improvement over my worn out OEM solid mount."
I would hope so since your old mount was worn out. I had a Saturn OEM frowny in my 93 SL2 back in the day and it failed in a shorter time compared to the Rev.1 design. Thankfully it wasn't a catastrophic failure just a vibration complaint.

Other Random Thoughts...
Haynes and Chiltons manuals have limited value. If you really want to repair your Satty with less headaches and have the most accurate information, get a factory service manual off ebay. 2500 pages compared to 175.

Richpin should edit his video to include torque specs and use a torque wrench. You don't need your vehicle on a ramp if you have a low profile jack.

The OEM mount is the best mount. You can still order it from a stealership or online ($65). Is it worth the price, yup. Something as critical as a mount I'm willing to pay more than $14 especially with the questionable reliability and quality of the frowny.

Have I been a bit harsh, yeah. Have you had long term experience with a frowny mount, No. Do you know the problematic history of the frowny mount yet you still recommend it, yes. This is the problem I have with your point of view. If you want to take your chances, go for it but don't say there's nothing "frownie" about this mount when there is.

I would NEVER use a frowny mount nor recommend them to others based on driving a SL2 since 1993 with over 420,000 combined miles logged and the problematic history of that design. Do some frowny mounts work, sure, but I wouldn't take the chance.
That's a lot of typing for mostly speculation and opinion.

IMO Regenoldiii has done nothing more than state his personal opinion on the mount. Some will agree, some won't. That's how opinions usually work.

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to Signmaster's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help Signmaster reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
Signmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
SaturnFans.com Sponsored Links
Old 07-21-2011, 07:37 AM   #82
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: 64,765
 

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

But his(STRNFAN93SL2) point is that regenoldiii never bothers to make it clear that it is only his opinion, and that this opinion is based on nothing other than the price. It so happens that many others have been down this road and found through sometimes painful and expensive experience that the cheap, low cost, aftermarket mounts do not measure up.

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 07-21-2011, 07:40 AM   #83
guy_450
Member
guy_450 will become famous soon enough
 
guy_450's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: rive-nord de Montréal, Québec, Canada
Posts: 396

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

Ladies & gentlemen, please vote with your wallet!

New OEM solid vs my 2001 SW2 when it had only 107 540 Km / 66,823 mi - 10 years OEM(?) frownie type...



Quote:
Originally Posted by DonP View Post
It is a matter of cost-benefit and risk management. If dealing with the inconvenience of having to replace a mount (and posibly the studs) two-to-five times more often is not worth $50 to you, the frown design may be an acceptable choice. Not sure there was a significant improvement in damping with the frown design, especially given how "quiet" and smooth riding" the car is by design.

All mounts age and go bad over time. My OEM top mount lasted 10+ years, my transmission mount was fading but not bad when I replaced it at ~14 years. Even with a "lifetime warranty" the time spend in trips to the parts store, exchanging parts, installing, etc. adds up.

You pays your money and takes your choices.
+1

...
2000 SW2 5MT silver (sold, at my regrets)
2001 SW2 4AT silver (garaged)
2013 VOLT instant torque & regen braking from electric motor go so well together !!

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to guy_450's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help guy_450 reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
guy_450 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 09:22 AM   #84
alordofchaos
Super Member
alordofchaos has much to be proud ofalordofchaos has much to be proud ofalordofchaos has much to be proud ofalordofchaos has much to be proud ofalordofchaos has much to be proud ofalordofchaos has much to be proud ofalordofchaos has much to be proud ofalordofchaos has much to be proud of
 
alordofchaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Central MI
Posts: 11,767
 

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by STRNFAN93SL2 View Post
Other Random Thoughts...
Haynes and Chiltons manuals have limited value.
Yup, as anyone with a chiltons/haynes who has ever come across the phrase "This procedure is beyond the home mechanic and should be taken to a professional" (or whatever that phrase is)

Or who has cracked whatever part(s) on the S-series where there is a known typo or two in the chiltons/haynes for the torque spec

...
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 07-21-2011, 10:58 AM   #85
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 is like the Platinum Spark Plug thread.

In either case the promoter insists on 50% of the air time when 90% of the posters have reported it to be an inferior product.

Yes the promotion does drive sheep to the slaughter.

I also think it is a matter of pride for those posters to try and salvage their dignity and justify the poor decision.

I remember when this thread first started, and the poster asked for recommendations for which to use. Come to learn, the guys mind was already made up from the start so I think there were ulterior motives built into this topic as well.

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 07-21-2011, 11:03 AM   #86
richbrad08
Member
richbrad08 is on a distinguished road
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 59
Default Re: There's nothing to "frownie" about with the Anchor engine mount

i got the same mount and it solved my vibration problem.

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to richbrad08's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help richbrad08 reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
richbrad08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 11:17 AM   #87
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

It will solve your vibration problem, yes… in the beginning….

The more threads you read on this topic you will learn that its longevity is what the real issue is. When GM discovered it, they pulled the design and wrote the TSB to warn people.

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 07-21-2011, 11:24 AM   #88
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: 64,765
 

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

It is impossible to confuse some people with the facts, they have made up their minds. For Saturn to withdraw a design and issue a TSB is a pretty good clue that the 2nd design mount has serious flaws.

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 07-21-2011, 12:02 PM   #89
STRNFAN93SL2
Member
STRNFAN93SL2 is on a distinguished road
 
STRNFAN93SL2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Rustville, Minnesota
Posts: 113

1997 SW2
1996 SL2
Default Re: There's nothing to "frownie" about with the Anchor engine mount

The Great Mount Debate

Hey Signmaster, speculation was when I went down the garden path regarding how the Rev. 2 design possibly came into existence. Companies typically will only change something if there's a safety concern, design improvement or if its cheaper for them to buy. Saturn went back to Rev.1 design, so the initial change to Rev. 2 wasn't for safety or improvement, it was for cost savings. Then they realized they had a problem and went back.

My opinion happens to be the same as Saturn's. When the supplier lost the contract with GM, they had invested lots of $$$ into the frowny mount so they marketed their mount to the aftermarket companies. That company doesn't care about your car, they just want the profits. Saturn however had a reputation to uphold which is why they went back to the Rev. 1 design.

In this day and age where so many products are cheaply made, my point with any product is Lower Cost Doesn't Mean Value. BTW, the $14 mount is $23.02 when you factor in shipping. Shipping is 55% of the cost of the part. That should tell you something

Just for clarification, I wasn't personally attacking regenoldiii (although in a forum one can't tell how something is interpreted since there is no voice inflection or body language) I was disagreeing/debating his point of view and his opinion only. Could I have worded it more gently, yeah. My point is to warn other Saturn Fans that there historically has been a problem with this mount. After all, whats up for debate is the mount and NOT a Saturn Fan

Also, I never said if you install a frowny, your engine will always be damaged. But to the catastrophic failures out there, Im sure some of the Saturn owners, if they would have known, would have chosen to stick with OEM. The same can be said about aftermarket belt tensioners. Do they work, sure, but there are problems associated with them.


+1 for OEM Mount

...
Purchased new - 1993 SL2 380,000 sold - still on the road with over 420,000
1995 SL2 244,000 sold (upgraded to SW)
Friends don't let friends use FRAM!!!

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to STRNFAN93SL2's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help STRNFAN93SL2 reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
STRNFAN93SL2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 12:07 PM   #90
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldNuc View Post
It is impossible to confuse some people with the facts, they have made up their minds. For Saturn to withdraw a design and issue a TSB is a pretty good clue that the 2nd design mount has serious flaws.
Some don't read and and I think others don't see the facts until it is too late.

Then with some people a personality defect takes over because they don't want to look foolish in front of others so they argue to no end and just blind monkey cover their eyes to the logic.

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 07-21-2011, 12:21 PM   #91
guy_450
Member
guy_450 will become famous soon enough
 
guy_450's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: rive-nord de Montréal, Québec, Canada
Posts: 396

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by STRNFAN93SL2 View Post
+1 for OEM Mount
+2 OEM Mount Rev 1 (solid).
May it be possible some {extinct} Saturn or now GM dealers have Saturn rev 2 (frownie) part on the shelf or they order them from warehouse on request basis only ? Part number should be different. Just a question...

...
2000 SW2 5MT silver (sold, at my regrets)
2001 SW2 4AT silver (garaged)
2013 VOLT instant torque & regen braking from electric motor go so well together !!

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to guy_450's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help guy_450 reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
guy_450 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 12:36 PM   #92
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 OldNuc View Post
But his(STRNFAN93SL2) point is that regenoldiii never bothers to make it clear that it is only his opinion, and that this opinion is based on nothing other than the price. It so happens that many others have been down this road and found through sometimes painful and expensive experience that the cheap, low cost, aftermarket mounts do not measure up.
I do disagree... I always stated throughout the thread that I'm sure there was a good reason for Saturn to issue the TSB. On the other hand, I also point out that the TSB was issued many years ago and *most* of today's suppliers with newer technologies have continued to use the frownie design.

The Saturn SC was well known for have very poor NVH as compared to competitors and I'm sure this had something to do with Saturn's decision (given technology at the time) to replace broken frownie mounts with solid mounts... none the less, you must admit this was only a TSB and not a full-out recall.

I just wanted to post my experience and my experience was that the frownie mount does appear to be high quality (not cheap steel like others have suggested) and the rubber portion is substantial (and doesn't appear like something that would fail in a week as at least one other person suggested)... on top of that, it really, really does a great job on reducing vibration vs. my 115K mile old solid mount.

By the way, if you think I was negligently misleading people about the frownie, then take another look at one of me earlier quotes in this thread:

Quote:
The above said, I think there is a fair argument for either mount. Also, if mine fails prematurely (and I still have the car), then I will update this thread to let everyone know. At this point, though, I'm extremely happy w/ the Anchor frownie mount.

...
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 07-21-2011, 12:43 PM   #93
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 ehunter View Post
Some don't read and and I think others don't see the facts until it is too late.

Then with some people a personality defect takes over because they don't want to look foolish in front of others so they argue to no end and just blind monkey cover their eyes to the logic.
Again... I knew what I was doing before I installed this and further knew that the solid mount was less likely to be a superior vibration damper, but longevity was a question. If you read my particular situation, I place less than 5K miles a year on my Saturn and therefore have less concerns over 100K mile longevity statistics. In addition, if the solid mount was so damn good in the first place, then why did Saturn engineers change over to the frownie? It's likely because the frownie was a better vibration damper for a Saturn engine that critics decried as having very poor NVH qualities.

In the end, the Anchor frownie from RA is about one third or one forth the price of the solid mount from a dealer and there have been numerous posts in this thread of others that have a positive and reliable experiences with frownie mounts.

So, again, you can draw your own conclusion... but to claim that I was just doing this to prove a point is ridiculous. There are many factors that go into a decision... and the factors that concerned me the most lead me to believe the frownie was appropriate for MY purposes.

...
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 07-21-2011, 01:35 PM   #94
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: 64,765
 

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by guy_450 View Post
+2 OEM Mount Rev 1 (solid).
May it be possible some {extinct} Saturn or now GM dealers have Saturn rev 2 (frownie) part on the shelf or they order them from warehouse on request basis only ? Part number should be different. Just a question...
No OEM 2nd design mounts available number superseded to solid mount. Old number dead.

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 07-21-2011, 01:43 PM   #95
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 STRNFAN93SL2 View Post
The Great Mount Debate

Hey Signmaster, speculation was when I went down the garden path regarding how the Rev. 2 design possibly came into existence. Companies typically will only change something if there's a safety concern, design improvement or if its cheaper for them to buy. Saturn went back to Rev.1 design, so the initial change to Rev. 2 wasn't for safety or improvement, it was for cost savings. Then they realized they had a problem and went back.

My opinion happens to be the same as Saturn's. When the supplier lost the contract with GM, they had invested lots of $$$ into the frowny mount so they marketed their mount to the aftermarket companies. That company doesn't care about your car, they just want the profits. Saturn however had a reputation to uphold which is why they went back to the Rev. 1 design.

In this day and age where so many products are cheaply made, my point with any product is Lower Cost Doesn't Mean Value. BTW, the $14 mount is $23.02 when you factor in shipping. Shipping is 55% of the cost of the part. That should tell you something

Just for clarification, I wasn't personally attacking regenoldiii (although in a forum one can't tell how something is interpreted since there is no voice inflection or body language) I was disagreeing/debating his point of view and his opinion only. Could I have worded it more gently, yeah. My point is to warn other Saturn Fans that there historically has been a problem with this mount. After all, whats up for debate is the mount and NOT a Saturn Fan

Also, I never said if you install a frowny, your engine will always be damaged. But to the catastrophic failures out there, Im sure some of the Saturn owners, if they would have known, would have chosen to stick with OEM. The same can be said about aftermarket belt tensioners. Do they work, sure, but there are problems associated with them.
Okay, you wrote:
Quote:
Companies typically will only change something if there's a safety concern, design improvement or if its cheaper for them to buy. Saturn went back to Rev.1 design, so the initial change to Rev. 2 wasn't for safety or improvement, it was for cost savings. Then they realized they had a problem and went back.
You are mostly correct, but not completely. Sometimes a new design is better, but due to longevity concerns (i.e, cost and complaints), a manufacturer may move to an older and more reliable design. For example some European brake pad designs were superior, but due to the excessive dust created by these designs, consumers complained and manufactures relented to use other formulations that created less brake dust. Saturn had a big NVH issue as compared to its Japanese competitors and my guess is that the frownie was a vibration dampening design improvement over the solid mount, but due to some longevity (and warranty) issues, Saturn decided to revert back to the more reliable solid mount.

In my posting, I was merely stating that the mount appeared to be well built (some had suggested that the Anchor mounts were cheaply manufactured) and that once installed, the vibration dampening was immediately apparent. Note, that my car has had a rough idle for years... not weeks or months, so the solid mount on my 95 may not have been changed until 2011, but really it was not working very well for years.


You said:
Quote:
In this day and age where so many products are cheaply made, my point with any product is Lower Cost Doesn't Mean Value. BTW, the $14 mount is $23.02 when you factor in shipping. Shipping is 55% of the cost of the part. That should tell you something
Well, an NGK spark plug is about $2 bucks and shipping is more than the price of the plug... does that tell you anything?

You said:
Quote:
Just for clarification, I wasn't personally attacking regenoldiii (although in a forum one can't tell how something is interpreted since there is no voice inflection or body language) I was disagreeing/debating his point of view and his opinion only. Could I have worded it more gently, yeah. My point is to warn other Saturn Fans that there historically has been a problem with this mount. After all, whats up for debate is the mount and NOT a Saturn Fan
I didn't take it as a personal attack, but you were fairly strongly suggesting I was very negligently misleading people and there is where I disagree. I believe my previous postings (quote me if you like) stated that I agreed that there was probably a valid reason for the TSB, and the solid probably lasted longer than the frownie, but I also said my frownie was working just fine dampening engine vibration, the quality of the product appeared to be very good (high quality steel and rubber), and most of the aftermarket companies are stocking frownies rather than solids... so if frownies were so, so terrible... then wouldn't you think that eventually parts stores like RA, Advance, AZ, and Napa would stop stocking them... in fact, some have stated that even the dealers were still carrying frownie mounts. So, you tell me...

...
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 07-21-2011, 02:28 PM   #96
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: 64,765
 

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

There is NO OEM 2nd design mount in NOS. If a dealer has a 2nd design mount I would suspect that it is an aftermarket part. Dealers can sell anything they want to sell.

The aftermarket parts stores make no claims as to the suitability or quality of the part, they point at the manufacturer. The exception is for the house brands such as the NAPA lines.

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 07-21-2011, 03:18 PM   #97
alordofchaos
Super Member
alordofchaos has much to be proud ofalordofchaos has much to be proud ofalordofchaos has much to be proud ofalordofchaos has much to be proud ofalordofchaos has much to be proud ofalordofchaos has much to be proud ofalordofchaos has much to be proud ofalordofchaos has much to be proud of
 
alordofchaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Central MI
Posts: 11,767
 

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by regenoldiii View Post
... so if frownies were so, so terrible... then wouldn't you think that eventually parts stores like RA, Advance, AZ, and Napa would stop stocking them...
You would've thought that lead-painted toys wouldn't be on store shelves, either, but...

Frown mounts exist the same reason dollar store products do; someone buys them. Most times they do a job well enough, for a while, and the seller and mfr make money

If the FLAPS pays $4 for a part, sells it for $35 and replaces it 3 times under a lifetime warranty, they're still making money.

And their option is to carry this part, or none at all. They seem to all be made by Anchor, whether it come from a box from AZ or Advance, etc
Quote:
in fact, some have stated that even the dealers were still carrying frownie mounts. So, you tell me...
Dealer <> Saturn

Espeecially now that there are no Saturn dealers, only "certified/authorized Saturn service centers" - which, although I have no personal knowledge, is probably something that remaining GM dealerships could "buy" as they seem to know little of Saturns

...
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 07-21-2011, 04:02 PM   #98
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: 64,765
 

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

Anchor is the major supplier of all engine transmission mounts all over the world. The fact that what was a ~35 top mount a couple of years ago is now a ~12 mount today should tell you that it is gong away soon.

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 07-21-2011, 04:14 PM   #99
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 alordofchaos View Post
You would've thought that lead-painted toys wouldn't be on store shelves, either, but...

Frown mounts exist the same reason dollar store products do; someone buys them. Most times they do a job well enough, for a while, and the seller and mfr make money
I don't find the analogy the same... lead paint on toys isn't even legal. Frownie mounts, to my knowledge, are still completely legal. And, no, people don't knowingly buy toys w/ lead paint... just as they don't buy McDonalds hamburgers with arsenic in them... so, don't agree w/ the analogy. We're talking about a difference in *design,* not a *hidden difference* that might affect someone's health.

If you're looking for an analogy, Chaos, then the Ford Explorer Firestone tire debacle might be a good one... if people still bought those particular tires at a discount knowing that they were proven unsafe, then that's their own fault and that was due to a known design flaw that could threaten someone's life. There is no clear indication that the frownie mount is an inferior design to the solid mount... sure, there is evidence that a solid chunk of rubber lasts longer than one that isn't solid... but there is also evidence that hard urethane bushings outlast soft rubber bushings... but doubt Lexus will be moving to urethane engine mounts anytime soon.

So, Anchor is the biggest producer of mounts and Anchor has chosen the frownie design over the solid design. One must ask themselves if it's really because Anchor is just ignorant or incompetent, or is it possible that Anchor was able to get sufficient durability out of the frownie design vs. the solid design (due to modern materials and manufacturing) and because of the frownie's enhanced vibration dampening... Anchor chose the frownie design.

It just doesn't make sense to me that Saturn would have ever moved from the solid design in the first place if it wasn't for reducing NVH... that said, I don't think you can have your "cake and eat it too" on this one. Okay, the solid mount has better longevity (and the TSB points this out), but the frownie must have had better vibration reduction or Saturn would have never bothered updating the design in the first place.

...
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 07-21-2011, 04:27 PM   #100
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: 64,765
 

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

Anchor makes what you pay them to make. DEA, among others, is the supplier of the 2nd design mount.

And, FYI white lead is still commonly available and easily purchased. Just not used in commonly available paint.

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
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 11:13 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.