Barry Johnson

JHowell,
I agree with you for the most part, but wanted to let you know (in case you didn't) that the anchor mounts use a shim to make up the height difference.
Another thing to add to your counter-argument is what its worth to someone to replace the cheaper mount more frequently than the expensive one...

In my opinion, even if the anchor mounts need to be replaced 4 times as often (I have no idea!), thats cool with me. Its a great excuse to get under the car on a "regular basis" (like we don't already...) and check things out while you're digging in to that part of the car. I'd be able to keep a better eye on my steering rack and oil leaks and maybe do a flex plate check too. Yeah, it takes more time, but I'd probably have a car in better shape!

ROG100

Ryan,
The reason the hydraulic MM's fail is because they leak and very quickly.
Every MM I have checked that is Porsche is collapsed - never seen a good one. That does not mean there are some out there.
You only have to look at the cross section to see why a Porsche MM with no water in it is no good.
Pre 83 cars had solid rubber MM's and most are still good today. A solid worn MM is 50 times better than a collapsed hydraulic. My MM's are $37 each and Porsche is $310.

I have never used spacers on the MM. Personal choice but I have never seen why it matters. I do not think it makes a difference either way.

RyanPerrella

Roger,

I get the anchor Vs porsche , but i have hydraulic autozone or anchor mounts in my car.

Also the earlier cars used a solid mount, but they also had a separate dampener as well. Do you run the dampened with the solid mounts?

ROG100

Ryan,
My thoughts are that the hydraulic design (Porsche or Anchor) is flawed. The idea of better vibration attenuation with a liquid filled MM v a solid is a good principal. They just did not figure they would leak so quickly.
Does your engine still rock side to side when you rev it? If it does you are good to go. How did you know they were hydraulic? Anchor uses the same Pt Number for solid and hydraulic. That is why I no longer use Anchor MM's.

The dampers on the earlier cars have very little effect on the feel of the car and most are shot anyway. I have changed them on my early cars and noticed no improvement at all.

RyanPerrella

The mounts i got from autozone are hydraulic as i heard them slosh

So you have encountered the anchor hydraulic type (i keep saying anchor event though thats just a common supplier) also fail and leak and collapse?

I don't think my engine moves when i rev it, i haven't been looking lately, but I will check.

The engine was running real rough and the whole car was shaking a couple months ago when it was decided thanks to you to change out the old gas. That was the only time the engine was shaking.

Also you say if my engine is rocking side to side its good, well isnt the mount supposed to dampen this rocking? I know the engine will rotate slightly because of the engine torque moving the engine against the chassis, but it shouldnt really be rocking, it should be pretty smooth no?

ROG100

If the MM's are collapsed the engine is sitting on the X member.
The MM's allow the engine to move about its own axis and isolate the engine from the car.

As for Anchor Hydraulic v solid - there was a period of time where people did not know what they had in the car as it was a crap shoot whether you got hydraulic or solid. I may have hydraulic anchors in my GTS - they still feel good compared to the collapsed originals.

Bill Ball

I replaced my original mounts at about 110K miles/13 years. They were not collapsed, but I was doing the pan gasket, so it was a WYAIT thing. I used the Porsche mounts at $195 each from DEVEK at the time. 80K miles and 6 years later I still can't get a finger between the safety hooks. So, yes, there are some out there. That being said, I have used your mounts on other peoples' cars. So far, so good.