Benedict. Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Does anyone know why the LH K-series engine mount for 2004 onwards is 4mm shorter than previous / non-dateed version 🤔 I can't see a corresponding RH mount that's 4mm longer, so wondering what changed. My car is pre 2004 but my engine was fitted post 2004, so wondering if the blocks may be slightly different 🤔 Cheers, Ben Edited by - _Benedict_ on 20 Feb 2013 16:40:51 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Area Representative Paul Richards Posted February 20, 2013 Area Representative Share Posted February 20, 2013 Got me baffled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k.russell Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Fitting the vibratechnics mounts to my car and whilst speaking to them it was suggested that early engine mounts were jag parts, cc then had them remanufactured differently. This may be where there is a difference in size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zetec Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Big washers will sort that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankee Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Looking at the links, one of them is for an S3 and the other is for an SV. Oddly, it's the SV version that says "4mm shorter than the original bracket". Maybe there was a change to the chassis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k.russell Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 My reference was to the rubberised mounts rather than the brackets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankee Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Yes, Phil at Vibra-Technics mentioned exactly the same thing to me about the origins of the Caterham K-series engine mount rubbers. I can't see how having a shorter or taller engine mount rubber would cause a difference in the length of the engine mount bracket though? Maybe I'm reading the descriptions incorrectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Area Representative Paul Richards Posted February 20, 2013 Area Representative Share Posted February 20, 2013 Doh!! Didn't spot one was for an SV and one for a S3. Still strange that it appears SV mounts were shortened. Perhaps originals were a poor fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedict. Posted February 20, 2013 Author Share Posted February 20, 2013 Quoting Paul Richards: Doh!! Didn't spot one was for an SV and one for a S3. Still strange that it appears SV mounts were shortened. Perhaps originals were a poor fit. Doh! indeed, neither did I - that's what comes of going straight to the parts from the (very good, it has to be said) search facility. It may well remain a mystery why the SV's mount was shortened, but at least I now know which one (NOT) to get  Cheers, Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedict. Posted February 20, 2013 Author Share Posted February 20, 2013 OK, so next question (unless I've missed something obvious again!): Why is the SV one significantly cheaper - you'd think ther was more material in that, as well as the economies of scale working the other way 🤔 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now