MAD_MIKE

We all know there are a few differences between the AT and MT mounts on F22 cars.

Engine mount left side is the same.

Firewall mount is different, MTs use a steel stand under the mount. ATs have a fluid filled solenoid operated bellow that allows for smooth idle in gear.

Transmission mounts are different between AT and MT due to the physical differences between the MT and AT cases.

Honda names the front mount as 'STOPPER, FR. ENGINE'. Which I have always thought of the front mount as more of a travel limiter rather than an actual 'mount'. So this make sense to me. However when purchasing a new front mount I found that there are two different part numbers for AT and MT.

50840-SV4-980 STOPPER, FR. ENGINE (AT) $48.97 $33.79
50840-SV4-000 STOPPER, FR. ENGINE (MT) $48.97 $33.79

The dealer didn't have both units in stock, and would only order up the unit I would need. Honda parts diagrams are not overly detailed so there was not an easy way to confirm what the actual differences are.
Both AT and MT cars use the same front engine bracket.
50826-SV4-000 BRACKET, FR. ENGINE MOUNTING $23.37 $16.13

The two decent pictures of the mounts I could find were from Anchor.

#8432 MT


#8026 AT


Note how the webbing of the MT mount is thicker and spaced more, but the AT mount seems to have more room before stopping engine movement.

The front stopper is done on my '95 EX, and I wouldn't mind getting something a bit firmer, but don't want to use the ES inserts that tend to vibrate the switches out of the dash.

Has anyone used the MT front stopper rather than the AT front stopper on an AT car? Did the MT mount induce any unwanted vibrations over the AT mount while the car was stopped and in gear?

T.I.A.

NZXTInerTia

YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING!

This must be the reason my car rocks so dang much with the automatic mount. It lurches and its quite annoying, keep in mind I have a brand new rear mount and an energy suspension spacer. Looks like I'll be replacing my front mount..

MAD_MIKE

HAH! Yeah, I was a bit surprised to find a difference. I'm guessing the stopper is a bit on the limp wristed side since the drivetrain is always loaded, unlike the MT.

My only concern is if the geometry is different, but I think there is just a larger radius in the metal bracket. Found a store nearby that has both Anchor mounts, going to go there tomorrow to compare.

DeadlockRiff

I'd be quite interested to know because I'm doing the swap now.

chrisnick

Holy crap, thats a lot of air in there.

If I make it to the junkyard this weekend instead of boozing, I'll check them out, too.

MAD_MIKE

Problem solved, now your hands are free.

Welp, went and checked out the two mounts. Dimensionally equal and the amount of rubber used to vulcanize the crush sleeve to the outer body was the same.
What the two images don't show is that the MT mound has an oblong crush sleeve.


At the center of the sleeve the hole is round ~1/8" but that's it.

The through bolt is the same part number(90176-SM4-010).
My current crap shot theory is that the 'crush sleeve' may not be clamped in either application. I didn't really look on my own car, and am too lazy to get up at the moment to look. The front 'stopper' may simply be to locate and partially reduce movement.
EDIT: Man I love the strike feature. So the crush sleeve is clamped by the front bracket. Why the MT mount(by Anchor) has the oblong hole, no idea. Now if someone does pull a Honda MT mount out that would be nice to look at. I'll have the old Honda AT one out probably tomorrow./EDIT

NZXTInerTia I was looking at my front mount, I knew it was worn, but it is actually fairly fubard, but can only be seen when a decent load is placed on the mount. With an MT car this may be nearly impossible to witness when attempting to load the drivetrain.
EDIT: Looked at the front mount again, it is thrashed, can totally see it separated when the engine is idling. OOMPF/EDIT

MAD_MIKE

Just verifying torque specs here.

Through bolt/crush sleeve - 47lbft
Mount bolts - 69lbft
Engine mount bracket - 28lbft

Strangely, some literature I found online stated that the through bolts should be 'replaced'. I'm guessing they have a locking compound on the threads.

NZXTInerTia

If I remember correctly the bracket has a welded nut on the drivers side?

MAD_MIKE

Yup. Makes life easy.

MAD_MIKE

Had the mount replaced in 30mins, hardest part was finding tools.

Loosened the through bolt(re-install to 47lbft)
Removed the three engine bracket mount bolts(re-install to 28lbft)
Removed the through bolt
*mount falls apart*
Unbolted mount from front beam.(re-install to 69lbft)
14mm deep, or reg socket with a stubby 1" extension to clear the extruded bends on the mount plate.
17mm regular socket for the through bolt.
14 or 15mm with universal and 20" extension for the mount to front beam bolts.You will need to use a universal to get around the right mount bolt. Or when facing the car it is the left bolt, closest to the battery.

No need to remove fans which I've read about.
No need to jack up the engine. If you do have to support the engine albeit the engine or trans mount is shot.

Getting the torque wrench on the through bolt was a PITA as the upper rad hose gets in the way of the fat handle.

NZXTInerTia The mount was completely apart. It came out in three pieces, the crush sleeve with one of the rubber legs, a rubber leg, and the outside steel stamping. I was a bit surprised it was as fubar as it was.
This was the original mount and had a small section in the center of the crush sleeve with a reduced diameter for the bolt.
Movement and noise when place into gear is gone, however when cruising and I snap the throttle closed before an upshift the engine will still clunk.

I get to diagnose the rear mount now... yaaaaaaaaaaay

NZXTInerTia

Which we all know is just a wonderful task to dig into....