Sorry if this is a repost (search engine down) but I just ran accross these and I wasn't sure it was "function" or "fashion". Any experiences with these?

 

They are function.

Although I would venture to say that engine mounts/inserts would be a better way to limit engine movement.

IT rules do not allow for engine mount inserts, however they do allow for 1 "engine stayrod."

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jisu009 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
IT rules do not allow for engine mount inserts, however they do allow for 1 "engine stayrod."
</TD></TR></TABLE>

That's why I'm curious.

 

however, thats not a "stayrod", its a damper.

however, replace that damper with a regular turnbuckle, then its legal.

 

I was thinking about this very question the other day, while stripping the new shell...

What if the stayrod were bent - like a leaf spring - rather than a straight, rigid tube?

K

 

then its a spring? like a leaf SPRING?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Knestis &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

What if the stayrod were bent - like a leaf spring - rather than a straight, rigid tube?

</TD></TR></TABLE>

What if my shock somehow got squished during a race and the reservoir popped out and bolted itself to the chassis, attached with a hose?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Chris Sawatsky &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

What if my shock somehow got squished during a race and the reservoir popped out and bolted itself to the chassis, attached with a hose? </TD></TR></TABLE>

Dude, thatd be awesome!

 

I'm running an Ingalls Engine Torque Damper on my Integra and I'm very pleased with it. I was their R&D car, so I've been using it all season. It features adjustable dampening, and well designed and tested mounting brackets (on account of me breaking their first two prototype designs ). Although it's meant mostly for drag racers, I find that it helps the tires to hook up better coming out of tight turns. However, I am putting down 226 ft-lbs of torque to the wheels, so it may not be noticable with a typical motor. Either way, I'm very pleased to have it on my race car, and I feel that it is part of the reason that the car performs on the level that it does.

 

$340.00 for the Ingalls unit - ouch

So does "stayrod" mean "non dampening"? Meaning, once installed it does not have any movement (compressing/depressing)? ...just confused

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jisu009 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">IT rules do not allow for engine mount inserts, however they do allow for 1 "engine stayrod."</TD></TR></TABLE>

That's maybe #1 of the stupid rules still in the IT rulebook. I can install an "engine stayrod" but I can't just put in some nice, cheap, and easy motor mount inserts that will do the same thing?

 

Do you run the Ingalls Engin Torque Damper in conjunction with stiffer motor mounts? Or do you run the stock mounts.

So the concept of the engine damper is to dampen/reduce the movements of the engine. It seems like stiffer motor mounts are designed for the same purpose. What is the advantage of an engine damper vs stiff motor mounts?

 

I had one of those on my 1980 Pontiac. GM called it a torque strut. the 2.5L 4 banger *needed* one. I shredded 2 while I owned that car. It had lots of low end grunt.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by madhatter &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I had one of those on my 1980 Pontiac. GM called it a torque strut. the 2.5L 4 banger *needed* one. I shredded 2 while I owned that car. It had lots of low end grunt.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Volvo 5-cylinders have one as well - "engine stabilizer."



The factory units self-destruct in something like 30-40k miles. Usually a warranty repair, but I bought the pimpy blue poly replacement from IPD.

 

THAT looks like a more reasonable solution that some stupid little damper thing that probably can't react quickly enough to keep up with the frequency of engine vibration.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ITACRX &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">$340.00 for the Ingalls unit - ouch

So does "stayrod" mean "non dampening"? Meaning, once installed it does not have any movement (compressing/depressing)? ...just confused</TD></TR></TABLE>

MSRP is high, but the actual price you'll find is around $150. Try http://www.CorSportUSA.com

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RPM &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Do you run the Ingalls Engin Torque Damper in conjunction with stiffer motor mounts? Or do you run the stock mounts.

So the concept of the engine damper is to dampen/reduce the movements of the engine. It seems like stiffer motor mounts are designed for the same purpose. What is the advantage of an engine damper vs stiff motor mounts?</TD></TR></TABLE>

I do have motor mount inserts as well, but they just increased vibration a lot and didn't make much of an improvement. I saw a big improvement when we installed the Ingalls damper.

Edit: Another thing I should point out is that the brackets shown for the "NR&gt;G" damper above are not going to hold up... They look like a bad knock-off of the first Ingalls prototype, and my engine tore that in half pretty quickly. The problem was that the upper bracket had a 90-degree bend it in, and it was only attached to the car with that one UCA bolt. It would rotate slightly around the UCA bolt, which changed the angle of the load on the bracket and fatigued the metal along the bend until it cracked. The first two prototypes were like this and neither survived. The solution was something almost flat (no 90-degree bend) and attached to the car with two bolts. The new design stands up to my abuse like it's nothing, and that's what made it to production.

If you look at the "NR&gt;G" install picture above, with the "hyper 16 valve" engine, you can see that the cheap upper bracket is at least flat, but it's at an angle for some silly reason, so it's going to rotate around that UCA bolt a lot. We saw bracket rotation when the load was almost straight to the UCA bolt; just imagine how much it would rotate when the load is that far to the side.


Modified by Weston at 11:30 AM 9/20/2005

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tnord &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">THAT looks like a more reasonable solution that some stupid little damper thing that probably can't react quickly enough to keep up with the frequency of engine vibration. </TD></TR></TABLE>

That little **** will see speeds around like 33 in/s @ 8000 rpm. Not crazy, but a lot for a little damper. My guess is they filled a tube with water and charge you $300 for it.

 

if you made a "stayrod", and instead of a spherical heim joint, you put an elastic (rubber) bushing on one or both ends, then is that still considered a "stayrod"?

i think thats how you build a legal engine "stayrod" built to limit the engine's movement.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Weston &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I do have motor mount inserts as well, but they just increased vibration a lot and didn't make much of an improvement. I saw a big improvement when we installed the Ingalls damper.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

So per your first post the advantage of the engine damper was that helped you hook up on corner exit. Did the damper reduce cabin vibrations at idle?

 

It most likely uses a hard rubber material as a filler on the inside. An engine damper is going to increase nvh in the cabin, if anything.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by madhatter &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I had one of those on my 1980 Pontiac. GM called it a torque strut. the 2.5L 4 banger *needed* one. I shredded 2 while I owned that car. It had lots of low end grunt.</TD></TR></TABLE>

It's also similar to the "bobble strut" used on Chrysler products (though that attaches to the transaxle rather than the engine). It's not meant to damp high frequency vibrations, it damps gross engine movements like jumping on and off the throttle.

 

older model accords (or maybe preludes) have an engine brace going over the top of the intake manifold braced to the firewall.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RPM &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

So per your first post the advantage of the engine damper was that helped you hook up on corner exit. Did the damper reduce cabin vibrations at idle?</TD></TR></TABLE>

I didn't notice any change in vibrations, but I already had some from the motor mount inserts. The Ingalls guys tell me that I should get some vibrations from the damper on the full stiff setting, but it can be adjusted to be softer, or you can even temporarily disconnect it pretty easily.

 

Car companies have been doing this for a while.

Toyota and GM have experimented with "engine dampers" which actually looked and acted just like a conventional car shock.

I wonder if a shock dyno would be overkill...

-s