Engine shock-absorber..

[ptt]

While replacing the Harmonic Balancer I broke the bolt and nut off the little shock-damper on the front of the engine in front of the HB. Is this a replacable unit? Who would have a new one as I only do used parts as a last resort. Thanks.

[Guest Mc_Reatta]

Supposedly a new replacement is available from Mercedes Benz as they used them on many of their vehicles. Might try doing a search to see what the correct PN would be, or what models and years MB used the same one.

[NCReatta]

I'd caution you about driving it without it there. A customer of mine said he cracked two exhaust manifolds after he left it off when he changed the HB.

I have several good used ones available. PM me if interested.

Sent from my mobile device using Forum Runner

[DAVES89]

Jon [63viking] has one from Mercedes Benz. I believe he shared the info with kdirk...

[SeanR]

The 88's dont have this shock mount correct? At least on mine I didnt have it when looking at other years at a car show.

[D-a-n-i-e-l]

I'd caution you about driving it without it there. A customer of mine said he cracked two exhaust manifolds after he left it off when he changed the HB.

I have several good used ones available. PM me if interested.

Sent from my mobile device using Forum Runner

By no means am I saying it is not important, but I have not used one on my SCed motor for five years, and I have had no issues.

[ptt]

I used to see them on 4cyl turbo Lebarons. The were called bobble-struts and were on the firewall side of the tranverse 4cyl engines. Might even still have a few in my archives. Be great if they would fit. I wonder if a rod threded on both ends would at least keep the exhaust manifolds from cracking from movement until I can find one. Thoughts?

[D-a-n-i-e-l]

OK just my three cents. There is no way an exhaust manifold would crack due to missing this piece. I have ran for over five years without one an have not even stressed any part of the manifold. Now it may help reduce stress on the rest of the drive train but by itself there is no way it causes a manifold crack. OK maybe if all the other mounts are completely gone.

[Machiner 55]

I have to agree with Daniel. Although it's been only a year and a half since I put the '88 engine in the '89, (the '89 "blew up") I've noticed nothing unusual running without the absorber.

Had the '88 had the absorber and or the mount for one it (it had neither) I would have transferred it to the '89. When I did the change out, I'd thought that one of the PO's had removed it. But here I find out the '88's never came with one.

Let me introduce myself in the photo below entitled "Ta Da!".

Edited September 18, 2012 by Machiner 55 (see edit history)

[NCReatta]

OK just my three cents. There is no way an exhaust manifold would crack due to missing this piece. I have ran for over five years without one an have not even stressed any part of the manifold. Now it may help reduce stress on the rest of the drive train but by itself there is no way it causes a manifold crack. OK maybe if all the other mounts are completely gone.

Yeah, I was kinda having a hard time believing him. I had mine removed for a few hundred miles with no problems. That's just what the dude said. I'm under the impression that he had another problem as well.

Sent from my mobile device using Forum Runner

[padgett]

Logic says only the rear manifold collector outlet could be stressed and that only if the exhaust system is solid rather than rubber mounted.

That said a different allied question about an 88: which motor mount if sagging could strain the dogbone please ?

[Guest Mc_Reatta]

That said a different allied question about an 88: which motor mount if sagging could strain the dogbone please ?

Can you determine whether the dog bone is being subjected more to compression, tension, or torsion? Looking at any deformation of the retaining bolt holes or stress cracks in the bone should give a clue as to how the link is stressed.

If deformed outwards I would suspect the rear lower tranny mount, inwards the front lower mount, or up and down, the side tranny mount.

[padgett]

It is in compression.

[jonlabree]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

GM is NOT the kind of car Co to put on a part that was not needed.

[Guest Mc_Reatta]

It is in compression.

Then if the rear tranny mount is seated correctly, I would surmise the lower front engine mount is not supporting the engine adequately, allowing the motor to roll forward putting the dog bone into compression.

Of course it they're anything like wheel bearings, that may be just the opposite from the truth

[Guest Corvanti]

the dang engine shock absorber was not put on without a reason why! it would make more sense for GM to cut costs if the '88 had one and later models didn't if it was not necessary...

[Machiner 55]

Just my take on the matter.

In my earlier post I was just stating some facts.

I agree with Corvanti that the timeline trend towards the use of the absorber as opposed to not using one, logically dictates that one should be installed and in use. I was going install the '89s S.A. bracket on the '88 engine and use the S.A. originally installed on the 89. But, the absorber was shot, kaput, FUBAR. It would have just been sitting there looking pretty and not doing a damn thing other than taking up space and adding weight. I asked myself at the time, "I wonder how long it'd been like that". Had I not pulled the engine, it would still be in there doing a whole lot of nothing. So, I didn't put it on or try to get another at that time. (ended up being never) As I mentioned earlier, I've noticed no adverse effects running without the S.A. Also, since I'm a Mechanic by trade (not an Auto Mechanic) I usually don't go around rebuilding machines while leaving a pile of parts lying about that I feel the engineering / design group "unnecessarily" decided to include. For example, there's that third nut under the ICM bracket that's a PITA to get at. I always put it back on. Others post that they don't and have suffered no ill effects.

Anyway...

There's something I want all of those who have the original twenty plus year old absorber still on their car. Go out and take it off and check and see if it still does what it was designed to do. You might just find that it's not doing a damn thing except going along for the ride (taking up space and adding weight) . That would seem to make the point moot that you just gotta have in there doing something when in reality, it's been sitting there doing nothing.

Probably for years.

On another note... every time I tell someone I'm a "Mechanic" their assumption is that I work on cars. Although I do, (my own) that's not what I do for a living. Below, I've included photos of some of the machines that I do work on. We are what they refer to in the industry as Maintainers. Not Mechanics or Operators. You want a Mechanic, look in the yellow pages. You want an Operator, pick up a phone and hit "O".

John F.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Machiner 55
Added afterthought, clarification and photos. (see edit history)

[Machiner 55]

Bump.

[padgett]

Back when the world was young I designed a digital feed-back control PID system for large 1000-1200 ton aluminum die casting machines that used both IR and fiber optics. In 1974. Went into production and reduced scrap by 1/3. Union complained about the work speed-up.

[Guest Mc_Reatta]

Calling this a shock absorber is a misnomer. These are vibration dampers. In developing the chassis for the 88, testing did not reveal the need for this damper despite the way the engine is mounted in the car. The accessory side of the motor is cantilevered, (hangs free) as the mounts are only in the center of the motor and on the drivers side. Some time after the car took to the rode, people probably started to notice that under certain circumstances the car exhibited vibrations that were noticeable when compared to other cars like the Allante and MB luxury competitors. It was decided to spend the extra money to improve the car's ride and the solution was the same as MB used, adding a vibration damper. (Too bad they didn't have such an easy solution to cowl shake in the verts.)

Since there isn't a critical need for this damper there was no need to retrofit it in the 88s.

I think what John says is true, very few of these dampers are functioning as originally specified. But there is no need to panic whether you are missing one or it's not working correctly. If I lived in an area where the roads are in bad condition or unimproved I would track one down and install it, but for most of us driving on paved roads, this item is not something I would lose any sleep over.

Has anyone checked to see if the mounting holes for the brackets are present on the 88 engine and chassis so it would be a bolt in upgrade to an 88, or some drilling and tapping would be necessary? (An interesting project for an 88 owner driving unimproved roads so that he can lose more points in judging at a show.:eek:)

[Guest Mc_Reatta]

I'm a Mechanic by trade (not an Auto Mechanic) On another note... every time I tell someone I'm a "Mechanic" their assumption is that I work on cars. a living.We are what they refer to in the industry as Maintainers. Not Mechanics or Operators. You want a Mechanic, look in the yellow pages.

In the English vernacular, mechanic has come to refer to someone who works on vehicles. (Autos most common, but boats, airplanes, locomotives are included too.) You should have been called a machiner, machinist, or machinic, but for some reason the outside two never took off, and the middle one was claimed by metal workers and cutters as their own before you woke up. (We don't call people who make intricate items out of wood woodists do we? They are wood workers, cutters or carvers. Calling your profession a maintenance person only relays the field function of your profession but not the original developer and assemblers of a machine at the factory. I would suggest you start a movement to call yourself and you peers machiners and see if you can get a following going before you lose the chance.

I can sympathize quite well as I am an engineer by trade, but have never once driven a real train or worn a striped cap and overalls at work. Go figure.

[padgett]

Keep in mind that the mount system changed from 88 to 89, 88 does not have the aluminum cradle that goes over the end cover on the driver's side.

[Machiner 55]

I would suggest you start a movement to call yourself and you peers machiners and see if you can get a following going before you lose the chance.

Yah, maybe I should but, if I start going around stirring things up and try to change the way people think and do things on a grand scale, I'll probably start being referred to as a Bolshevik.

John F.

[ol' yeller]

Has anyone checked to see if the mounting holes for the brackets are present on the 88 engine and chassis so it would be a bolt in upgrade to an 88, or some drilling and tapping would be necessary? QUOTE]

At the Portland Chapter's show we had several Reattas of different years so we checked out some of the differences we heard about. On SeanR's 88 there was no provision at all for the dampner. On the later cars, the frame mount was welded, not bolted, and his had no mount at all. It would be possible to add this to an "88 but given that the mount would need to be cut off a later model and then welded onto the '88, I see little advantage for the amount of effort required.