Hi Guys,

Thanks for the interest and thanks to Chad for his diligence in testing the parts.

The 901 SS Transmission Beam is available in two ways. You send your beam in for conversion (or exchange) - in which case it comes back looking like the one in Chad's car, blasted and black 60% gloss powder coated. Alternatively, we ship you the weldments, the other components in the assembly and the drawing and you modify your transmission mount beam yourself - which is fairly simple for those who enjoy fabrication tasks, or shops who don't want the down-time.

In either case, the beam is the O.E. unit (901.305.031.02) that was used on most 901 transmissions (at least in 911's) - with simple modification and parts added.

As Chad mentioned, the original units are NLA from Porsche, your alternatives are to use the best old part you can find, sacrifice a pair of new engine mounts and attempt to rebuild the O.E. part, modify to solid (several options) or now this alternative.

The main difference to the O.E. part is 1) it's available, 2) it offers better location of the transmission and engine without any metal-to-metal contact.

It is the same weight as the original part.

This is for 901 only (weldments are OK for 930 too actually), all 915's use the replaceable mounts - same as the engine mounts.

Regards

Hayden

I haven't seen the price in this thread, but the Wevo part will be a lot less work than making an adaptor to use the 915 bar (which has replaceable mounts). If anybody has minimal machine shop skills and wants to modify the 915 bar, you can search for my thread on this. You need to make some measurements, drill and tap holes... nothing fancy, but it will take a few hours. The steel plate I used added a bit of wt.

I wish Wevo would make some Al cross bars for our cars - the G50 mounts could serve as a model. This is about the least important place on the car to save wt., but still...

Hayden - I like Randy's idea - I second it wholeheartedly, because the trans mount is a heavy part. Also, can you build replica aluminum cross members. I'm sure more people than just myself who crave lightweight parts would be interested in a part that is lighter and built as well if not better than from PAG.

Thanks. SmileWavy

dd, Why Aluminum?

Take a hole-saw to your steel cross-bar/motor-mount

Repost: (from years ago)

Tyson, you're kill'n me. ;) . ..

Also, you know that mod' (read: hole saw holes) you did to the rear carrier arm (motor-mount span). It became quite the topic of discussion. So much so that I did a quick computer stress analysis of your modification (which is why the laptop was in front of me in the above group picture.)
Before:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads/crossbarNh.jpg

After:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads/CROSSBAR.JPG

Hmmmm; I guess your thinking was right. . .if it's good enough for an RSR . . .

Yikes! That's frightening. Why aluminum? Of what place are you asking - the tranny mount or X-member.

In either case, aluminum because my own metabolism is slowing down - so it's either me or the car that has to lose weight. :D

Seriously though, if Hayden can produce a good replacement piece for the 915 transmission cross member and also one for the front cross member, I'd be interested.

Saw holes in stress pieces is not an option for me.

Ah, the transmission cross member.

fwiw, I've seen the transmission cross members punched full of lightening holes (as above) to good effect.

The thing is, those steel pieces get rigidity from the shape. Proper placement of lightening holes is not taking away a lot from either the stiffness, or strength of the structure. (look at all of the"open space" of say an old railroad bridge . ..for example)

Windrush have looked at both the engine mount beam and the transmission mount beam.

As a generalization - I believe steel is the correct material for both pieces - and the factory uses about the right amount of steel for both.
The fact that you can remove some material - actually very little by weight - shows how relatively efficient these parts are.

When you see how twisted and bent some of the transmission beams are, from various off-road excursions, or workshop indescretions, you realize that the ductility of steel is well deployed.

I have no doubt we could do an aluminum version of both, with nominal weight savings - but on a very poor $/lbs ratio that would attract more criticism than critical acclaim.

There are still more projects than time.....

Regards

Hayden

And - of course - the wt. data for the engine crossbars is at Rennlight.com -- the holes don't really save much wt.

A lot more wt. could be saved with the engine support cradle that the Xbar mounts to.

Somebody send me an Al G50 trans mount and I'll weigh it. Your contributions to the Church of Light (Weight) might just be tax deductable.

I sort of get the idea of "harmonics" and the use of solid mounts. But given the inherent strength of stock 911 parts inside the engine and transmission, isn't the fear of solid motor and transmission mounts a bit overblown? What I'm trying to do, actually, is make a case against solid motor/tranny mounts.

in this case "harmonics" isn't a strength issue, so much. Rather it's a comfort issue.

Sure, some motels chage for that qtr-operated vibe-bed. . .and some pay.
But a long road-trip, in a harmonic 911, where the seat vibe never goes away, is just as annoying as trying to sleep in a vibe-bed stuck on vibe. (or something like that)

...or "someone" like that. :D

Richard Parr says it will bounce the jets out of his carbs...

I'll bet the silastic or whatever they are using is pretty stiff for long wavelengths (cornering shifting).

Just so there is no confusion, Windrush are not marketing the SS mount products with any mention of destructive harmonics, or laying blame on solid engine or transmission mounts for any accumulated wear, impending damage, nuclear fallout, shagged out parrots, etc.

The SS products offer an alternative to either solid, or O.E. mounts. The solid mounts have a reasonably linear - very high stiffness, low displacment, the O.E. mounts are totally non-linear and have significant displacements. The WEVO product walks through the gap between them.

I have heard many stories about vibration, not all of them in Porsche cars. I have been victim to them, both as a motorist and as a Race Engineer. Bottom line - we can not substantiate the improvements with what we know. We can not afford the laboratory testing that would provide hard data about the vibrations in a car with the variety of engine mount designs. If we did have hard data - who could adequately process it into predictions about damage, deterioration etc?

On my own car - Did I change the Solid Engine Mounts (WEVO Proto's from 1998) of my own design for the SS Engine mounts of my own design ? - you bet.

Regards

Hayden

Well Hayden - as harmonics go - vibration really - when I speak to someone inside my car (not often, mind you) my voice sounds as if I'm forging the chasm between boyhood and becoming a man. :D

Solid mounts are not for everyone, I imagine.

I've heard that before about PMOs. I've always wondered if it isn't a problem with the carbs themselves more so the mounts. I've heard no one complain about Webers and solid mounts, and I'm sure there are a few of those combinations running around these days.

"shagged out parrots..."

- What exactly are you guys doing in San Carlos?

Or do you have an R&D facility in West Hollywood?

Just to set the record straight I have seen no Shagged out parrots in San Carlos, nor have I seen Hayden and I live in San Carlos!!

:)

Hayden, are you in a position to announce prices and shipping weights for these yet?

these will fit early apps as well? (such as a '67)

I still have the old rubber blocks...

I'm only asking because I can't keep all the trans pieces straight.

sjd

It will fit any 911 with a 901 transmission in it.