Any one know why Honda civics use hydraulic filled driver side mounts and integra uses more of an HASPORT/ innovative driver side mount set up? I drove an Acura and noticed how firm the engine feels to be held in place compared to civic and not just my civic but every 6th gen civic I drove. I could hardly feel the engine move in the acura. Why did they use different mounts in the first place? They have to be stiffer than EK mounts just by looking at them.
EK & DC mounts Difference
- Thread starter DavidR
- Start date
Integras are designed to take more than a Civic because its a sportier car all-around whereas the Civic is all about fuel efficiency & reliability. Sportier means having a little more stiffness to better support the added "pep", so to speak.
I still think the si should have came with similar mounts at least the si.Integras are designed to take more than a Civic because its a sportier car all-around whereas the Civic is all about fuel efficiency & reliability. Sportier means having a little more
stiffness to better support the added "pep", so to speak.
It would've been nice but at the expense of added production costs for not only the part but a tweak to the already existing engine mount layout. Albeit it that it sounds like a small tweak but it just may not have been deemed worthy of the added production cost, and uptick in per unit sale price.
MotorMo
Respected
The transmission upper mount is different, and would need the accompanying trans bracket for interchangeability between the DC and EK chassis.
The rear mount is different as well, as it is bolted on to the EK sub frame, which sits closer to the engine, thus needing a different smaller rear T-Bracket.
All the main mounts are different.
When I swapped out my 97 hatch sub frame and steering rack for a complete DC2 set up, I noticed how much longer the rear T-Bracket was. Made me wonder about the how the shorter T-Bracket (EK set up) would have less torque (stress and flex) transferred to the mount than the longer DC2 set up. Thus putting more torque where you want it. Maby they were able to get away with a fluid filled mount, with out tearing, due to the shorter rear mount set up.
But I hear ya, I just finished stuffing a B18C engine in my EJ6- and it does not have the same feed back as the DC2 chassis.
I'm guessing the EK9's motor mounts have the same part numbers as a 2000 Civic Si.?
I've found installing just the two front/lower torque mount inserts from Energy Suspension is enough to do the trick with out being over the top. They're inexpensive and easy to take in and out.
The rear mount is different as well, as it is bolted on to the EK sub frame, which sits closer to the engine, thus needing a different smaller rear T-Bracket.
All the main mounts are different.
When I swapped out my 97 hatch sub frame and steering rack for a complete DC2 set up, I noticed how much longer the rear T-Bracket was. Made me wonder about the how the shorter T-Bracket (EK set up) would have less torque (stress and flex) transferred to the mount than the longer DC2 set up. Thus putting more torque where you want it. Maby they were able to get away with a fluid filled mount, with out tearing, due to the shorter rear mount set up.
But I hear ya, I just finished stuffing a B18C engine in my EJ6- and it does not have the same feed back as the DC2 chassis.
I'm guessing the EK9's motor mounts have the same part numbers as a 2000 Civic Si.?
I've found installing just the two front/lower torque mount inserts from Energy Suspension is enough to do the trick with out being over the top. They're inexpensive and easy to take in and out.