Honda Insight Forum banner

281 - 300 of 310 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Same brand/part number as what I used. Reading my older posts, I wrote that the gap between inserts and housing was 3mm. If convenient, you should take an actual measurement of the housing hole in your OEM mount and your new DIY mount, and outside diameter of your inserts with the 'tube' inserted, post back so we know why you have a potential clearance issue...



You might. But like I said, you can bore the tube hole to compensate. I'd try what you have first though. It's not difficult to install the mount - I must have done it at least a dozen times when I was dialing-in this mod...


Just measure how much 'tube' you have sticking out beyond the inserts and add about 1mm - that's the thickness for the washers.
I installed the mount last night, and drove the car about an hour to school. To be quite frank, I didn't notice any major difference in the performance. I have a good rear motor mount on my car, so my point of comparison is with a proper OEM feel. With that said, I still get the launching rumble at around 1000-1400 rpm just like the old mount. However, the mid range in the other gears feels slightly different. Say 1500-1700 rpm when in second under load feels different. I could say it is better, but I need to dismantle and get real measurement numbers. My guess is that I will be either turning down the aluminum insert, or I will bore out the bump stop material. Unfortunately, I won't be able to get back to this project for about two weeks. Finals are first priority.

However, I do need to modify my CAD model for the bolt size. I downsized the clearance hole for more structural strength, but it appears my guess work was not entirely accurate. The hole needs to be at least 1" to fit the bolt through with a socket. I'll see about uploading the modified CAD file in this upcoming week. I've included some pictures of the setup with the washers.

IMG_5541.JPG
IMG_5541.JPG
IMG_5542.JPG
IMG_5544.JPG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Great work. To answer your question about posting you math files, the secret is to rename the file something the system will accept like .txt.
I tried removing the .stl off the end of the file. I'm not sure what you mean by math file, as it is a 3D CAD file. However, the system still won't accept it. I imagine I'll have to post it somewhere else then include a link to that location.
 

·
Premium Member
Chicago & Detroit
Joined
·
1,052 Posts
I consider the CAD file as a math file. If the name of the file is rear_mount.stl rename it to rear_mount.txt. Once it's downloaded as a .txt file (or any other file type) to another computer this .txt file must be changed to the original type of file type so it can be opened by the appropriate software. One must know the original file type.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Alright, I have included the file as a .txt file. Not sure if this will work for you guys, but let me know.

Edit: Once downloaded, change the ending of the file name from ".txt" too ".stl", and that should create the proper file format for uploading it to your preferred slicer software. Cheers!
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Chicago & Detroit
Joined
·
1,052 Posts
Once it's downloaded as a .txt file (or any other file type) to another computer this .txt file must be changed to the original type of file so it can be opened by the appropriate software. One must know the original file type. Sorry I didn't mention that above.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
It's not filling it that's the problem. It's letting it properly cure. If you filled it and let it sufficiently dry, then it would work as a temp fix for about 5K miles and not much more than that. If you take it out of the car, youc ould really fill it, and as long as you make sure it doesn't bubble or anything, then that would work as well. It's just messy.
I actually did this and have had no issues in 15k slightly more vibration at idle that’s it


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,019 Posts
What settings did you use with NylonX filament? Did you also have to dehydrate the filament like you normally do with nylon filaments?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
What settings did you use with NylonX filament? Did you also have to dehydrate the filament like you normally do with nylon filaments?
As for the settings, I did some tuning in speed with my Prusa Slic3r, but none of the speeds updated in the gcode, so I am still dealing with that. However, I used 4 wall layers, 4-5 roof and floor layers (not sure exactly), 80% infill triangular infill. Nozzle temperature of 264 Celsius for most of the print, thought I plan to up this so I can print a little faster. 90 Celsius on the bed temperature, though I am thinking 80 Celsius will be my new go to. Extrusion multiplier of 0.95. No fan for NylonX unless doing bridging. I run my fan at 25% for bridging. For support, I use a 0.2 mm z offset for ease of removal. 5-7 mm gap between main support towers, and .5 between the finer links on Slic3r. I used a small brim for this part. I like these settings. Make sure you use a glue stick on the bed whether heated or not. Also, if you can contain the heat from the printing or make a nice toasty but not hot environment to print in, you can likely expect even better results.

Yes, I did dry this material once before. I do also have a dry box I use when printing, though I have been storing this in a plastic bag with descant packs when not in use, and I wasn't sure exactly how dry it was. The print looked the same as when I had this exact filament before without drying it, so I don't know. If you want a super strong equivalent of NylonX, I would buy Onyx. This is a more expensive form of a nylon with chopped carbon fiber reinforcement that is proprietary to Markforged. However, if I could experiment on my printer with the nicest stuff, this is what I would get. I have experience with running prints for others out of it, and this material is truly great stuff. It is super, super moisture sensitive from my experience. So if you choose to go that route, be aware of that. It is a 1.75 mm diameter, so it will run on my Prusa.

Hope that answered your questions. If not, let me know. I can grab pictures of my slicer settings if that is of interest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,019 Posts
that is helpful information. I've only ran pure nylon before, my Ultimaker uses 3mm filament. What layer height were you printing at?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
that is helpful information. I've only ran pure nylon before, my Ultimaker uses 3mm filament. What layer height were you printing at?
Sorry, that is most definitely relevant information. I was using a 0.2mm layer height. Does your Ultimaker have the option to use 1.75 mm filament if you change the setup or nozzle? By the way, make sure you use a hardened steel nozzle for anything with chopped carbon fiber reinforcement. Brass just gets chewed up by the abrasive carbon fiber strands.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,019 Posts
I am not sure if I can swap filament sizes, but I would hope so. Ah good advice on the steel nozzle, I wasn't thinking about that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
So I wanted to update this with some of my latest findings on this modification. As previously mentioned, the mod made the car feel the same to worse. With that said, I reasoned, as others have, that the preload on the inserts was too large due to the size of the aluminum insert. I decided to print a smaller center tube to replace the aluminum one just to test out the difference. That seemed to improve the feel significantly, but I still wanted a little more. I decided to drill a large number of very small holes in the inserts so as to give the parts more flexibility to compress. This also helped significantly. From eq1's posts, I was expecting to find too much slop in the mount from this decreased setup, but I didn't notice any significant slop at all. Maybe I'm not as tuned to it, but I can say that the smaller tubular part in addition to the holes drilled in the inserts was a massive improvement. Now I understand the quality of this mod. With that said, I just got my original aluminum center tube turned down to 0.71" on the OD, and I plant to install that part back in soon. Additionally, I might add a few more holes in the inserts to see if I can really make this thing like butter through all of the low rpm range from 1000-1400 rpm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,169 Posts
^ Sounds like you're doing the right things. I wonder, How's the alignment of the mount with respect to the other mounts/engine? All the mounts work together, so if they're not perfectly aligned the load on the rear mount will be off and stress the mount/insert in weird ways, particularly vibration at idle. In such a case doing extra things to the mount, like shrinking the center tube, drilling holes, etc., would help... When you install the rear mount you shouldn't have to exert any pressure on any of it to get stuff to line up...

Also, keep in mind that, in general, this MCU insert mod is mostly about having a more durable rear mount, followed closely by reducing the slop of the OEM mount. Potentially reducing NVH is a bonus benefit... So, if one can get the mount to feel noticeably 'tighter' than stock yet not increase NVH, one's doing pretty well. If one can reduce NVH, well, that's icing. So far I don't see any wear so I'm pretty sure these things will last a lot longer than stock...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
^ Sounds like you're doing the right things. I wonder, How's the alignment of the mount with respect to the other mounts/engine? All the mounts work together, so if they're not perfectly aligned the load on the rear mount will be off and stress the mount/insert in weird ways, particularly vibration at idle. In such a case doing extra things to the mount, like shrinking the center tube, drilling holes, etc., would help... When you install the rear mount you shouldn't have to exert any pressure on any of it to get stuff to line up...

Also, keep in mind that, in general, this MCU insert mod is mostly about having a more durable rear mount, followed closely by reducing the slop of the OEM mount. Potentially reducing NVH is a bonus benefit... So, if one can get the mount to feel noticeably 'tighter' than stock yet not increase NVH, one's doing pretty well. If one can reduce NVH, well, that's icing. So far I don't see any wear so I'm pretty sure these things will last a lot longer than stock...
Hmmm... I was looking at my other mounts the other day for wear, but I was wasn't checking for alignment. However, I think you might be right about misalignment of some kind. My idle is fine, and it always has been. The issue that bothers me is the NVH in the 1000-1500 rpm range when launching from stop. I can avoid this by launching or engaging the clutch when the engine is already above 1400 rpm, but I'd rather not.

As for the alignment of the mount that should be spot on when everything is inserted, this is definitely not the case for me. I have to rotate the engine about 3/4 of an inch to get it to line up when inserting the bolt. I'm not sure exactly how spot on it should be, but it sounds like there should be no force required to rotate things to make them line up. I'll have to see if there is any obvious misalignment in the upper two mounts, because I definitely have to rotate the engine/trans assembly to get the bolt into the lower mount. Maybe they are just worn, but I haven't heard much around here about the top two mounts wearing out. Would pictures be helpful in indicating as to whether or not these things are aligned properly?

Isn't NVH a given for the stock mount even if it is brand new? I don't think I've experience an insight that doesn't have some NVH when launching even with a known good rear motor mount. I've driven 3 different Mts and a CVT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,169 Posts
....The issue that bothers me is the NVH in the 1000-1500 rpm range when launching from stop. I can avoid this by launching or engaging the clutch when the engine is already above 1400 rpm, but I'd rather not.
This sounds, maybe not quite normal. Whether stock or MCU mount, I do have a bit of a rumble at launch, but it's pretty tame. I think the MCU mount has been better in this regard. Compared to a 'normal' car the rumble seems excessive, but for the Insight I think it's normal. Hard to say whether you're getting more rumble than you should or whether you're just sensitive to what I'm thinking is a normal Insight rumble...

I do still have a rumble somewhere around 1800 RPM, just below 2000, maybe 1500 to 2000... But that's also something that was improved over the stock mount...

....the mount should be spot on when everything is inserted, this is definitely not the case for me. I have to rotate the engine about 3/4 of an inch to get it to line up when inserting the bolt. I'm not sure exactly how spot on it should be, but it sounds like there should be no force required to rotate things to make them line up.
I think that's the way it is. I can't remember exactly, but I'm pretty sure my mounts were aligned in such a way that I could insert the through-bolt without it pushing the insert up or down, nor side to side, once tightened... i.e. at rest, the tube cinched between the 'forks' exerts zero pressure on the MCU inserts... Put another way, I'm pretty sure I was able to insert the through-bolt before attaching the mount to the car, and then I was able to rotate the mount upward, toward the bottom of the car, and the holes in the mount aligned more or less perfectly with the threaded holes in the bottom of the car. This rotation doesn't exert any force on the insert. I actually had to tweak the alignment of my front mounts to achieve this, though.

Overall, I'm not sure if this would be your problem or not. My concern for such perfect alignment was mainly about getting rid of all vibration at idle. The alignment made a difference with that...

I'll have to see if there is any obvious misalignment in the upper two mounts....Maybe they are just worn, but I haven't heard much around here about the top two mounts wearing out. Would pictures be helpful in indicating as to whether or not these things are aligned properly?
Yeah, over the years I haven't read many people talking about problems with the front mounts. I got new ones, yet when I got the old ones off they ended up being just fine (the old ones had cracks in the rubber, at the 'arm' joints, but they were just superficial). There's rubber and rubber-clad metal bumpers on the sides of the front mounts. You might check behind those bumpers for excessive rubbing; paint scuffed off is fine, but if there's like gouges or something that would suggest a problem. Also, the front mounts are fluid-filled, so if you see any fluid you got a problem. Also, the front mounts I believe are supposed to operate similar to the rear in the alignment sense -- the center bushing portions shouldn't be tweaked to one side or the other of the aluminum housings, they should be centered. The gaps at the sides should be even...

Isn't NVH a given for the stock mount even if it is brand new? I don't think I've experience an insight that doesn't have some NVH when launching even with a known good rear motor mount. I've driven 3 different Mts and a CVT.
That's my experience. I bought a new OEM rear, still had slop and NVH, bought new fronts, still had slop, same NVH.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,169 Posts
....The issue that bothers me is the NVH in the 1000-1500 rpm range when launching from stop. I can avoid this by launching or engaging the clutch when the engine is already above 1400 rpm, but I'd rather not.
I experimented a bit with this this afternoon, launching and watching engine speed more closely, noting NVH, etc. I noticed I have a tendency to raise engine speed to a little under 1400 RPM when I launch. Anything lower usually induces a pretty bad chatter - my hood or something like that will shake and rattle. Releasing the clutch relatively quickly at idle speed or a hair above will almost always produce this 'chatter'... Having said that, 1400 RPM doesn't seem like a big deal - when I first read your post I was thinking, yeah, that sounds a little fast. But having tried it, it seems pretty normal. The owner's manual even says you need to raise engine speed a little and let the clutch out slowly when you launch - so, I'm not sure I see a problem with the technique...

Now, the stock mount was worse with this, though. As I recall, even a new stock mount has a greater tendency to create oscillations forward and back during anything but the smoothest clutching and shifting. Once the 'miss' happens, once the oscillation gets started, you get many more with the stock mount. That's one great improvement I've found with the MCU, it has a much more dead feel about it, slight miss-shifts don't create these multiple oscillations...

Anyway, having tried the launch, I'm more prone to think what you're experiencing is normal for the Insight. And that the MCU mod doesn't fix it. You might want to check out this thread where me and another dude ramble on about the mounts and how the engine moves, etc., and what a fix might be. The other dude, Sigma something-or-other, installed an additional engine brace on top of the engine, between passenger side mount and the shock tower. I'm pretty sure that, to really get the engine movement in check, one needs to do additional work, add additional bracing...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
I experimented a bit with this this afternoon, launching and watching engine speed more closely, noting NVH, etc. I noticed I have a tendency to raise engine speed to a little under 1400 RPM when I launch. Anything lower usually induces a pretty bad chatter - my hood or something like that will shake and rattle. Releasing the clutch relatively quickly at idle speed or a hair above will almost always produce this 'chatter'... Having said that, 1400 RPM doesn't seem like a big deal - when I first read your post I was thinking, yeah, that sounds a little fast. But having tried it, it seems pretty normal. The owner's manual even says you need to raise engine speed a little and let the clutch out slowly when you launch - so, I'm not sure I see a problem with the technique...

Now, the stock mount was worse with this, though. As I recall, even a new stock mount has a greater tendency to create oscillations forward and back during anything but the smoothest clutching and shifting. Once the 'miss' happens, once the oscillation gets started, you get many more with the stock mount. That's one great improvement I've found with the MCU, it has a much more dead feel about it, slight miss-shifts don't create these multiple oscillations...
What is interesting to me is that with the original MCU mod is that I was getting terrible chatter almost all the way up to 1800 - 2000 rpm during launch. It only feels it got better than stock when I turned my aluminum insert down to a 0.71" OD and drilled small holes in the material. That seems to have made the hole thing feel super smooth. However, I haven't noticed an increase in slop from the loss of preload. Maybe I am just not that sensitive to it...

I can't say I notice a huge difference in the oscillations generated by the regular mount, but the MCU definitely doesn't feel worse in any way. I can say that I like it better. I just wish I had gotten the results everyone else seems to have gotten with the original MCU setup without turning down the aluminum and drilling the holes. By the way, in your previous post you note that your mount appears to be aligned with the trans mount forks when installing and you don't have to rotate your engine/trans assembly to get it in. However, you then mention that you then rotate the mount up to the car chassis and attach the bolts? If you are moving the mount after slipping the bolt through, by what reference are you saying things are aligned? Are you referring to any misalignment as being left to right or are you referring to an up and down alignment with the whole system? I was under the impressions everything lined up for the side-to-side or the left-to-right and we were just discussing the up and down alignment or vertical adjustment.

With that said, I still have yet to check the alignment of my front most mounts, and I will report back with any findings in that area.

Anyway, having tried the launch, I'm more prone to think what you're experiencing is normal for the Insight. And that the MCU mod doesn't fix it. You might want to check out this thread where me and another dude ramble on about the mounts and how the engine moves, etc., and what a fix might be. The other dude, Sigma something-or-other, installed an additional engine brace on top of the engine, between passenger side mount and the shock tower. I'm pretty sure that, to really get the engine movement in check, one needs to do additional work, add additional bracing...
Yes, I do remember seeing this thread. It appears as though if I really wanted to get rid of all the vibration, I would need to fabricate something like this. As the newer Civics and CR-Vs have this type of torsional dampener, Honda must have come to the conclusion that it is helpful to have one in place. I'll look into fabricating one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,169 Posts
In general I think we've covered all the bases here, so you might need to re-read some stuff. But...

....What is interesting to me is that with the original MCU mod is that I was getting terrible chatter almost all the way up to 1800 - 2000 rpm during launch. It only feels it got better than stock when I turned my aluminum insert down to a 0.71" OD and drilled small holes in the material. That seems to have made the whole thing feel super smooth....
I don't think you ever reported the actual hole diameter of your 3D printed mount versus the stock aluminum. Differences in what you've experienced might be due to differences in those diameters. You said your inserts were tight - that's very different from my case/s (that is, I experienced the tightness when I used shims, but ultimately I removed those and stuff, so there's slack now). I have an extra insert here I can measure if need be - that could be another source of your different experience - that the inserts you got are bigger for whatever reason... Reducing the pre-load as you have is what one would need to do if inserts were tight in the housing...

....in your previous post you note that your mount appears to be aligned with the trans mount forks when installing and you don't have to rotate your engine/trans assembly to get it in. However, you then mention that you then rotate the mount up to the car chassis and attach the bolts? If you are moving the mount after slipping the bolt through, by what reference are you saying things are aligned?
You'll have to re-read what I wrote. It takes some careful thinking to conceptualize all the dimensions. In a nut shell, everything lines up - side to side, up and down. You can rotate the mount around the pivot point - around the center tube and bolt - without exerting any side to side or up and down force on the insert itself. I don't think I can explain it any better than that...

Having said that, there is one thing I need to clarify: I mentioned earlier that I had to tweak my front mounts to get the rear to align 'perfectly', and I suggested that the fronts should be centered in their housings similar to how the rear needs to be centered. But I re-read what I wrote earlier, when I was doing this stuff, and that's not what ended up happening.

I actually had to lever the engine/transmission over to one side, I think I wrote about 5mm, to get the rear to align (side to side dimension). I believe I wrote that all the side to side distance had to be taken up by the driver side mount, too. So ultimately there's pre-load on my driver side mount, it's not perfectly 'centered'... Hard to explain. You'll have to re-read what I wrote if you want some potential insights .

I was trying to figure this stuff out on-the-fly, it's not like I absolutely know how this stuff is supposed to fit together. The manual briefly describes a procedure that's more than you'd think it would be, but it still seemed a bit thin to me, like there was some things missing. It's actually a lot more complicated than it would seem on the surface...

I'm not really sure how the front mounts are supposed to be; it just makes sense to me that the rear should be unloaded as much as possible at rest, to eliminate NVH at idle. The engine/trans would be suspended by the fronts alone, the 'fork' connection to the rear mount will move the inserts but the inserts won't touch the mount housing, or if they do touch they only need to absorb minimal movement. The inserts just 'float' there, in the housing, at idle...
 
281 - 300 of 310 Posts
Top