Honda Insight Forum banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,009 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I thought it might be better to start a new thread rather than fill up the control arm bushing thread.

There's a lot of engineering going on with the front mounts, even the rear. They all work closely together. It's hard to get satisfactory results by just replacing, 'fixing', the rear mount alone.
Agreed, without reducing the vibration produced by the engine nearly any amount of stiffening results in more vibration transmitted to the chassis.

As I mentioned above, and as you might recall, I've made a rear mount out of MCU. You can only go so far, so stiff with the rear, beyond which too much load (and/or too weird of a load) is simply placed on the fronts and they spaz-out... The big problem is that the motor is a vibratory hell. There's all sorts of vibration, big rumble, that the motor/trans mounts need to tame... The stock rear mount bends over backwards trying to keep the noise in check, but in so doing, it fails on the performance side of things... My MCU rear mount is better than stock, now. But the whole engine/transmission support system is still not the greatest. I was thinking of trying to do MCU fronts, but seeing the complexity of the stock fronts, plus the work it has taken to just do the rear, doesn't inspire confidence...
Yea, that's why I added on the right side a torque strut mount. It completely eliminated excessive twisting of the engine and I didn't notice any extra chassis vibrations. It might have, but I just didn't noticed a difference. The way I designed it allows for the right side bushing to freely move up and down or side to side, but restricts only the rotation of the engine. This design is found on basically all new Hondas now.


Here's a picture of it. I originally designed it for an adjustable torque dampener, but it broke and the company didn't want to warranty it so I decided to pick up an OEM Toyota Avalon mount. So it looks a bit off angle in this photo, I've since drilled new mounting holes to better align it.




On the left side there isn't a clear way to add another torque mount even though there are plenty of places to mount onto the transmission. But with the HCH1 trans it has a place for mounting a front trans mount. I plan to make a new brace to mount it.

Edit:This is the front mount of the HCH1


Nice thing is that this mount is light weight being cast aluminum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,491 Posts
....I added on the right side a torque strut mount. It completely eliminated excessive twisting of the engine and I didn't notice any extra chassis vibrations. It might have, but I just didn't noticed a difference....
Interesting... Do you have a good understanding of what kind of engine and transmission movement takes place under various loads and circumstances? I keep trying to figure it out, but without putting a camera on the mounts and driving, which is a little overkill for me at this point, and lacking the physics/mathematical skills, it's mostly been a lot of trial and error and guessing for me...

Also, can you (or anyone) explain how power gets transmitted to the front wheels? For instance, does the same amount of torque go to both wheels (probably not) or what? I have little clue how the transmission or whatever handles this work (torque converter? differential?)... If I turn one wheel by hand, the other one spins in the opposite direction, as I recall. Or if I try to spin both at the same time, forward, sometimes they won't turn at all... It's a bit of a mystery to me. And, of course, the objective for me is to understand how differential torque at the wheels gets transmitted to the engine and how it makes it move, how it might make it move differently at different times... I'm not sure it even matters...

I'm thinking the main issue is how the rear transmission mount and the 'gears' (where the axles mate with the transmission) are not centered on the engine/transmission - they're not centered between the front mounts. They're closer to the driver side. Seems like this might cause the engine/trans to twist clockwise under forward load, as seen looking down on the engine from above... So, under forward load, the force at the rear mount is upward with a clockwise twist; under backward load I'm thinking it'd be downward yet still with a clockwise twist. It seems like, with the axles uneven in length, with the place where the axles mate with the transmission being off-center, the twist is always going to be clockwise... It's like a pivot point, a fulcrum, I think. If that pivot point were centered, the force would be even - distributed to both front mounts evenly. With that pivot point 'to the left', the force is shifted to the left...

If this were true, it'd seem like your added torque mount should be on the transmission side. But maybe I'm not getting this stuff right... It's difficult to conceptualize without diagrams - and probably without proper physics, math, 'force vectors' and the like...

Taking this a little further, the left front mount gets pushed forward; the right front mount gets 'pulled' backward. I'm pretty sure this is what happens, and I think it's why the little extra bumpers attached to the front of the left mount and the rear of the right mount are beefier - pretty sure they are metal coated with rubber, whereas the rear bumper on the left mount and the front bumper on right mount are thinner and just solid rubber...

Does anyone know the exact, proper way to install and torque all 3 mounts? There's a procedure outlined in the service manual, but it seems incomplete. For example, I noticed there seems to be alignment holes and 'tabs' on each mount and mount location, but I didn't see anything in the manual mention those. You know, each mount has a sort of pointy, arrow-like protrusion on it, and then there's holes on the standoffs to which each mount attaches. It looks like the pointy arrow protrusions are supposed to line up with the holes when you're torquing the through bolts (the bolts that go through the spacer and cinch down the standoff 'ears' or whatever onto the spacer)... The reason I ask is that I've found that seemingly minor mount adjustments drastically reduce (or increase) the amount of NVH. All three mounts need to be adjusted just perfectly to eliminate the most egregious NVH. Even a couple millimeters off can be the difference between a booming resonance under load at about 2100 RPM to almost none... Granted, I'm now working with a modded rear mount, but I believe results were similar when I tried things with a brand new stock mount.

With my best, most successful mount adjustment, I've kind of had to do something that seems slightly unintuitive. I'm not sure if it's right. It appears that all sideways adjustment happens on the left mount - by adjusting the location of the bracket that attaches the transmission to the mount. The right bracket/mount doesn't seem to have any ability to adjust. If I let the engine hang off the mounts in a position with the most repose, where the boss is perfectly centered left to right in the mount housing, the rear mount doesn't line up with the bolt holes - it's off by about 5mm. I can make the holes align if I exert force on the rear mount - but that ends up pre-loading the rear mount bushing. On the other hand, with the left mount mounting bracket loose, I can lever the engine over (to the right) and tighten the bracket down. This ends up holding the engine/transmission more to the right and the rear mount holes line up. But, it also pre-loads the bushings in the front mounts (seemingly more the left mount). So, the fronts are slightly pre-loaded, while the rear has zero pre-load, i.e. there's no stress on the rear, there's a bit of stress at the fronts, with the car standing still...

This latter configuration produces the least NVH, by quite a margin. Some of it's probably due to my non-stock rear mount. But in principal it should be the same with the stock mount: the rear mount should be zero stressed, perfectly centered, under no load - if you want the least NVH. But, I'm not sure if the pre-load on the front mounts is actually a good thing or not. It seems like the front mounts should be perfectly centered, in the position of most repose, under no load as well. But I couldn't achieve that without making a spacer and moving the left mount over to the right by about 5mm...

I know, this is way too much information for IC 2018. I just don't know what to do with all this pontificating...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,009 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I'll try to answer the best I can. I'm not an engineer, but I've worked with automotive applications for quite a while.

Interesting... Do you have a good understanding of what kind of engine and transmission movement takes place under various loads and circumstances?
At idle the motor wants to rock back and forth due to primary vibrations from the 3 cylinder 120 degree crank configuration. Good thing about 3 cylinders are they don't have much in the way of secondary vibrations like 4 cylinders do with a flat plane, instead of lengthy explanations about the differences I'll link some videos at the bottom later. Anyways, this is why an inline 6 is pretty smooth because the pairing of basically two 3 cylinders can be designed to counter act the primary vibrations.

Under forward acceleration the front wheels rotate forward and the engine wants to rock backwards.

Under regenerative braking or engine braking in general it's the opposite and the engine wants to rock forward. Or accelerating in reverse. That's why I was surprised Honda didn't see the need to add a front trans mount, like pretty much all modern transverse mounted cars have.

Also, can you (or anyone) explain how power gets transmitted to the front wheels? For instance, does the same amount of torque go to both wheels (probably not) or what? I have little clue how the transmission or whatever handles this work (torque converter? differential?)... If I turn one wheel by hand, the other one spins in the opposite direction, as I recall. Or if I try to spin both at the same time, forward, sometimes they won't turn at all... It's a bit of a mystery to me. And, of course, the objective for me is to understand how differential torque at the wheels gets transmitted to the engine and how it makes it move, how it might make it move differently at different times... I'm not sure it even matters...
In an overly simplistic way, the engine/electric motor rotate the input shaft on the transmission which rotate various gears that rotate the differential.

The differential is called a differential because it helps in differentiating speeds. Since when going around a corner the outside wheels follow a larger radius than the inside wheels resulting in different wheels speeds. If the differential was completely locked, like an e-locker in off-road vehicles the wheels will spin at the same rate. This is used when they are trying to limit slipping. So in our cars we have what is called an open differential. That's why when you have the two wheels off the ground and you spin one the other spins in reverse. This is the basic differential configuration on most basic cars. The reason why you are having difficulty trying to spin both at the same time is because then you are trying to rotate the whole drive train or at the very least the transmission gears. When you rotate one wheel by itself the planetary gears on the inside of the differential just rotate internally and the differential housing is stationary. This is why cars with open differentials will lose all traction when one wheel starts to slip or comes off the ground. There a different types of differentials for these purposes, but they're not really necessary to get into.

There is a bit of torque bias between the left and right wheel that is common on FWD cars. This is usually due to the two CV axles being different lengths and the shorter axle causing more perceived torque than the longer axle. If you're ever heard of torque steer this is where it comes from. This is also why many manufacturers will move the wheels inward to change the scrub radius since this will counter act the torque steer and general steering stability, but at the sacrifice of steering response and steering feel.

I'm thinking the main issue is how the rear transmission mount and the 'gears' (where the axles mate with the transmission) are not centered on the engine/transmission - they're not centered between the front mounts. They're closer to the driver side. Seems like this might cause the engine/trans to twist clockwise under forward load, as seen looking down on the engine from above... So, under forward load, the force at the rear mount is upward with a clockwise twist; under backward load I'm thinking it'd be downward yet still with a clockwise twist. It seems like, with the axles uneven in length, with the place where the axles mate with the transmission being off-center, the twist is always going to be clockwise... It's like a pivot point, a fulcrum, I think. If that pivot point were centered, the force would be even - distributed to both front mounts evenly. With that pivot point 'to the left', the force is shifted to the left...
Pretty much all transversely mounted drive trains will have this off center setup. There are a few cases that don't, like 2nd generation V6 camry. That had equal length CV axles, which is pretty uncommon. Regardless, many other new cars don't have so much of an issue because they have more mounts and/or better designs to limit movement without transmitting vibrations.

If this were true, it'd seem like your added torque mount should be on the transmission side. But maybe I'm not getting this stuff right... It's difficult to conceptualize without diagrams - and probably without proper physics, math, 'force vectors' and the like...
Ideally I wanted to add one on both sides, just the engine side was the most straight forward to make. On the newer Civics they also have three main mounting locations, but they also have a torque strut mount on the engine side and the opposing transmission mount is oriented to help prevent twisting.



Ours and other Honda models that have similar setups do not really help prevent the rotation of the transmission and probably why they have those rubber bumpers to help prevent metal to metal contact under extreme situations.

Taking this a little further, the left front mount gets pushed forward; the right front mount gets 'pulled' backward. I'm pretty sure this is what happens, and I think it's why the little extra bumpers attached to the front of the left mount and the rear of the right mount are beefier - pretty sure they are metal coated with rubber, whereas the rear bumper on the left mount and the front bumper on right mount are thinner and just solid rubber...
The mounts aren't being pushed in opposite direction. The left mount sees more torque because of the shorter axle. Our cars have extremely asymmetrical CV axle lengths. It's just more pronounced on our cars than some others, especially with the soft engine mount materials. With the above diagram you can see that the left side trans mount is designed to limit this kind of movement. While on the HCH1 the additional front trans mount is preventing the excessive movement.



Does anyone know the exact, proper way to install and torque all 3 mounts? There's a procedure outlined in the service manual, but it seems incomplete. For example, I noticed there seems to be alignment holes and 'tabs' on each mount and mount location, but I didn't see anything in the manual mention those. You know, each mount has a sort of pointy, arrow-like protrusion on it, and then there's holes on the standoffs to which each mount attaches. It looks like the pointy arrow protrusions are supposed to line up with the holes when you're torquing the through bolts (the bolts that go through the spacer and cinch down the standoff 'ears' or whatever onto the spacer)... The reason I ask is that I've found that seemingly minor mount adjustments drastically reduce (or increase) the amount of NVH. All three mounts need to be adjusted just perfectly to eliminate the most egregious NVH. Even a couple millimeters off can be the difference between a booming resonance under load at about 2100 RPM to almost none... Granted, I'm now working with a modded rear mount, but I believe results were similar when I tried things with a brand new stock mount.
I'm unaware of this, but I'll take a look at the Honda service manual. I guess there is some way of preloading the mounts? But sounds more like just allowing people to know how to orient the mounts properly. Regardless, in all my years I've never had a car where we replaced an engine mount that required such specifications or where an issue like this resulted in a worse NVH. And when replacing/swapping of my own mounts on the 1G MT and CVT I haven't experienced this. The only time I've ever had really bad NVM is when I poly filled the rear mount.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,009 Posts
Discussion Starter #4 (Edited)
With my best, most successful mount adjustment, I've kind of had to do something that seems slightly unintuitive. I'm not sure if it's right. It appears that all sideways adjustment happens on the left mount - by adjusting the location of the bracket that attaches the transmission to the mount. The right bracket/mount doesn't seem to have any ability to adjust. If I let the engine hang off the mounts in a position with the most repose, where the boss is perfectly centered left to right in the mount housing, the rear mount doesn't line up with the bolt holes - it's off by about 5mm. I can make the holes align if I exert force on the rear mount - but that ends up pre-loading the rear mount bushing. On the other hand, with the left mount mounting bracket loose, I can lever the engine over (to the right) and tighten the bracket down. This ends up holding the engine/transmission more to the right and the rear mount holes line up. But, it also pre-loads the bushings in the front mounts (seemingly more the left mount). So, the fronts are slightly pre-loaded, while the rear has zero pre-load, i.e. there's no stress on the rear, there's a bit of stress at the fronts, with the car standing still...
There might be something there, but with properly functioning mounts it should translate to such drastic changes. But I understand what you're saying by the alignment procedure of installing the mounts can cause some preloading of the rear mount. I wonder if there is any mention of it in the manual. I would assume with your rear mount it may make the changes more noticeable.


I know, this is way too much information for IC 2018. I just don't know what to do with all this pontificating...
Haha, never! For me it's just fun.




Edit: Some video explanations of some mechanical things you asked about.
I love this old explanation of a differential.

Torque Steer

Primary Engine Vibrations

Secondary Engine Vibrations


edit: Sorry if my grammar/spelling is terrible, been working straight since yesterday morning and was a bit sleep deprived even then, lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,491 Posts
A couple quick responses...

You say the front mounts aren't pushed in opposite directions. Are you sure about that? I don't see how it's possible for them not to be, particularly in light of the way they're designed - why else would the left mount / mounting location (between the 'ears') have more space at the front and the right one more at the rear, while those spaces are buffered with the beefier bumper things? When you try to move forward, the engine tries to rock backward, as you say, but the rear mount prevents it from rocking too much, too far. The force is then directed forward - but the point at which it pushes is off-center, to the left - so the engine/transmission experiences a rotational force (as seen from above). The result is that the left mount gets pushed forward, while the right mount gets 'pulled' backward - until it hits the bumper thingy. If the half shafts were equal length there'd be no 'rotational force'... I can't see any way around this interpretation - what am I missing?

On service manual adjustment procedures, it basically just says to tighten the bolts/nuts holding the mounting brackets down, but loosen the through bolts. Then remove engine support/lower the car, tighten the through bolt to the left mount first, then the right mount. Then lift the car and tighten the through bolt at the rear mount. I more or less get the idea of torquing the through bolts when the rubber isn't being loaded, twisted for example. But I don't really get why lowering the car would make a difference, nor why doing the left mount first would matter... And the manual doesn't mention the 'alignment' tangs and holes... It does say, though, that if you don't do it this way you'll get excessive NVH and wear...

Here's an image of the front two mounts as they're oriented in the car, with stuff labeled:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,009 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
I get what you're thinking and I'll check again record with video. Last time I looked both sides would move same direction but transmission side had more movement.

There could be other reasons for the design differences from left to right. For instance they may allow for more cushion on the back side of the engine mount because it has to do all the work keeping that side in place and on the transmissions side they did the opposite possibly because it already has the trans mount and another possibly is the regenerative braking puts more torque on the transmission mount.


Side thought. I just ordered a lithium 12V battery to replace the lead battery, I'm going to remove the battery tray and I think I can then make a new torque mount similar to what I did on the engine side.


Also good to know about the OEM mount installation procedure, I'm for sure going to try that out.

edit: Oh yea, also something odd I noticed, when I bought a replacement trans mount the new ears were equal size. Picture is my old mount filled with silicone, but has the new ears on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,491 Posts
I get what you're thinking and I'll check again record with video....
Getting video would be very helpful...

Side thought. I just ordered a lithium 12V battery to replace the lead battery, I'm going to remove the battery tray and I think I can then make a new torque mount similar to what I did on the engine side.
What lithium did you buy? I really like not having the big lead acid in that spot. I've thought about re-rerouting the brake vacuum hose and I think the fuel vapor recovery-thing line away from that extra aluminum crossbar to which the 12V box was attached - and cutting out that crossbar...

But, the point is, I was looking in that general area and it seems like one could make a brace sort of similar to what you did on the other side, but simply almost a straight bar with bushings on the ends, attached to the lower steering rack attachment point and to the rearward stud/nut that attaches the trans mount to the transmission... I don't think i'd do it, I don't really like adding things; I like subtracting them. But, just an idea.

Also, I was looking at the passenger side mount area and realized you don't have an AC (do you) and you probably had to bend your brake lines to clear your added brace, right?

edit: Oh yea, also something odd I noticed, when I bought a replacement trans mount the new ears were equal size. Picture is my old mount filled with silicone, but has the new ears on it.
When you say "ears" you're talking about the forks on the transmission mounting bracket? Or are you talking about the extra rubber bumpers? The bumpers are the same size on left mount (driver side), but the front is rubber-coated metal whereas the rear is just rubber. The passenger side front rubber bumper is rubber-only and smaller, though. Both the mounts have asymmetrical spacer length - left mount longer toward the front, right mount longer toward the rear. The spacing between the "ears" - the attachment point bracket forks - is a little different. The right mount has extra space at the rear, about 3/8", whereas the left mount, both sides look about the same - the rear standoff is simply thicker than front standoff (i.e. the place where the throughbolt attaches at the rear 'ear' is thicker than the front, possibly just to allow more threads to be cut). That takes up the space that would be occupied by a spacer were it to stick out at the rear as much as it does at the front...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,548 Posts
I moved my 12v battery to the rear several months ago, freeing up that space under the hood and helping weight distribution. More recently I replaced it with a LiFePO4 battery and supercapacitor bank. I wouldn't use LIon due to risk of fire.

https://www.batteryspace.com/li-ion-battery-packs-to-replace-lead-acid.aspx

^ The pack I chose was the a 20ah pack with LED balancing. The one without a balance ciruit for $50 less would probably be fine. Both appear to be able to supply enough burst current to start the car using the backup starter in a pinch. A 10ah or even 5ah pack could suffice as long as you never expected to need to use the backup starter with it.

More importantly though, it's unsafe to charge (ANY) lithium batteries below freezing. Instead of charging, a frozen lithium battery just electroplates the anode (I think?) with metallic lithium, which is explosive. Any lithium battery charged below freezing loses most of its capacity the first time you charge it that way at anything more than a trickle, and when discharging a LIon battery specifically, the battery may go off like a hand grenade. So, lithium batteries can only be used in climates which don't get very hot and don't ever get below freezing, and LIon is just plain unsafe for this kind of application.

My solution? Use a safe chemistry like LiFePO4. Relocate the battery to the rear hatch, insulate it, put a large resistor on it to limit charge and discharge rates and run it in parallel with a bank of supercapacitors which will take the voltage swings of running the car and have the duty of starting the car (my IMA is removed).The battery is only there to keep the caps topped off if I let the car sit for a few weeks, or to allow me to run the radio and lights for a while with the engine off.

As an aside, I have an extra bank of supercapacitors I don't need if anyone is interested. I was thinking of making a "booster pack" but it would probably just be more clutter I don't need.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,009 Posts
Discussion Starter #9 (Edited)
Getting video would be very helpful...
I'm hoping to video it by the weekend. I'm curious myself since you know how memory is, sometimes it's wrong so I want to make sure my engine is moving the way I remember it was haha.
What lithium did you buy? I really like not having the big lead acid in that spot.
I ended up getting this battery because I was able to get it for $85 shipped. https://bikemaster.com/motorcycle-batteries/lithium-ion-motorcycle-batteries/dlfp-14-bs-lithium-ion-battery.html#product-tabs2
I've thought about re-rerouting the brake vacuum hose and I think the fuel vapor recovery-thing line away from that extra aluminum crossbar to which the 12V box was attached - and cutting out that crossbar...But, the point is, I was looking in that general area and it seems like one could make a brace sort of similar to what you did on the other side, but simply almost a straight bar with bushings on the ends, attached to the lower steering rack attachment point and to the rearward stud/nut that attaches the trans mount to the transmission... I don't think i'd do it, I don't really like adding things; I like subtracting them. But, just an idea.
Yea, once the battery is no longer really in that spot options really open up. The weight added really isn't a whole lot.
Also, I was looking at the passenger side mount area and realized you don't have an AC (do you) and you probably had to bend your brake lines to clear your added brace, right?
I don't have A/C, but mount can still work with a little adjustements of the high and low side A/C lines. The brake lines have not been altered.


When you say "ears" you're talking about the forks on the transmission mounting bracket? Or are you talking about the extra rubber bumpers? The bumpers are the same size on left mount (driver side), but the front is rubber-coated metal whereas the rear is just rubber. The passenger side front rubber bumper is rubber-only and smaller, though. Both the mounts have asymmetrical spacer length - left mount longer toward the front, right mount longer toward the rear. The spacing between the "ears" - the attachment point bracket forks - is a little different. The right mount has extra space at the rear, about 3/8", whereas the left mount, both sides look about the same - the rear standoff is simply thicker than front standoff (i.e. the place where the throughbolt attaches at the rear 'ear' is thicker than the front, possibly just to allow more threads to be cut). That takes up the space that would be occupied by a spacer were it to stick out at the rear as much as it does at the front...
The two rubber ears/spacers on either side of the trans mount in the photo were identical. My old mount was the same as you described.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,009 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I moved my 12v battery to the rear several months ago, freeing up that space under the hood and helping weight distribution. More recently I replaced it with a LiFePO4 battery and supercapacitor bank. I wouldn't use LIon due to risk of fire.

https://www.batteryspace.com/li-ion-battery-packs-to-replace-lead-acid.aspx

^ The pack I chose was the a 20ah pack with LED balancing. The one without a balance ciruit for $50 less would probably be fine. Both appear to be able to supply enough burst current to start the car using the backup starter in a pinch. A 10ah or even 5ah pack could suffice as long as you never expected to need to use the backup starter with it.

More importantly though, it's unsafe to charge (ANY) lithium batteries below freezing. Instead of charging, a frozen lithium battery just electroplates the anode (I think?) with metallic lithium, which is explosive. Any lithium battery charged below freezing loses most of its capacity the first time you charge it that way at anything more than a trickle, and when discharging a LIon battery specifically, the battery may go off like a hand grenade. So, lithium batteries can only be used in climates which don't get very hot and don't ever get below freezing, and LIon is just plain unsafe for this kind of application.

My solution? Use a safe chemistry like LiFePO4. Relocate the battery to the rear hatch, insulate it, put a large resistor on it to limit charge and discharge rates and run it in parallel with a bank of supercapacitors which will take the voltage swings of running the car and have the duty of starting the car (my IMA is removed).The battery is only there to keep the caps topped off if I let the car sit for a few weeks, or to allow me to run the radio and lights for a while with the engine off.

As an aside, I have an extra bank of supercapacitors I don't need if anyone is interested. I was thinking of making a "booster pack" but it would probably just be more clutter I don't need.
Good info. I think in my application I never see temps below freezing. So far I haven't really heard of anyone catching fire with this brand. I have seen some melt. Main thing I've seen people complain about with this BikeMaster brand is some of them not lasting past the warranty period, but overall they seem to be good. In our cars it won't be used for much cranking though, so I'm hoping it'll last a good while.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,548 Posts
Good info. I think in my application I never see temps below freezing. So far I haven't really heard of anyone catching fire with this brand. I have seen some melt. Main thing I've seen people complain about with this BikeMaster brand is some of them not lasting past the warranty period, but overall they seem to be good. In our cars it won't be used for much cranking though, so I'm hoping it'll last a good while.
Be aware that without a balance circuit, the individual cells will eventually get out of balance - not can, but will. In our big NiMH packs this means reduced pack capacity and some cells getting abused by overcharging a lot. In a small LIon pack, it can mean one of the cells having thermal runaway and catching fire. While I might try a LiFePO4 battery without cell balancing, I feel it's foolhardy to do so with LIon.

/my 2 cents
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,009 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Be aware that without a balance circuit, the individual cells will eventually get out of balance - not can, but will. In our big NiMH packs this means reduced pack capacity and some cells getting abused by overcharging a lot. In a small LIon pack, it can mean one of the cells having thermal runaway and catching fire. While I might try a LiFePO4 battery without cell balancing, I feel it's foolhardy to do so with LIon.

/my 2 cents
The bikemaster battery touts it has a built-in board for preventing overcharging. So I guess if the board goes bad that would happen, but for the life of me I can't find anyone with a bikemaster battery who has had it catch fire or melt down. I've only head of them just not lasting sometimes. Like I've said before I've seen other lithium batteries melt, just can't find anyone who's had that experience with bikemaster batteries.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,330 Posts
This thread is drifting, let's get back on track, PLEASE.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,491 Posts
While looking for something else I just stumbled upon an engine bay measurements diagram and took a quick peek at a couple measurements, found something kind of interesting, if I'm identifying things right...

The distance from the left mount to car/chassis centerline is listed as 427 mm; distance from right mount to car/chassis centerline is 465 mm. In other words, the center of the car doesn't fall exactly between the front mounts. I thought that was interesting because it would place the point at which the rear transmission mount mates with the transmission even farther 'to the left' than it appears to the eye - cuz I think the tendency is to assume the centerline is exactly between the front mounts...

What's more, though, is that the rear mount is 98 mm to left of centerline (closer to left, driver-side mount). This means that the distance from left mount to a line intersecting the center of the rear mount is only 427mm minus 98mm = 329mm, while the distance from right mount to that line intersecting the center of the rear mount is 465mm + 98mm = 563mm.

That's a big difference... 563 minus 329 = 234mm, rear mount is 234mm closer to left mount; 234/(563+329)=26.2% more to left...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,009 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Is that in the OEM service manual? Yea you can tell the rear mount is closer to the left side especially since the trans is pretty far to the left. Still good info, I didn't know that was in there. Nice info.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,491 Posts
It's among files in the downloadable service manual pdfs, in the folder "hondainsightpdfs." It's the "frame repair chart," which you can access from the index pdf under "body dimensional drawings"...

....you can tell the rear mount is closer to the left side especially since the trans is pretty far to the left. Still good info....
Yeah, I know it's easy to tell the rear mount is to the left, but the kicker here is that it's 'more to the left' than you'd think - because the front mounts aren't centered in the car. The left mount is about 1 1/2 inches (38mm) closer to the center of the car than the right mount... At least, that's what I interpret from the diagram...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,009 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
It's among files in the downloadable service manual pdfs, in the folder "hondainsightpdfs." It's the "frame repair chart," which you can access from the index pdf under "body dimensional drawings"...



Yeah, I know it's easy to tell the rear mount is to the left, but the kicker here is that it's 'more to the left' than you'd think - because the front mounts aren't centered in the car. The left mount is about 1 1/2 inches (38mm) closer to the center of the car than the right mount... At least, that's what I interpret from the diagram...
Ah gotcha. That is interesting, I'm betting they were trying to move the drive train as far right as possible for the CV axle length differences. I'm kind of blind where is the downloadable service manual link?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,491 Posts
....the distance from left mount to a line intersecting the center of the rear mount is only 427mm minus 98mm = 329mm, while the distance from right mount to that line intersecting the center of the rear mount is 465mm + 98mm = 563mm.

That's a big difference... 563 minus 329 = 234mm, rear mount is 234mm closer to left mount; 234/(563+329)=26.2% more to left...
Actually, this '26.2%' metric isn't the right one to use here, I think. With respect to an imaginary line drawn through the center of the rear mount, longitudinally, the following is better:

-Left mount is 32.9 cm, or about 13 inches to left of that line.
-Right mount is 56.3 cm, or 22.2 inches to right of that line.
-Thus, right mount is 22.2 / 13 = about 1.7 times farther away...
-Or, 22.2 minus 13 = 9.2", and 9.2" / 22.2" = 44.4% - the left mount is 44.4% closer to the rear mount than the right mount is (in terms of left-right distance only, not front to back)...
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top