My Woodsport V6 conversion.

[s12vea]

Lovely

[Topdownman]

Looking good up top, not so rosy underneath sadly!



I removed the rear engine mount today which is being sent up to woodsport to weld/reinforce.

Hopefully it wont take too long.

[mikek]

Car looks great Simon,  engine mount not so great, might need a little more than just reinforcing!

[s12vea]

That's looks bad, shouldn't have failed after so little time? Surely a new mount is needed.

[Topdownman]

Maybe a redesign is in order!

[1979scotte]

Ouch!

[cabbydave]

Looks like the steel is too thin and it needs more fixings

[MR TWO]

Looking good up top, not so rosy underneath sadly!



I removed the rear engine mount today which is being sent up to woodsport to weld/reinforce.

Hopefully it wont take too long.

F**K!  I'm going to have to check mine out...

[StuC]

Sheesh!

How did you spot this Simon?
Was there an associated clunking involved?

[s12vea]

It just doesn't look man enough...

[Joesson]

It looks like this has literally torn apart, which would indicate a misalignment in my opinion.
The bracket being  incorrectly positioned relative to the (replacement) engine or vice versa.
The bracket has been trying to support the engine weight and also hold it in the correct lateral position with this result.

[Topdownman]

I spotted the problem when I was de-rusting. I hadnt realised it had completely split until I unbolted it. I could have been driving like that for some time.

The weight of the engine is carried on the mounts on either side of the engine bay as far as I know. I couldnt tell you the function of this mount as I'm no engineer but is it to resist the twisting force of the engine and so doesnt need to be as beefy as a main engine mount?

I am sure it will get sorted out!

[shnazzle]

Simon, as we actually like you and we don't want to see you (or others) hurt... Is it an idea to take it to Rogue to get it assessed for safety and quality?

I know that's easy to say, as it's your money... But that to me looks like two pieces of metal welded to a plate from a door hinge.

[1979scotte]

Simon, as we actually like you and we don't want to see you (or others) hurt... Is it an idea to take it to Rogue to get it assessed for safety and quality?

I know that's easy to say, as it's your money... But that to me looks like two pieces of metal welded to a plate from a door hinge.

Pat has a point here.
You have had a few very serious issues with this build perhaps a second opinion would be a good idea.
Perhaps a step too far for some but if it was me i would be asking for the car to be put back to stock at woodsports expense.

[StuC]

A second opinion here might be practical, if nothing else an experienced pair of eyes WITH a report wouldn't go amiss.

I, for one, would be questioning what has happened here. I understand where you are coming from Scott, it is extreme, but safety has deffo come into question here.
What is the next weak link in the chain? That cut-away subframe perhaps?

[ChrisGB]

Without getting a microscope onto the crack surface, you won't know exactly how this failed, but looking at the design of the bracket, it's probably been subject to flexing and a crack has started and propagated over a period of time until the last bit just broke off. That should be buttressed up into the area where the holes are.

[StuC]

This intrigues me, this failure mode is weird.



Sheering failures usually just give a straight line, the the one on the other side  s:roll: :roll: s:roll:

[ChrisGB]

Fatigue cracking can open up in any number of patterns. Load there will be variable and possibly in multiple axes, so the crack will wander across the steel from weak spot to weak spot. That's why the surface needs some scrutiny to determine what's occurred. If there is a lot of bending in one plane, the cracking often follows the work hardening, but here, the holes are both over one side and the buttressing is not the same height both sides, so it's guess work as to what modes it's bending in. As it opens up, some twisting may have occurred too, which could be right for that divot.

[Bernie]

I think we need Simon to advise how Woodsport handle this and advise
Any further derogatory comments will not be permitted as without them providing a response and solution we are treading on thin ice legally here which the Club cannot condone so please carefully consider your responses carefully  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tomaky]

Im scared for peoples safety Bernie. There have been some very serious mistakes with this so far. the last thing i want is for this to continue and for someone to get physically hurt.
EDIT There is nothing stopping the business owner coming on and answering this may well end up solving the issues going forward. EDIT

That bracket is by no means fit for purpose it looks like a fast solution. Josh how do yours look in comparison?

[Jrichards20]

Well that's not good.

Il have to check it Wednesday!

[JoeCool]

I think we need Simon to advise how Woodsport handle this and advise
Any further derogatory comments will not be permitted as without them providing a response and solution we are treading on thin ice legally here which the Club cannot condone so please carefully consider your responses carefully  

IMO the primary function of a club is to share knowledge. That's regarding services both good and bad, amongst other things.

Anyone who's been around the MR2 Scene a while with their eyes open will know whereof we speak.

And that's my carefully considered response.

[Bernie]

Some sweeping statements have been removed as without foundation they are defamatory

What is fact is the condition of the mount and it's now how this is explained and addressed that is the point

The V6 conversion is one that a few are considering and as well as install costs, quality, time and after sales service are all considerations everyone must take into account when deciding on an installer

Hearsay is one thing but we cannot allow baseless slander, no doubt we will all judge Woodsport on how they address this for Simon and how Josh's mounts are fabricated and the fact that this mount has failed so early and dramatically

So just to repeat please be appropriate in what we post

[tomaky]

This ISN'T the first very worrying peace of work that has been listed in this thread.
The other errors aswell as this i feel justify highlighting to others that they need to be very careful when considering a V6 conversion from said supplier.Anyway i await to see the result.

[Bernie]

This ISN'T the first very worrying peace of work that has been listed in this thread.
The other errors aswell as this i feel justify highlighting to others that they need to be very careful when considering a V6 conversion from said supplier.Anyway i await to see the result.

Sorry Tom but there you go again making a sweeping statement I've trawled through the entire thread

You made comment on the amount of let's call it "adaptions" needed and Simon got the following response

I asked Paul the question about the subframe today and why more seems to be taken out compared to other examples.

He mentioned a couple of things, he actually adds in ribbed sections into the normally hollow subframe to add strength and while it would be possible to mount the engine 1" forward, thereby taking out less of the subframe, he prefers to do it this way to give a straighter driveshaft angle and to keep the exhaust further from the firewall.

He said that he has done over 60 conversions over 10 years and has never had a problem with the subframes he has modded either on the road or the track.

He also agrees that the rear brace has little effect on handling and while a custom brace would be possible it would be extra expense.

ChrisGB also posted Rogue install piks and comments were that cut was similar

So let's not go off on any agenda here let's see where Simon goes with this and again please everyone refrain from entering into a witch hunt