S2 Transaxle Mount Alinment

[Fred]

Hi Guys,
I have another question that I probably should know were to find the answer. I have the 821-30 rebuilt the Transaxle is cleaned up and ready to go, and I rebuilt the Trans Mount, looks pretty good.
The question is when the mount was removed many years ago the proper hole, 4 holes that alien to the two holes on the trans to adjust the rear height were not recorded or lost over the years.
Does anybody have any suggestion on how to alien the rear trans height???
Thanks
Fred

[skippopotamus]

Hi Fred, I mounted mine low figuring it will be easy to raise the trans in the mount if I need to.  Don't let it hold you up is my advise.
-s

[Fred]

Thanks Skip I will give it a try.
Regards
Fred

[skippopotamus]

I have our answer.  The transmission needs to be as igh in the mount as it can be or it will interfere with the speedo cable.

[Fred]

Thanks
Got it let me try. I may try to refit unit in car this month.
Kind Regards
Fred

[Nockenwelle]

The height of the gearbox does influence the rear axle geomtery and the ground clearance. On my stock S1 it looks like it is mounted as high to just clear the speedo drive. But that's not as high as possible. The green plastic part sits flush with the upper end of the gearbox mount.

[314159td]

Reviving this as the best pictures I can find are just above.

I'm trying to figure out if the rear mount for a 336 transaxle is supposed to look like this, with the mounting studs shifted up so far. It looks like the rubber contracted and shifted/sagged over time, and maybe the studs are supposed to be centered on the mount (dashed line) instead of how they're pictured now? Klaus's above look similar to mine.

It's not very clear in the shop manual nor the pictures of new, standard-style mounts online.
I'm planning to use the original metal bracket and directly cast in new hardware, with a high-durometer urethane, so it would probably be wise to get everything in its proper place first and only use those vertical slots for small adjustments.

[Elanman39]

At last, something I can help someone with! 

It seems there are three evolutions of the gearbox mounts.  The one shown in Nockenwelle's post is one of the early ones with vertical braces from the top of the rear part of the rubber housing to the top and botom of the U cannel that wraps around the gearbox.  These had the chassis mounting studs situated centrally between the gearbox mounting holes.  The intermediate pattern of mount, shown in the picture of an old used component below lacks the additional bracing plates and has the gearbox mounting holes offset towards the top of the mount, lowering the sides of the mount to improve clearance to the speedo drive.  This had the effect of lifting the gearbox by about 1 inch which will effectively reduce the static camber slightly ( by the same amount as a 1'' downwards wheel movement would have ) but this doesn't seem to be mentioned in any of the workshop literature (which often happened and usually means the change was considered to have no significant effect (or alternatively they forgot to tell the service manual writer....)).  The mount you can buy these days is effectively the same as the intermediate mount but with two sets of holes for the two gearbox to mount bolts, corresponding to the two earlier variants, see the second picture showing the new mount on the S2 chassis.  So, it seems both possible locations are technically correct, although the original set-up may be preferred by the purists and the later set-up adopted by those of a more pragmatic turn of mind!  If you do go for the purist route with a new mount you will have to trim the top flange to miss the gearbox cable/drive.  If you are making a poly mount out of old bits to the new design the studs should be 1" above the lower gearbox to mount bolt holes.
Hope this helps.  Best,  Nick

[314159td]

Thanks Nick!
Very informative, I think I'm going to modify my approach and not cast hardware directly into the mount, but make polyurethane inserts so that I can adjust the position of the hardware if necessary, though this may not be quite as rigid. Adjustable seems the right way to go given all of the other mucking about below

The front engine mounts had their height intentionally changed and recommended for retrofit.
From the S1/2 workshop manual:

"E.14 - ENGINE MOUNTINGS
New engine mountings (Part No. 054 E 6000) have been introduced as a running change into current
production, and consequently no chassis number introduction is available. The new mountings lower the
engine by approximately ½ in.
This engine lowering is particularly important when a radio suppression kit is fitted in conjunction with
a radio (see Section 'M'), as the screening plate over the engine could foul the air cleaner."

There was also a modification to the mounting of the front radius arm bushings, though this shouldn't be directly related, I assume these were all interconnected to an extent.
 
"D.5 - REAR WHEEL TOE-IN
Commencing at Chassis No. 2414, the rubber insulators located at the rear end of the radius arms, have
been relocated from the outside, to the inside of the radius arms. This modification has been made
necessary to ensure that design toe-in (see TECHNICAL DATA) is achieved."

My plan is to get the ride height of the car where I want it (with the seats sandbagged down correctly), mess around with the motor mounts and transmission mount so that the driveshaft angles up slightly from the transmission to the wheel (as shown in the workshop manual) then adjust the camber with adjustable lower links, and the toe with the radius arm mount configuration.