or mance could do a time/lap with the spacers and compare to solid mount time.

 

could do the math. And I love that most here sees that this was no attempt to delude anyone into thinking I meant "one set" had over 3.5 million miles on them which would be an absurd contention.

Four cars here in town are over 10k miles and some early testers are over 6k miles tho the original 18 testers are the least heard-from group by FAR... nearly 100% of the original 18 testers have never uttered a syllable after receiving 27 free "test unit" pairs for evaluating... give em something for free to test/report on and it gives em amnesia (true story!). The average buyers from 3 months ago are over/near 4k miles while the buyers from 2 months are just under 3k miles and so on and so on. Best I can tell is the average user puts about 1404 miles per month on their car based on feedback numbers. Some lots more, some lots less. But its aggregate, standard deviation and mean average deviations I'm interested in.

My gut feeling is also that they will outlive the cars they're installed in. But I'm also interested in how the mounts they're installed in hold up because if they dont work as advertised, and "save the mounts" I've failed. But once a month I'll pull a test pair out of the press where they're constantly held under 18,000psi of pressure 24/7 for over 5 months and smile. Cuz they pop right back into their original new specs within a couple seconds and show zero signs of hyper-extension, inner/outer mount separation or fatigue with no signs of mount or insert collapse/compression. Some plain OEM generic mounts wouldnt even allow 10,000psi compression even once without completely shearing and no mount without an insert survived for more than 3-4 days at 15,000psi. To maintain 18,000 psi for 5 months is a MAJOR feat and to have them still look new and function as-new is, even to me, surprising. Thats the par equivalent of having 6 entire UrQ's sitting atop one single strut mount w/insert continually for over 5 months without compromising the mount body's structural integrity.

But in all fairness thats a static test and I dont have the space, resources or equipment to do dynamic testing. Static testing doesnt allow for the hammering and repetitive compression and rebounding a mount takes in any "real-world" environment or the turning of the thrust bearing while under loads like a mount in a car is subjected to. But at least the bearings have never been a significant issue with mounts as they usually tend to out-live the mount bodies.

I've done the best I can do and far better than Audi/Boge have done to-date. History will tell if I'm the next Robert Hack or Thomas Edison of strut mounts.

 

currently running on ralley cars here in the US, Europe and the Pacific Rim. We even broke and bent some parts intentionally trying to make these fail. Couldnt do it without risking severe and possibly fatal damage to the test cars. Most feed-back indicates these increase suspension firmness without adding any harshness/hardness. And I've said all along these were not designed and will NEVER compete with my, or anyone else's solid mounts on street or race applications. But they are easier on strut towers than the solid mounts in any/all off-road situations and thats why off-roaders prefer them to solid mounts which can blow thru strut towers if they're not reinforced.

These are "mount-savers" and should not be confused with solid mounts. These cost 20% as much for front and rear as my solid mounts cost "just" for fronts. They were specifically designed to allow stock strut mounts to last the life of the car rather than the 3-6 months most get out of their stock mounts. But they are NOWHERE remotely close to solid mounts in terms of precise steering geometry or ability to hold alignment settings under extreme load or lateral deflections. No rubber mount can do that! Even when I tested solid inserts like aluminum, Acetron GP in OEM rubber mounts they could NEVER compare with a solid mount. Two entirely different animals. But they are GOBS better than stock mounts ever thought of being. Probably less than half as good as solid but more than twice as good as stock... nothing more/nothing less and that they last forever is their primary market niche and their attraction. Secondary to that is car never squats/settles lower allowing headlights and ride height to dip as the mount fatigues/fails.

 

"History will tell if I'm the next Robert Hack or Thomas Edison of strut mounts" - lol!

 

use experience save your solid mount design. i can only imagine and plan to use once i buy another b3/b4 platform car.

<b>^5</b>