Check out my reinforced PPF
11-30-06, 04:37 PM
#52
Reppin' the Burbs
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Tottenham, Ontario
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by t-von
Quick question for some of you experts. When I was under the car removing the PPF, I rotated the axle to check for play. I could rotate it about 1/2". 
I had the parking brake engaged and the shifter in neutral. For a long time I could always notice a thud when driving. It would happen when I switched gears. You would also notice it when cruising. If cruising at a steady paste, I would get off the gas and you will feel the thud. Once on the gas again you will feel it again. It would appear that the play in the axle is causing this problem (load/unload). Is it normal for the axle to rotate that much? If not what can I do the tighten it up? Now that the drivetrane is tighter, the thud is now more apparent.
Keep in mind I first started to feel this problem when I installed my stage 3 sprung 6 puck clutch. That was 2 1/2 years ago.
I had the parking brake engaged and the shifter in neutral. For a long time I could always notice a thud when driving. It would happen when I switched gears. You would also notice it when cruising. If cruising at a steady paste, I would get off the gas and you will feel the thud. Once on the gas again you will feel it again. It would appear that the play in the axle is causing this problem (load/unload). Is it normal for the axle to rotate that much? If not what can I do the tighten it up? Now that the drivetrane is tighter, the thud is now more apparent.
Keep in mind I first started to feel this problem when I installed my stage 3 sprung 6 puck clutch. That was 2 1/2 years ago.
11-30-06, 05:49 PM
#53
If I may interject...
I think the inportant thing to understand in regards to this subject is that these these forementioned driveline failures are the result of interrelated material limitations. The OEM motor mounts were not built to handle the amount of torque which is being delived buy these high HP applications. The design of the bonded 93-early 94 driver's side, aluminum arm/ bonded motor mount is extremely poor in my opinion and fails frequently. The later 2-bolt/liquid-filled puck design fails less, but still falls short because the comfort-focused design allows far too much power plant roll. As has been pointed out, this rolling motion combined with the ring gear forces test the limitations of the PPF when it attempts to transfer rotational force to the diff, which kept more-or-less torsionally static thanks to the diff mount arms. With that being said, stiffening the PPF - if it doesn't break first - is not in itself a solution. It will only make for a more efficient application of tortional force to the front end of the differential casing. The heart of the issue is that the rear most end of the differential is being helf firmly in place via the diffmount while the front end of the differential is left hanging subject to torsional forces which originate at the engine. How could a stiffer PPF possibly solve this problem? it can't. With that being said it makes more sense to only reinforce the power plant frame where absolutely necessary. Reinforce the hell out of the fingers and the pass through section and leave it at that. The fact of the matter is that you want the PPF to be able to flex torsionally while retaining vertical rigidity or you will risk cracking the diff. By increasing torsional rigity you are just increasing the efficiency with which the engine transfers torsional force to the differential. If the engine and diff rotate slightly then so be it, but allow them to do so somewhat independently. An IRS is the only appropriate solution IMO, but a proper setup can be cost prohibitive. The most cost effective and pragmatic option is to upgrade your motor mounts and and diff bushings and reinforce the PPF just enough for it not to break. Stronger is not universally better.
I think the inportant thing to understand in regards to this subject is that these these forementioned driveline failures are the result of interrelated material limitations. The OEM motor mounts were not built to handle the amount of torque which is being delived buy these high HP applications. The design of the bonded 93-early 94 driver's side, aluminum arm/ bonded motor mount is extremely poor in my opinion and fails frequently. The later 2-bolt/liquid-filled puck design fails less, but still falls short because the comfort-focused design allows far too much power plant roll. As has been pointed out, this rolling motion combined with the ring gear forces test the limitations of the PPF when it attempts to transfer rotational force to the diff, which kept more-or-less torsionally static thanks to the diff mount arms. With that being said, stiffening the PPF - if it doesn't break first - is not in itself a solution. It will only make for a more efficient application of tortional force to the front end of the differential casing. The heart of the issue is that the rear most end of the differential is being helf firmly in place via the diffmount while the front end of the differential is left hanging subject to torsional forces which originate at the engine. How could a stiffer PPF possibly solve this problem? it can't. With that being said it makes more sense to only reinforce the power plant frame where absolutely necessary. Reinforce the hell out of the fingers and the pass through section and leave it at that. The fact of the matter is that you want the PPF to be able to flex torsionally while retaining vertical rigidity or you will risk cracking the diff. By increasing torsional rigity you are just increasing the efficiency with which the engine transfers torsional force to the differential. If the engine and diff rotate slightly then so be it, but allow them to do so somewhat independently. An IRS is the only appropriate solution IMO, but a proper setup can be cost prohibitive. The most cost effective and pragmatic option is to upgrade your motor mounts and and diff bushings and reinforce the PPF just enough for it not to break. Stronger is not universally better.
12-05-11, 10:25 AM
#58
Full Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: England
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other people have taken the route of simply spot welding the cross sections to prevent flex (See black attached)
This seems to have been adopted by a company called makers racing also do the same thing in a nice metalic blud (see blue attached)
Any thoughts on this?
Aditionaly i found a random creation where someone had reinforced teh sides (presumably where they tend to start to crack) in a nice gold paint (see gold attached)
This seems to have been adopted by a company called makers racing also do the same thing in a nice metalic blud (see blue attached)
Any thoughts on this?
Aditionaly i found a random creation where someone had reinforced teh sides (presumably where they tend to start to crack) in a nice gold paint (see gold attached)
02-05-12, 02:29 PM
#61
Full Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: England
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02-05-12, 11:26 PM
#64
Full Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: England
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02-06-12, 07:31 PM
#65
Curious did you even read the thread or are we just talking out of our *** here on my mod not adding any stiffness. Have you actually done a similar mod to prove otherwise? The main purpose of me adding the plates was to decrease the twist in the ppf that was present before I did the modification. As the engine torqued over to the right, the ppf does the same. I wanted to eliminate that twist which is exactly what the mod did. My throttle response increased and my shifter became rock solid after the mod.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
alexdimen
3rd Generation Specific (1993-2002)
20
10-23-15 01:50 PM
Tem120
3rd Generation Specific (1993-2002)
4
09-07-15 09:53 AM
bolts, bushing, fd, fd3s, makers, mazda, mazdaspeed, ppf, racing, reinforce, reinforced, reinforcing, reuse, rx7, speed
