Have you ever noticed that most 93s have an aluminum motor mount arm on the driver's side and a steel mount on the passenger side? Well, according to Ray Crow, Mazda switched from the aluminum driver's mount arm to the steel arm in late 1994 because the aluminum was causing oil pan leakage problems. Ray couldn't recall exactly what the issue was that led Madza engineers to change it up; he stated that it had something to do with a clearance problem, or perhaps the thickness of the mounts had something to do with it creating leverage on the pan (<-speculation).

There are two solutions to this problem for those looking to either install aftermarket mounts of ressolve leakage problems with stock mounts:

1. Install a new OEM steele driver's side arm (about $200 from Ray)
2. Install a passenger side arm on the driver's side and just don't use the heat sheild. (the passenger/driver side arms ARE interchangeable)

RECAP: The steel motor mount arms are interchangeable, IOW, You can use steel passenger side mounts (which are plentiful) on the driver's side. The only difference is that the passenger side mount has a mounting point for the heat shield. Just don't put a shield on the driver's side and you're good to go.

for those who insist on keeping the aluminum arm I believe Cody has an aftermarket motor mount kit that is compatible.

Hope that helps!
Rob

 

 

The aluminum mount was weak. It was prone to failure, so Mazda changed it to steel. Original aluminum mount was to try and save weight.

 

You mean the bonded. liquid-filled mount was prone to failure. There is very little difference in weight between the aluminum and steel arms because the aluminum arm is significantly stouter. You are probably correct, but apparently the oil pan leakage issue was the straw the broke the camels back.

 

the other good thing about the steel mount is that it is easier to fabricate your own urathane mounts.

 

you failed to mention that the aluminum mount has a ****. It presses the cover down in an area of the oil pan where there is no bolt to secure the pan. When using the two steal mounts you need to wedge something into this area.

 

Interesting. I'm not doubting you, but where did you get this information? Perhaps this **** that you speak of is what was causing the "clearance problems" to begin with.

 

I though the **** was on the mount side, which is why it is easier to make urathane one with steel easier.
This is what a Aluminium one looks like, see the **** in the middle
http://24.48.48.201:443/gallery/album08/aad?full=1

 

On my early production '94, the pass side was a metal (steel, I assume) mount, with the rubber mount was separate. On driver side was the one piece mount where the rubber was attached to the metal mount. Of course, after 130k miles it had separated. I bought a new stock mount from Mazda, and it was the same two piece style as the pass side. Best as I can remember, it had the thin aluminum heat shield piece on it. I was told they had gotten away from the one piece driver, and changed to the two piece at some point in '94 or definately by '95.

 

According to Ray Mazda went to the steel driver's side mount in late 94.

 

My 94 had an aluminum mount on the drivers side, and it failed.

 

adam c and White94RX, what are the build dates on your cars? I've got a 1994 as well, and I wonder if mine came with the aluminum or steel mount.

-s-

 

Scotty,

The date on my door frame sticker is 1/94. Probably somewhere in the middle of the 94 production run.

 

Thank you guys for the info on the passenger side being interchangable with the drivers side. I have a extra set of mounts. So, YES!

 

Thanks, Adam!

-s-

 

I'm glad we saved you some cheese.

 

I won't go by the dates alone. My 93 had steel ones on both sides.

 

Its most likely that the drivers side had been replaced already. You aren't the original owner are you? How many miles on the car when you got it?

 

well that's my point, it could have already gotten replaced. My car had 82k miles when I got it.

 

I believe that the "****" that's being mentioned is actually there to put pressure on the oil pan in an area between the top of the mount and the bottom of the pan that would normally have a bolt. By normally I mean on other rotaries such as ones in a fb or fc, for example.

 

I thought FB had the mounts in front and the FC had the mounts on the side of the motor.

 

They are. I was just pointing out that I believe the **** on an fd motor mount is there to press on the oil pan for a good seal, since theres no room between the mount and the pan for a bolt.

 

Yes that's what I was saying, the **** is on the other side against the pan.

 

Though that sounds like a good idea in theory, I have a feeling that the **** may have been one of the sources of the problem. I don't imagine that a the vibrations transmitted to the pan from that **** are conducive to a long-lasting seal.

 

I've seen some related questions surfacing lately.... bump