PDA

View Full Version : What motor mount do you prefer?


viperz55
2010.01.24, 04:31 PM
I finally decided to get an aluminum motor mount. I just need to decide which one to try out first. I run a speedy 07 if that helps, and i race on pretty small RCP tracks which are usually full of pretty tight corners.

What motor mount would you suggest I run and why? Please help!!!

:confused:

Traveler
2010.01.24, 04:34 PM
PN 94-98mm v2 Part #MR2295 You can search these forums for the why.

TannerT
2010.01.24, 04:36 PM
I run an Atomic V5 94mm mount with a Lexus SC430 body on a mini-96 and I really like it. It can be a little tricky to route the motor wires but once you get that figured out it's a really good mount.

EMU
2010.01.24, 05:07 PM
Either the ATM 94mm v5 or PN 94mm v2 would be ideal choices... They are capable of running 94-102mm wheelbases, with the appropriate damper setup... If you use the PN ML damper setup with either mount, you can run both 94 and 98mm setups with the adjustment of a couple screws.

I personally prefer the ATM mount a little more, as it has less points of failure (less screws), and increases rotation more than the PN mount. The PN mount is better for high speed sweeping tracks, ATM better at tight tracks, where speed is more limited.

Be sure to use a tiny bit of thread lock on the screws, or they will back out with vibration...

viperz55
2010.01.24, 08:30 PM
Thanks for all the responses, guys! Right now I'm leaning toward the atomic mount, because I usually race on small and tight tracks. Also, I have an atomic 98 mm damper system, so all i need to get is the 94 mm plate. :p

Just wondering, will the atomic damper system work with both motor mounts?

JeremyC
2010.01.24, 08:38 PM
Just wondering, will the atomic damper system work with both motor mounts?

It will work with any motor mount..

I like the atomic mounts as well; mostly because the PN mounts have a 'sub'-mount that I find annoying. Some people love it though; just not me. :)

viperz55
2010.01.24, 08:51 PM
These are the 2 motor mounts you are talking about, right? I just want to make sure... :p

http://www.atomicmods.com/Products/Atomic-AR-222-Mini-Z-MR-02-Ultra-Light-Motor-Mount-(Vers-V)-for-94mm__14137.aspx

and

http://www.rckenon.com/public_html/shop2/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=10&products_id=4070

JeremyC
2010.01.24, 09:01 PM
Well, I run the Atomic VIII which is wickedly old, but IMHO majorly cool.

EMU
2010.01.24, 09:28 PM
Yes, those are the two mounts that I am talking about... I have used the vIII ATM mount that Jeremy has been talking about for a long period of time. We used to use a Kyosho stock motor for a spec motor class with narrow bodies. The vIII had the capability of running 94mm MM, without mounting the motor with the two screws... Which made it the best motor for the class with that motor. I used mine for 2+ years, and it performed brilliantly during the time. I replaced it with an ATM v5 after moving to the PN 70t as the spec motor. I really didnt see any difference with performance. So, Jeremy, dont rush to upgrade to the v5, I doubt it would help much. I think the motor sits a fraction lower, and might be a hair lighter, but notthing that would really make a difference laptime wise...

At 94mm, I use the 2.8mm DPS mount (http://store.hkshobby.com/product_info.php?products_id=1921) at 94mm to raise the damper plate a little. This allows the discs clearance above the chassis where the motor wires are. Otherwise, they tend to hit... This is the case for any 94mm damper position, not specific to either company. At 96 or 98mm the discs have enough clearance that they dont need the lift.

If you get the 94mm damper plate, you can use the mount at 94 or 98mm. You can also use the PN ML damper plate, to be able to switch back and forth between wheelbases without having to change the damper plate each time. Remove two screws, move the damper plate, put both screws back (implying moving t-plate position at same time).

I dont want to argue which mount is better, but both will work with any 94/98mm damper setup. Being an ATM driver, I am biased towards ATM products, but either way you go, they are the two best 94mm mounts available.

One thing that I noticed, is the PN mount at the highest position, lowers the rear end of the car more than the ATM at the medium position (axle height adjustment). This can be a good and bad thing, depending on the body or type of track that you race on. So, do take that into consideration. On some bodies, I would like the rear of the chassis to be raised more than the PN mount permits. I usually have to raise the body at the side clips to have the right clearance on bodies that have little rear wheel clearance.

color01
2010.01.24, 11:50 PM
Another thing to consider is that Atomic mounts tend to be a bit beefier, so if you're always getting caught in collisions, the Atomic mount may be a safer bet. I run the PN mount now for its lighter weight and lower ride height, which I can afford since all the tracks I go to are relatively smooth.

Anyways -- The latest Atomic and PN 94-98MM mounts are, as everyone else has said, the best ones available for racing.

benmlee
2010.01.27, 02:57 PM
Have to disclose I am biased towards the PN mount since I worked on it.

Here goes.. On the old PN and Atomic mount, the arm that holds the damper post interfere with the motor when you are using larger gears. Many times, in a crash, the motor will actuatlly deflect and push the arm out of place. That was irritating.

The new PN mount has a very low profile damper post arm that has never interfered with the motor. It gets its low profile by using a straight damper post that does not have a flange on it. The arm is also fitted to long tight fitting channel that keeps it in alignment even if is hit.

The motor in a different orientation than the Atomic for lower CG. Hence it has to use a separate motor plate. Otherwise, the wheels would obstruct the screws to adjust the motor. Some people like high CG, others like low CG.

The mount is made as light as possible without compromising strength. Finite element analysis was used to check which area needed strength, and more more material was added. Area that does not see as much stress has less material to save weight.

Have not heard of the new PN mount bent out of shape yet. The analysis are pretty accurate. Areas that are "red" does actually bend when we took away material, and area that are "green" are ok.

luvs2hate
2010.01.27, 06:37 PM
Latest version PN pod in blue. :rolleyes:

viperz55
2010.01.28, 12:54 PM
Either the ATM 94mm v5 or PN 94mm v2 would be ideal choices... They are capable of running 94-102mm wheelbases, with the appropriate damper setup... If you use the PN ML damper setup with either mount, you can run both 94 and 98mm setups with the adjustment of a couple screws.

I personally prefer the ATM mount a little more, as it has less points of failure (less screws), and increases rotation more than the PN mount. The PN mount is better for high speed sweeping tracks, ATM better at tight tracks, where speed is more limited.

Be sure to use a tiny bit of thread lock on the screws, or they will back out with vibration...

I might get the PN mount due to the lower ride height and lighter weight, but then again, you said you like it better for tight tracks, which is what i race on. Just wondering, but why do you like the atomic mount more than PN mount for low speed tracks?

:confused:

EMU
2010.01.28, 03:20 PM
I havent driven a real tight track in a while... Every track I go to is competition sized, so it has a mix of high speed with a tight infield. I dont think that you would really notice much of a difference between the mounts on a tight track. Only at the limit. Body choice will make more of a difference than the mount on a smaller tight track. Get the one you like better, there is no wrong choice here. Both are very good.