[gprocket]

Thanks guys, I really appreciate the input. As I said, I was confused about the different options and even the difference between the driver's side mount for the AT verses the MT. I get it now.

Here is what I'm doing: The transmission (driver's side) mount is good (enough) so that stays. The rear mount disintegrated in our hands and that I am replacing with an Alfa mount. At the time I wasn't sure which of the SAAB mounts to use so yesterday I ordered another rear mount to be used in the front position. Today I will order the SAAB mount and when they are all in I will decide which I will use up front. If I go with the SAAB I'll have a spare rear mount that I can use with one of the other cars.

As far as OEM mounts, Jason I totally agree what what you are saying. In this case, though the car is a resurrected parts car and I would literally be spending more on the mounts then what I paid for it. I am also foregoing replacing the clutch for the same monetary reason. I have a spare pan as well as A arms, ball joints, tie rod ends and struts so I will renew those. If the front mount prematurely fails but the car proves to be otherwise solid then I won't complain about spending the money. But now's not the time for me.

Ironically, as some of you might know my main business is molded rubber products. Over the years we have produced many rubber motor mounts. I think most people would be surprised at the amount of engineering and production technique that goes into making a mount. Usually a typical rubber part drawing will specify a particular type of rubber with certain properties dominated by hardness (durometer in Shore "A" scale). We, the producer will qualify our compound using lab samples and once accepted you lock in the material and away you go. With a motor mount on the other hand, a typical drawing list the performance requirements and we are expected to meet those by any means possible. These requirements are very specific and difficult to achieve and one must run millions of cycles on the actual parts to verify you are within spec. There is a tremendous amount of attention placed on these units and as a result it is a relatively rare thing to have an OEM mount fail. The other thing that happens is that the actual formulation of the rubber becomes a trade secret. You can't just call up Goodyear and say "Give me 500 lbs of XYZ rubber for Alfa motor mounts".

The total raw material costs in a production mount is about $10 whether it is a $200 mount or a $36 mount. And whether you are in Akron, Martapura , or Zhengzhou. The bulk of the cost is in the labor, and overhead which includes testing.

In the aftermarket world though, the testing is minimal or non-existent and labor rates are a fraction of mature markets. Often times a molder is handed a part and told to make one like it - no drawings, no specifications. About the only thing you can test for at that point is the hardness and so a motor mount is produced that looks and feels the same as the OEM but in reality is far from it. Parts made in China are a great example of that. The truth is that Chinese manufacturing is quite competent - to believe otherwise is foolish at best, dangerous at worst. The "culprit" if one is looking for a fall guy would be the importer that markets their parts as direct replacement items. On the other hand, having cheap products like these have no doubt saved more than a few from becoming a parts car. Case in point is this one...

Anyway, thanks again...