Engine mount thread repair

That seems a bit high, by about 100x!

Mongler98 said:

That seems a bit high, by about 100x!

Click to expand...

Still $106 USD

Yea I guess if you need all the tools and what not to do it. As a kit. Still I would do this for this repair. This part should never have been aluminum threads.

Golf2K said:

Still $106 USD

Click to expand...

I bought my set in 2013 and it was then about $85 from Amazon. Goes up like everything else.

Would a mount from a 2004 2.0 Automatic fit an 2000 ALH passenger side?

there are plenty of other brands that offer the same thing for much less. usually around 30 to 40 bucks on amazon for the few parts you need. Shop around, timeserts are great but so are any other hunk of threaded steal you put in there with some locktight. Timesert is just a brand. your basically buying a snapon when all you needed was a kobalt or pittsburgh

Golf2K said:

Would a mount from a 2004 2.0 Automatic fit an 2000 ALH passenger side?

Click to expand...

The mount or the mount bracket? Either way both should be the same.

Update to an old, but very helpful thread.

I used the longer inserts during a clutch job on the trans mount. A little less than 2 years and about 16,000 miles later I had it apart for motor mounts and the inserts were broken most of the way down and the broken section was loose. The longer insert does engage all of the bolt but, according to Time-Sert, the bolt needs to extend through the insert by a couple of full threads. When installing the insert, the flange bottoms out and you keep turning the install tool to "cold form" the bottom of the insert to the threaded hole, locking it in place. If the bolt being used isn't long enough to engage this section, it can work the top section which isn't "locked", and it will break at the top of the "cold rolled" section. This is what happened to mine, the threads were damaged and I needed a different bracket.

From the Time-Sert website: "On installation the bottom internal threads of the insert are cold rolled to expand the mating external threads into the base material locking the insert in place. Locking mechanism is at the bottom of insert."

If you use the longer Time-Sert in the mount, you will likely need to use longer bolts. The inserts need to have the bolt thread through by a couple of full threads. Don't forget to consider that the mounting bolts in this application are tapered when you're measuring for longer bolts.

If you installed these with them out of the car so you could clean all of the oil out of the hole and used lots of red Loctite, it might hold up.

Smokin' Dually said:

From the Time-Sert website: "On installation the bottom internal threads of the insert are cold rolled to expand the mating external threads into the base material locking the insert in place. Locking mechanism is at the bottom of insert."

If you use the longer Time-Sert in the mount, you will likely need to use longer bolts. The inserts need to have the bolt thread through by a couple of full threads. Don't forget to consider that the mounting bolts in this application are tapered when you're measuring for longer bolts.

If you installed these with them out of the car so you could clean all of the oil out of the hole and used lots of red Loctite, it might hold up.

Click to expand...

Good information, thanks!

I've had some people swear by TimeSert. I've had more luck with Recoil, double depth for the motor mounts. Years ago, with the job mostly done, the front motor mount bolt stripped in the common ALH. I put the Recoil tap right through the engine mount and threaded the body mount. It was done in less that 15 minutes. Try that with a TimeSert. The deal is, if the Recoil doesn't work, you can still go back with the more expensive and complicated TimeSert. I will have to get one to fail, first. Once I started using double depth Recoils, they stayed put. Btw: I also have done away with the 45 lbs + 1/4 turn and go with a 65lb torque. Not been a problem for years, but it's just one more thing that goes against the grain of "accepted practices."

I agree with reduced torque, I use 65 ft-lbs too. The "updated" 72 ft-lbs is as bad as the 45 +1/4.

I got some parts from a former VW dealer mechanic who was working on cars in his garage as he neared retirement. I asked him about replacing torque-to-yield bolts and he said he never did but that he also didn't torque them to yield. He said he never had a problem and that he had a couple of customers that he'd done more than 1 timing belt job for. (He did buy and use belt kits for that.)