BMR Suspension's New S550 Rear Upper SHOCK MOUNTS: SM760 - Design Finalized!

[baevid]

I think it was only 1 person that really complained about the wheel clearance issue really. First gen set was just fine.

Sponsored

 

[xxchieferxx]

Can anyone confirm if these are the first or updated version? I found a deal on these and want to make sure I'm not purchasing the old ones.

Thanks

Lol thats me. They probley the 1st version since I bought them when they first came out.

 

[shogun32]

looks like BMR has revised this mount to add some more structure.

looks like they removed the fulcrum effect from the shock mount on the mounting bolts.

 

[S550Whipple15]

Not that it was actually needed, but looks like BMR has revised this mount to add some more structure. I suspect it will be ala Ridetech mounts where you drill and add riv-nuts. Don't know though, so BMR will have to confirm.

This is perfect looks like I’ll be talking with my lawyer and sending bmr the bill for repairs.. clearly shows lack of engineering on their part...

 

[BlueDragon]

This is perfect looks like I’ll be talking with my lawyer and sending bmr the bill for repairs.. clearly shows lack of engineering on their part...

I don't think revising an item shows lack of engineering. Companies upgrade and revise products all the time. It does not mean that the previous revision was not engineered sufficiently.

 

[gixxersixxerman]

This is perfect looks like I’ll be talking with my lawyer and sending bmr the bill for repairs.. clearly shows lack of engineering on their part...

Looks like we have a “Kevin” here.....

 

[shogun32]

It does not mean that the previous revision was not engineered sufficiently.

The original was probably fine (for some definition of the term and cycle duty) just as long as you didn't hit the travel limiters at their end of shock travel. Once the car is lowered and equipped with no/hard bump stops the cumulative effects would not surprisingly fatigue the mounting interface. If the sheet metal were re-inforced or at least 3 or even 4mm thick, failure would likely never been a problem. It was Ford's piss-poor mounting design and material thickness choice that set the wheels in motion.

 

[S550Whipple15]

Looks like we have a “Kevin” here.....

If you’re car was damaged. From a product wouldn’t you be a little pissed off? Along with clear communication from Dion at bmr maybe we missed something we’ve been looking at ride techs mounts and see how they spread the load out. We have a revision in works “second attempt” this 3rd mount shows a clear lack of r/d. Along with all the shit I went through with bmr and Kelly trying to find anyway it was my fault. Along with all the others who had failures. So fast to point the blame on customer not take ownership.
It’s all good man being a bmr fan boy.. I was one also but man several times I’ve had issue with them.

 

[gixxersixxerman]

If you’re car was damaged. From a product wouldn’t you be a little pissed off? Along with clear communication from Dion at bmr maybe we missed something we’ve been looking at ride techs mounts and see how they spread the load out. We have a revision in works “second attempt” this 3rd mount shows a clear lack of r/d. Along with all the shit I went through with bmr and Kelly trying to find anyway it was my fault. Along with all the others who had failures. So fast to point the blame on customer not take ownership.
It’s all good man being a bmr fan boy.. I was one also but man several times I’ve had issue with them.

I don’t have a BMR piece on my car, as you can see from my sig it’s all Steeda, but when you modify a car from stock shit happens. You sound like the type that if you engine goes, you’ll be blaming whipple or your tuner and talking about taking them to court.. Any time you modify a car from stock you take a risk. But go ahead and try and take them to court for something YOU put on YOUR car,, let us know how that goes... I already know the outcome. I’ve seen it happen before, you’ll have to prove they intentionally designed a part that the knew would have damaged the vehicle..

 

[aleccolin]

Just saw this on IG and came here to post lol y'all are too quick.

The original design was flawed, obviously. It's going to be a caveat emptor situation on anybody who got damage from it.

I've gone back to the OE mounts, after all of this I see no reason to change unless you're bagged.

 

[Norm Peterson]

If you’re car was damaged. From a product wouldn’t you be a little pissed off?

And some, maybe a lot of being pissed off would be self-directed for not doing enough due diligence before making my purchase.


Norm

 

[GT 550]

We take risks with aftermarket parts, and there are ways to mitigate them, but they are there

Well said. It's up to the customer to determine and understand the the level of risk and decide if they're comfortable with it. An oem can't be blamed if a part fails when mated to something from the aftermarket, and no manufacturer can be blamed if their product fails because it wasn't used as intended.

When a company makes a revision it doesn't necessarily mean the original design was a disaster. Sometimes revisions are made because there's room for improvement, sometimes they get made because the product gets used in ways manufacturers never imagined possible.

 

[BlownGP]

No rubber in the mount means the shock can develop its forces more quickly and control the car better. It reduces 'the bounce'. Putting a bearing/rod end up there also allows for bind-free articulation as the arm rotates. It's mostly a vertical motion, but there is off-axis movement enough for it to be noticeable.

In the case of a stock-length shock, this and other designs (Vorshlag, J&M) restore compression travel on a lowered car.

I can attest to that bounce. It was fuckin horrible on my car when it was stock. At times it felt like I was riding a bucking bull.

 

[Roadway 5.0]

This is perfect looks like I’ll be talking with my lawyer and sending bmr the bill for repairs.. clearly shows lack of engineering on their part...

BMR’s instructions for the shock mounts clearly state: “buyer assumes all risk of any damage caused to vehicle/person during installation or use of this product.” Have a look at the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) 28:2–316(3)(a).

To reduce risk in the future, seek manufacturing vendors with an ISO certification, or better yet find products that hold a TüV certification. You could also try demanding a warranty at the time of purchase.

As far as the retooling of the mounts, that is not an admission of fault. If the original design had malicious intent or failed due to gross manufacturing negligence maybe you would have a case*.

* This is internet advice and should not be taken seriously at all. The writer assumes zero liability for others’ actions taken based on verbiage found within this post.

- Mike

 

[HoosierDaddy]

.......

BMR’s instructions for the shock mounts clearly state: “buyer assumes all risk of any damage caused to vehicle/person during installation or use of this product.”

That's common and also why I always have someone else buy parts for me. Then I can sue them if it fails because they have agreed to assume all risks.

Sponsored