2004 MCS mushrooming. stock suspension, 17 inch (S-lites) Runflats..205-45-17. Replaced strut mount. Installed M7 stb. Have had zero problems with allignment, etc for over one year/45k miles.

 

2006 MCS, UK car, 17,500 miles, mushrooming on both sides, Just repaired with wood and a sledge. Installed cravens.

17inch wheels with runflats until a month ago, now non runflats and a much improved ride.

peter

 

Been lucky so far, and M7's-USTB with built in plates goes in this week....so
No....and
No....

03' MCS with 17" S lite rims - Goodyear RSA runflats at 33-34 psi. Now at 5/32"(f) and 7/32"(r) left on treads.

No issues and plenty of bumps and holes and road construction on New England's roadways too, 59,600 mi..........

 

I put the Craven's on. I like the fact that the bolt overs give it what appears to be a stronger connection.

I admit I know nothing tech. about either the M7's or the Cravens, but to me, the Craven's just looked as they made more sense.

 

http://www.cravenspeed.com/index.php?productID=104
BTW, the Peper hite with the res defenders is my car

 

Here is a video of a local news story that takes the position that it is poorly maintained roads that are the reason for suspension problems, NOT a car's engineering.

I submit that while the MINI may seem not as hearty or beefy in terms of the strut mount design, if this news story is to be believed, it's the roads that are the problem, not the MINI.

I also submit that this general knowledge is the reason why most dealers will not cover strut damage under warranty. While some may, those dealers are just being accommodating.

While I don't have the study that the story refers to, I wonder if it looked at models of cars and type of damage the cars suffered. Maybe other cars don't suffer from strut mount area damage like the MINI does, which would lend to a theory that the MINI has a defective strut mount design [too thin.]

But the dealer would counter that the MINI's design is not defective under normal driving conditions, it's just the roads that cause damage to the MINI's suspension system.

http://www.heartinsanfrancisco.com/SFBadRoads.wmv

 

that some group estimated that poor road conditions create and extra $17 BILLION dollars a year in increased repair and depreciation on cars. But the story of engineering vs design is a real chicken and egg. After all, what car manufacturer assumes that every road is perfect, and if they know the roads aren't perfect, why are they selling so many short travel suspension systems, large diameter wheels and low profile tires? It shouldn't be a surprise that non-copliant systems aren't a good match to failing infrastructure.

comes down to this (my perspective only): If this happens under normal wear and tear on the roads that are out there, it's a design problem. This happens under normal wear and tear.....

Matt

 

As far as I'm concerened the $150 spent on Craven's is a great insurance policy.

 

I agree, seems that engineering and manufacturing should take into account the road conditions in the biggest population centers when designing front ends.

Like I said before, the only vehicle that I have ever had that handled the poor roads around here was my 4Runner.

 

I am planning on putting the Cravens on as soon as I recieve our Clubman. The only question I have is does it mess with the warranty esp. if I install them?

 

I would think not since this does not negatively modify the MINI's structural or mechanical integrity [for lack of a better word] unless you install them incorrectly [see below.]

And second, to void the warranty, MINI would have to say that adding the plates created the problem, which I would think would be absurd. Unless MINI wanted to take the position that the plates damage the existing structure.

No one would accept that logic since that would be the same as saying Craven and M7 are selling a product that damages the MINI instead of fixing a problem.

Of course, if one weakens the bolts or strips the nuts due to improper tightening, if you went into MINI and made a claim that the bolts are defective, that would not be covered under warranty since you caused the problem.

So everyone be careful on the install.

 

If you ever have a problem with the front suspension and have to take it in for warranty work, you can easily take the plates off before you bring it in---just to avoid any connection they might make with your problem and the plate and/or its install.

 

Good point.

I wonder if the plates leave marks on the painted surface and the techs are trained to look for evidence of plates.

That would be ironic [and an injustice] for MINI to issue a service bulletin of sorts to its service departments on how to look for plate usage [and on finding such to deny a warranty claim], but on the other hand, MINI refusing to issue a service bulletin on fixing the MINI due to shroom damage.

 

Since it is hit or miss on whether or not MINI will cover the shroom damage, seems to me:

1. A dealer that is inclined NOT to cover the shroom warranty claim would use your use of plates as an additional reason to deny coverage. So in those circumstances, might as well use the plates since the claim will not be covered under either circumstance [plates or not.]

2. If a dealer is inclined to cover the claim, it probably will acknowledge that use of the plates is a great idea that MINI should build into new models [beef up the area]. This dealer will not look at use of the plates as a reason to deny a claim [especially since absent negligent install, using the plates cannot possibly be the cause of damage.] In this circumstance, use the plates.

At the end of the day, this all seems a damned if you do, damned if you don't. You might void a warranty claim if you use the plates, you may suffer shroom damage if you don't use the plates. Classic catch 22.

So I think what the hell, the best choice is to use the plates.

If the dealer is the type looking for an excuse or reason to limit warranty claims, not gonna matter if you use the plates.

If the dealer is above-board, intelligent, fair, owns up to the shroom problem, and attempts to honor warranty claims, then he is going to look at use of the plates as a good thing.

Bottom line: Use the Craven or M7 plates, become a better driver [by staying alert for road hazards] and do what I do, I frequently check the oil and shine a light in the engine area to look for shrooms growing under my hood.

 

2002 Cooper: stock suspension and 18" wheels w/215/35's. The passenger side has cracking in the mount wo/mushrooming and the drivers side had no cracking but has mushrooming. Found this when I went to install the M7 top plates.

 

My MINI is a June 2006 build. So unless abused I would not expect shrooms.

But on a 2002 perhaps that can be expected as the car has had more time on the road? How many miles on the car. What is its history? You the original owner?

What a downer, going in to install the plates and discovering all that.

Maybe take it into the dealer to roll the dice on a secret warranty, where manufacturers repair at their cost, but only when someone brings in the car to make a claim.

All they can do is say no. So give it a try.

 

The car has 89k on the clock and the drivers side was able to be worked into place with a large rubber mallet and a 2x4. Both plates are in place and look fine. I'm the ? owner of the car and it came from the Pheonix area.

 

My 2006 had shrooming on both sides. The metal is way to thin, I hit a pothole in my other car today that would have put the strut through the hood of the MINI had I been in that.

I wonder how the dealer "fixes" the shrooming. I would bet they just bang them back into place like I did.

Peter

 

It took me hours to read through this thread, but the answers to your questions are in here.

Apparently the "imperfect" fix is with a 2 x 4 and mallet. But not sure if that is what the dealer does, out of sight of the MINI owner.

See posts where a few Members, myself included, question this "hack" method of repair. Banging metal with wood and a mallet sounds stupid to me [I would think that would weaken the metal big time and the area would be all the more likely to again shroom, quite soon after the purported repair, I suspect.] IMHO, without knowing sheet about all this, the only proper repair would be professionally welding new mounting surfaces.]

Yes, the metal is thin, hence the selling of reinforcement plates by M7, Craven and others. Solutions vary.

 

Nothing. They call it natural wear and tear.

 

Pounding the strut-top back into place is a terrific recipe to create massive metal fatigue in the sheet metal of the tower.

Not sure what else would be appropriate once mushrooming has happened, but I'd definitely add the new Mini-Madness Strut Tower Reinforcement Plates (which fit BETWEEN the shock and the tower,) to strengthen the tower and reduce the chances of it getting worse...

 

I don't think you can put reinforcement plates on w/o flattening the tower.

 

Interesting issue. I suspect that if you can get the struts off the car, you should be able to fit the reinforcement plates on the lugs and then re-install.

 

Read somewhere in this thread about that particular issue. The studs don't align with the holes for mounting the plate if the mushrooming has occured (unless it is very minor). Some pounding to ensure fitment is required.

 

I decided to NOT pound the right strut tower on my 04. I could not bring myself to whack on the car so I got some chain, made 3 brackets and used a small bottle jack to "pull up" the studs while "pushing down" the middle of the tower. I also used a large socket to apply the downward force directly to the strut.
It pulled the studs in enough to get the Craven plate in position. The correct way to fix this would have been to replace the top of the strut but it was not cracked so it stays in.
My 240Z struts and towers held up a 350 Chevy engine with no problems. The bolt pattern was much smaller (than the MINI) though and I'm sure the strut top was much stronger.