2003 e46 engine mounts.

Originally Posted by Blocked Out

E46 M3 or E9x M3 mounts depending on which ones cost less as either will do the job just fine on your particular car.

They are the same, p/n 11812283798. Check the realoem.com

Originally Posted by I_Miss_My_///M

Well, considering my stock mounts had 127,313 miles on them, I can feel a difference. And the e9x M3 mount is a different part number than the e46 M3, so I'm guessing the e9x mount is a bit more durable since it has 414hp to hold..

Again, e46 M and e92 M mounts ARE THE SAME, p/n 11812283798. Check the realoem.com

yeah i'm trying to find out what the differences are in m3 mounts and the e46 mounts are. being they are different prices it makes me believe that there could be some differences, maybe in the type of hardened rubber?? i don't know.
-matt

btw, www.rmeuropean.com sells M mount just for $57 ea (and free shipping for orders $65+).

Originally Posted by Nervous

Again, e46 M and e92 M mounts ARE THE SAME, p/n 11812283798. Check the realoem.com

This same part number is also used on 325/330 xi models.

Nervous, that's freaking crazy pricing!! dude that's cheap!

^ and very good place too.
A complete list of models that use the same "M mounts":
Part 11812283798 (Rubber Mounting) was found on the following vehicles:

E36: Details on E36
E36 M3 Convertible
E36 M3 Sedan
E36 M3 Coupe

E46: Details on E46
E46 325xi Sedan
E46 325xi Touring
E46 330xi Sedan
E46 M3 Convertible
E46 M3 Coupe

E85: Details on E85
E85 Z4 M3.2 Roadster

E86: Details on E86
E86 Z4 M3.2 Coupe

E90: Details on E90
E90 M3 Sedan

E90N: Details on E90N
E90N M3 Sedan

E92: Details on E92
E92 M3 Coupe

E92N: Details on E92N
E92N M3 Coupe

E93: Details on E93
E93 M3 Convertible

E93N: Details on E93N
E93N M3 Convertible

Z3: Details on Z3
Z3 Z3 2.5 Roadster
Z3 Z3 2.5i Roadster
Z3 Z3 2.8 Coupe
Z3 Z3 2.8 Roadster
Z3 Z3 3.0i Coupe
Z3 Z3 3.0i Roadster
Z3 Z3 M Roadster
Z3 Z3 M Coupe

^ Keep in mind though that not all of these applications used the -3798 part from the factory. This part is the latest and greatest and has superceded several older designs. What this means is that when shopping for mounts, be sure to shop by part number. Many non-dealer parts vendors may still stock and sell the older, obsoleted part numbers.

^That might be true, agreed, even though realoem.com doesn't have "ENDED" mount parts for e46 M3.

nice side note for sure, i do know that manufacturers do that with components. i'm still needing to take my car in to see if my sub-frame is involved with the recall they had on 2003 e46 325i's that i recently heard of.
even if i do have a recall i don't think i just want rubber sub-frame bushings, i'd rather have powerflex
-matt

Originally Posted by Nervous

^That might be true, agreed, even though realoem.com doesn't have "ENDED" mount parts for e46 M3.

That's really only the case for the older e36/z3 platforms. Just didn't want anyone to assume that all of those cars listed had always used this one mount as they might get surprised by old stock with a different part number if they selected by vehicle rather than by part number.

Originally Posted by handpainted

yeah i'm trying to find out what the differences are in m3 mounts and the e46 mounts are. being they are different prices it makes me believe that there could be some differences, maybe in the type of hardened rubber?? i don't know.
-matt

I believe that the m3 mounts are 30% stiffer than non-M motor mounts.

Originally Posted by The_Don

I believe that the m3 mounts are 30% stiffer than non-M motor mounts.

And what is your source of information for that bit of trivia?

Yeah i was wondering i'm going to go ask the bmw dealership too

Originally Posted by handpainted

Yeah i was wondering i'm going to go ask the bmw dealership too

They probably won't know anything beyond the fact that there is a different part number.

Originally Posted by TxZHP04

And what is your source of information for that bit of trivia?

I searched information when I replaced mine.

Originally Posted by The_Don

I searched information when I replaced mine.

That information isn't readily available and contradicts actual test data I have from a manufacturer of engine mounts. Since you got this info via "search", was this just some random comment someone made or was there actual data to back it up? Your original comment stated that you "believe"... how confident are you in your search results and/or your recollection of those results? When evaluating the accuracy of internet "facts", you really have to know the true source of the "data".

well i'm ordering my mounts here soon, and i'm likely just to get oem mounts for my make, i'm suspecting that if i would go with urethane engine mounts that it would be too noisy

Originally Posted by TxZHP04

That information isn't readily available and contradicts actual test data I have from a manufacturer of engine mounts. Since you got this info via "search", was this just some random comment someone made or was there actual data to back it up? Your original comment stated that you "believe"... how confident are you in your search results and/or your recollection of those results? When evaluating the accuracy of internet "facts", you really have to know the true source of the "data".

Relax man. Just like you pointed out, I stated "I believe..." and then answered your question about how I came across the information. The "fact" is that they are stiffer than non-M mounts. If you have the test data that contradicts that statement then please post the information. I am always eager to learn more.

Originally Posted by The_Don

Relax man. Just like you pointed out, I stated "I believe..." and then answered your question about how I came across the information. The "fact" is that they are stiffer than non-M mounts. If you have the test data that contradicts that statement then please post the information. I am always eager to learn more.

Just trying to differentiate between internet myth and actual facts. Yes, of course the M mounts are stiffer than non-M I was merely questioning your claim of 30% stiffer.