Date registered: Jan 2006
Vehicle: 73 280SE 4.5, 71 300SEL, 03 BMW Z4, 72 Fiat 850, 80 Triumph TR7, 85 Porsche 911
Location: DC Area
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
So aside from an opinion or two about the quality of Uro parts, are there hard and fast tests, reviews or other results one could look at?
It seems to me that at the end of the day, what it comes down to is trust - trust that Uro is using the same materials as those used in the original parts. In the case of original rubber (as cited in the video) recipe being used, it sounds reasonable that the design was changed moderately to fit a non-machine shop (my garage) environment.
My motor mounts were replaced a few years ago, when the car was 37 years old, and I didn't go most expensive because I don't intend to keep the car another 40 years. Years later and after a lot of use, the mounts are still mounting the engine to the body, I don't have excessive shakeing or shimmying, and I have no cause for complaint. If a cheaper-by-one-third part does the same mounting and provides another 20-30 years (assuming it's "substandard"), good to go. After that age, the car is likely to be rusting in bone yard somewhere anyhow.
The ONLY time I would go "OEM" or buy something from the stealership is if I was taking the car to perfection and intending it to be drooled over at Pebble Beach, Carlisle, etc etc before accepting the 1st Place trophy. For daily/weekly/monthly driver cars like ours, a $55 parts makes a heck of a lot of sense to me.
If Uro parts fail after a few thousand miles, they'd be bankrupt after multiple lawsuits. I'd say the same thing for ANY aftermarket, non-OEM part maker.
Last edited by Grubeguy; 05-11-2014 at 10:13 AM.