Reply With QuoteYou may be right there John, so best we try to get it right this time around.Originally Posted by JDNSW
Master
Now you've got me thinking. I have never noticed whether my engine is slanted or not, but I have noticed that the gearshift lever boot does not fit correctly as the lever comes through the tunnel hole slightly off-centre. Now I'm going to have to have a look at whether it might be a case similar to yours. (Although my conversion has retained the Series gearbox).
Thanks to everyone for sharing your thoughts and knowledge.
That's what had me stumped initially, I was also using the original Land Rover box, and the gear shifter was coming through the trans cover toward the passenger side rear of the hole, it was hitting/rubbing on the hole sometimes, judging by the bit of a wear mark. I just accepted it as being par for the course, given the Holden 202 conversion.
Now that we've delved into it, the only thing we see as being a possible reason for the upward slant, is so the mechanical fan can be better positioned behind the radiator. That said, there was plenty of room between the fan blades and the top of the radiator, but barely 10mm at the bottom. The very high at the front engine position saw to that.
I should add, the severity of the high front to low rear engine angle, wasn't all that noticeable, apart from the obvious slant of the fan, when all the engine bay accessories were in place, but after they were stripped out, exposing the engine block more fully, the slant was then far more obvious, and pretty much screamed for our attention.
I notice in the earlier image I posted, where you can see the harmonic balancer sitting plainly higher than the front chassis cross-member, well that wasn't noticeable when the radiator and thermo fan and grill was in place, you just couldn't see it as being so obvious, but now that the engine has been lowered, you can see the harmonic balancer residing where the hole is in the chassis cross-member. I wasn't sure you were supposed to see the harmonic balancer through that hole, I always thought that hole was for a PTO driven shaft.
That balancer/chassis hole thing was something I never really gave any thought to, seeing as I've never actually had cause to check out a standard Land Rover engine, nor pay attention to where/how one sat within the engine bay.
If you want to check out the angles easily, just place a small spirit level on top of the rocker cover.
Master
You may be right there John, so best we try to get it right this time around.
Master
Well,.....it seems there is a valid reason for the engine to be slanted (high at the front, low at the rear) after all, though it appears not many people are aware of it.
For those here who have a Holden red 6 engine in their Land Rover Series 3, I'll try to add some important info on it later tonight.
TopicToaster
Interesting, I've done 4 conversions and they've all been on cast alloy mounts. Are everyone elses welded up jobs? We just used the existing round engine/gearbox mounts.
Master
Hmmm, I've only ever seen welded up/fabricated examples in use, or on offer.
The only set of what appeared to be cast alloy engine mount adaptors I've ever seen, are the second hand ones recently for sale on Ebay, out of Lightening Ridge. When I saw them, I was highly curious as to their origin, given the problems I'm currently having with my 109.
I couldn't know for sure if they were out of a short wheel base or a long wheel base, and I'm not sure if the seller even knew, thus I didn't bid on them.
The adaptors should be different as per the different wheel bases and suspension heights, or so the magic formulas seem to suggest.
Lord Jock
I am interested to hear this information!
Cheers, Mick
1974 S3 88 Holden 186.
1971 S2A 88
1971 S2A 109 6 cyl. tray back.
1964 S2A 88 "Starfire Four" engine!
1972 S3 88 x 2
1959 S2 88 ARN 111-014
1959 S2 88 ARN 111-556
1988 Perentie 110 FFR ARN 48-728 steering now KLR PAS!
REMLR 88
1969 BSA Bantam B175
Master
Hi Mick,I am interested to hear this information!
Cheers, Mick
Ok, not everything within that document I mentioned, is relevant to what I'm doing, but it does appear to be very well written and is highly informative.
One small part did attract my full attention, as it mirrored what we'd gone ahead and done to my 109 (as yet untested)
I've applied myself this afternoon and evening, doing a heap of research and drafted all the relative drawings etc, and it looks like we were on the right track when we opted to lower the engine, back down to level.
From what I can make out, the diff pinion flange angles, (in relation to the ground) in turn dictate the transfer box angle. These angles should all match.
If the engine mount adaptors lift the engine up at the front, the transfer box obviously lifts up with it, and in doing so, alters both driveshaft running angles. This will see a steep angle on the front shaft, and hardly any angle on the rear one. All of that will significantly increase the workload/stresses on the respective universal joints, pinions, drive shafts etc.
It appears that this type of arrangement can often cause serious vibration issues, as well as handling problems and a significant risk of wear/breakages to several drivetrain components.
I have to look into it a bit more in the coming days, and take a few more measurements etc, before I can know for certain, but I'm not going to back away from what we've done to my 109 here, in fact I'm kind of looking forward to seeing how it goes...
My front diff pinion flange sits 385mm off the ground (centre of shaft), and is at 90 degrees (right angle from ground). The rear diff flange is 355mm off the ground and is also at 90 degrees.
This 30 mm pinion height difference is relative to the Rover front diff and Salisbury rear diff, and as such it will have to be factored into the engine/transfer angle equation, but I'm guessing the engine/transfer won't need to be tilted much to cover that small difference.
Anyway, if the above is the case, then the running angles (incline/decline) of the driveshafts will be approximately 10 degrees each, that's with a 1978 Series 3 109, ex army.
A civilian suspension would be done the same way, and the only difference would be in the drive shaft angles, they'd run at even less than 10 degrees, which is better again.
My front drive shaft is approx 670 mm long, and the rear is approx 950 mm long, and from what my drawings are showing, if they're both running at 10 degree angles, then it should be nice and balanced.
You know the crossmember behind the transfer box, where the rear shaft goes through that hole, well my rear shaft was always sitting quite close to the bottom of that hole, and you could see where it had kissed the crossmember on occassion, thus by lowering the front of the engine from the sky high position, back to level, that rear shaft runs in the middle of that hole now.
My gear sticks are all perfectly positioned too.
Anyhow, no matter how much I seem to dig, I just can't find any valid reason to run the Holden engine with the front of it sticking up in the air like a honeymoon *****.
I noticed another plus for running it level too, the rear lifter gallery of the red 202, has only 2 oil return holes, whereas the front one has 3. Not a big argument for the cause, but definitely another point in favour.
Master
After spending the better part of the day looking further into it, the information found still points to us having the engine sitting level, as the best option.
I keep seeing info which suggests that if the diff flange angles are at 90 degrees (parallel to the ground), then the transfer box flanges angles must run parallel to those.
The only extra tip I found, is in making sure the rear diff flange is sitting about 1 degree lower, so that would be at approximately 89 degrees, to allow for diff flex (upward) under load/power.
I'm not going to alter the diff flange angles, they should already be ok, as per the army specs, so I'm thinking I'll just add or subtract a pinch from the engine/transfer angle, via the engine mount adaptors, to meet those requirements.
I'll still be pondering it a bit more yet....
Master
Mick,I am interested to hear this information!
Cheers, Mick
The info that led me to say it looked as though there's a valid reason for the engine to be slanted high at the front, now appears to have been quite wrong.
That info was gleaned from a certain US based site, and that particular contributor/author, I now find has been roundly criticised on several other sites for his supposedly expert views.
His opinions are not even related to 4x4, as it turns out, but rather to the 2x4 hotrod scene, and even there he's finding the going tough.
RoverLord
Your reasoning for having the transfer case shaft and hence crankshaft parallel to the pinion shafts is quite correct, although I don't think I would be too worried about the 1 degree - if you think about it, the angular relationship will change as the vehicle is loaded, since most of the load is on the rear axle, so that unloaded the transfer case shaft will be down at the front, and fully loaded perhaps a little down at the back.
But the other thing to look at, as a possible reason for the front up tilt of the Holden engine, is the clearance from the front diff to sump or front pulley with maximum spring deflection. Although if this is a problem, I would consider a spacer under the spring stops might be a better solution.
John
John
JDNSW
1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol
Posting Permissions
| Search AULRO.com ONLY! |
Search All the Web! |
|---|
|
|
|
Bookmarks