BIB5566

Ongoing and archived Porsche (and other marques) restoration threads from DDK members

Moderator: Bootsy

knapmann
DDK slapper chatter
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon May 18, 2020 4:01 pm

Re: BIB5566

Post by knapmann »

neilbardsley wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 9:36 am What is the difference between RC5 and RC5+? I've found some RC5 but they say track use only?
I dont know, Im guessing that RC5+ was a reformulated replacement for RC5 which they dont mention on their website. Whether RC5+ is more/less streetable than RC5 I cannot say.
knapmann
DDK slapper chatter
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon May 18, 2020 4:01 pm

Re: BIB5566

Post by knapmann »

RobFrost wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 10:53 am I was wondering about the crank/flywheel interface. I believe the 2.4 crank doesn't fit the 2.0/901 flywheel. Did Mike sort some interface for you there?
Hmm I was not aware of this? I have never seen this said before... I hope this doesnt scupper my plans. If this is true I would have thought that there is a work around given that the bolt pattern is the same. Until I get my hands back on the crank and flywheel I couldnt say. It seems odd that you can fit later (2.2/2.4) flywheels onto a 2.0 crank in short-stroke applications but not the other way around?
Nine One One
Put a fork in me, I'm done!
Posts: 1619
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:45 am
Location: Kernow - good old Cornwall

Re: BIB5566

Post by Nine One One »

knapmann
DDK slapper chatter
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon May 18, 2020 4:01 pm

Re: BIB5566

Post by knapmann »

Nine One One wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 12:04 pm Does this help??

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche- ... trans.html
If anything it makes me more confident, Grady discusses the pros and cons of both clutch options i.e. they are both doable. Nowhere does it say that using the 2.0 clutch/fly is not possible, just that they have to be matched up to the correct 2.0/901 gearbox.
jwhillracer
Me and DDK sitting in a tree! KISSING
Posts: 2618
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:58 pm
Location: Sunny Somerset, just above the water....

Re: BIB5566

Post by jwhillracer »

It shouldn’t be a problem, I have a 2.4 matched to a 914 gearbox in our 914/6, and also a 2.0 flywheel machined for a triple plate clutch in our 3.2 SS hillclimb engine.

JW
Life's a single timed run with no practice....
1970 914/6 2.4E/Webers
1970 VW Beetle project
1972 911 Hillclimber 3.2 MFI. Part of the family for 30+ years!
2006 Hymer Merc Starline 630
2000 T4 Van LPG
2000 Golf V5 Estate GT (Greyhound Transport!)
jwhillracer
Me and DDK sitting in a tree! KISSING
Posts: 2618
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:58 pm
Location: Sunny Somerset, just above the water....

Re: BIB5566

Post by jwhillracer »

Just make sure, whatever else you do with the clutch that you have a centre plate with 901 splines! 🙄
JW
Life's a single timed run with no practice....
1970 914/6 2.4E/Webers
1970 VW Beetle project
1972 911 Hillclimber 3.2 MFI. Part of the family for 30+ years!
2006 Hymer Merc Starline 630
2000 T4 Van LPG
2000 Golf V5 Estate GT (Greyhound Transport!)
knapmann
DDK slapper chatter
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon May 18, 2020 4:01 pm

Re: BIB5566

Post by knapmann »

OK so ive been plodding along. Went to see Mike Bainbridge to pick up a sprocket flange from him, what a legend he is, I wish I had his job playing with fancy engines and gearboxes all day! He very kindly modified oil sprays into my conrods and gave me lots of time and advice about putting the case back together which he didnt have to do as he is very busy. I dont know what we will do without people like him one day. He was showing me cases and the mods he makes to maintain them, I was like a kid in a sweet shop, i'd never heard of people case-savering thru-studs before i.e. not head studs... he was explaining how this has become standard practice for him now due to regular issues with pulled thru-studs.... little would I know...

One of the thing he was showing me was the difference in No8 bearings. I didnt know there were different variants of No8 bearing (pic below). Early bearings it seems do not have the oil relief slot in them. I dont know when this was introduced but I thought they all had this. Well, mine did not, so it seems that up until at least 1969 it wasnt there. No doubt this is a large reason why my No8 is pissing oil as the oil pressure cannot be released back into the crank case.

Got my crank case back from the shop, it "looks" great, Mike was showing me a few of the dead cases he has and how bad they were, mostly USA cases, some were in terrible condition, dont know how they are so much worse than here. That said my case might only have 60k of garaged miles on it...(I dont know the genuine milage) I had the oil bypass mod done, they said that it didnt need align boring as it was straight as a die, I chose not to case saver it, A contoversial decision to some maybe but I have read a lot about how it is incredibly rare/unheard of, for the small capacity/small spigot cases to pull head studs. Thats not to say it is impossible but this engine hasnt pulled a stud to date, is die straight, and looks great, personally I dont want to go attacking it with blow torch and pulling the head studs unless its totally necessary. The whole process looks rather damaging, if the case pulls a stud in the future then I can/will deal with it then. Ill know what im doing second time around.

With the bottom end goodies back I did the usual, cleaned the balls out of the case halfs,, built up the (balanced) crank, test fitted it and the IMS, prepped all the thru bolts and nuts/ washers etc, I then went one further and bolted up the thru bolts in the case with the crank in place to make sure it span fine, which it did. More cleaning with lovely smelling MEK later and I then pondered and worried and researched the million different opinions on sealing the case (i had bought the myriad of different sealants a while back). Plumbed for one of the many varying opinions and went for it, clock ticking as soon and the first bit of sealing his the case.

Everyone loves to tell you how great everything went, this is not useful to anyone. These are the things that I realise as I did it.1)

1) Threebond is incredibly stringy and messy, its easy to leave strings of sealant across areas the case you dont want it to be.
2) You will use about 1% of the tubes of threebond / loctite 574. the rest will go to waste
3) spread it thin like~ 0.5mm - on the upper case half
4) this is key - if you have made your own tools for holding the rods and chain, test them in application first, do not apply all you sealants then assume they will fit and work fine because you made them as per dempseys seemingly crap drawings, they wont work, panic ensues
5) its impossible to know if the chunky oil pump seals are seated correctly you just have to put the upper half of the case on and assume all is ok
6) dont forget to put the chains on your IMS, this would be bad.... i spotted this in time!
7) There is no consistency which side the thru bolts heads and nuts are on, dempsey seems to show the nuts on the underside which seems ridiculous for torquing

Despite the issues with the chain and rod holders I managed to get everything together within about 15-20mins. I had decided to speed things along by initially not o-ringing and sealanting the thru bolts. I have again read a few times that these can be installed plain/dry at first, whilst the sealant cures then o-ringed one at a time at a later date. This is my plan. My 0.5mm target sealant thickness has given me excellent squeeze-out results, i cant imagine this can be bettered - , that said proof is in the pudding and Im a long way off that yet.Thnk god!

had a brief heart attack moment when the crank locked up when tried to spin it. It was just a rod hanging up inside the case.

So finally torquing up the perimiter nuts, and like I said, not being one to try and tell you how great everything went...all was fine and then ...the IMS saddle stud has pulled. Just like Mike was saying, and just like when I was thinking I'd never heard of this being an issue before. Now I can understand why he case savers perimeter studs! I have managed to get most of the required torque on the nut but not all before it pulled. At first I was gutted, its basically one of he last nuts to torque in the case mating process.... fortunately I have read on Pelican that you can tap it out in situ to M10 and put a replacement stud in there without having to split the case again. Thank God!

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
sladey
Nurse, I think I need some assistance
Posts: 8631
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:08 pm
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: BIB5566

Post by sladey »

Great write up - thanks for sharing and happy Christmas
The simple things you see are all complicated
I look pretty young but I'm just backdated yeah
911hillclimber
Nurse, I think I need some assistance
Posts: 18857
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:26 pm
Location: West Midlands

Re: BIB5566

Post by 911hillclimber »

I've done 4 911 crankyp rebuilds, and none have gone totally to plan, so you are not alone!
I have used a full bottle. Of loctite on all 4 engines, you have a lot more to seal yet.
Interesting to read a rebuild thread, look forward to more episodes.
Happy Nnew Year!
73T 911 Coupe, road/hillclimber 3.2L
Lola t 492 / 3.2 hillclimb racer
Boxster 987 Gen II 2.9
User avatar
hot66
Moderator
Posts: 18221
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 4:17 pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: BIB5566

Post by hot66 »

Great update and yes Mike is a star 8)
James

1973 911 2.4S
1993 964 C2
2010 987 Spyder
1973 MGB Roadster

Its not how fast you go, but how you go fast ;)
IanM
DDK rules my life!
Posts: 1124
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:45 pm

Re: BIB5566

Post by IanM »

Thanks for the update. What's this?
knapmann wrote: Sun Dec 25, 2022 1:35 am Image
911hillclimber
Nurse, I think I need some assistance
Posts: 18857
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:26 pm
Location: West Midlands

Re: BIB5566

Post by 911hillclimber »

I think that is the stud that pulled.
Porsche would have the thread protruding the same ammount as the perimeter bolts in that picture (assuming the stud was fully home in the case half, which , if not, would be why it pulled.
73T 911 Coupe, road/hillclimber 3.2L
Lola t 492 / 3.2 hillclimb racer
Boxster 987 Gen II 2.9
IanM
DDK rules my life!
Posts: 1124
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:45 pm

Re: BIB5566

Post by IanM »

OK, got it. Thanks.
knapmann
DDK slapper chatter
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon May 18, 2020 4:01 pm

Re: BIB5566

Post by knapmann »

Hello again all.

Yes the above is the pulled stud. The amount of free thread is indeed indicative of the pull.

TBH I did think, how important is this stud in actuality, theres lots of other studs in the vicinity... it would probably run fine as it is... but conscience gets the better, plus the fix seemed simple.

So I went for the tap out to M10 repair which seemed easy enough but naturally nothing in life worth having comes easy, plus the path of my life is strewn with cowpats from the devil's own satanic herd. First thing to note is that this is a long stud, probably the longest on the whole case at about 130mm. I tapped the hole to M10 the full depth using my home made extra long tap. With that done, this results in both case halfs being threaded, something which If you simply ran a bolt through Im not sure you would be pulling the two halfs together per-se when you torque it. So I opted to drill out the thread of the outer case half (~90mm). leaving the thread only in the half which originally pulled. If this makes sense... from which I can install an M10 stud much like the original to torque the halfs together

This was a great plan until the devils herd decided shite on me from an even greater height and break my drill bit off deep inside the case. I went through the full 7 stages of grief, shock, denial, anger, bargaining.... Try as I might there was no way this drill bit was coming out and everything the Porsche gods were telling me was "thou shall't split the case again". Needless to say many a curse word was uttered, tools thrown, fawlty towers style tantrums had, (im going to give you a damn good thrashing!)

So It was split the case again! bash out the broken drill bit, drill out the remainder of the case half with a new drill bit, clean all the sealant off both halfs again, go through the whole process of bolting it all together again, this time without dempseys useless rod and chain tools, and without any studs pulling.

So now im back where I was before but with full torque on all the studs.

After all of this fun I paint strippered my black rocker covers - my understanding is that 1969 covers would have been bare metal from the factory - then I started sanding down the rocker covers to get them flat as per Dempsey again. Im sure this technique would eventually work, but if your covers are anything like mine with ~2mm of warp it will take you a year to sand them down and about 20 cans of WD40 and 100 sheets of 180 grit. Sometimes the task is more hassle than its worth. I will have to pay to get them machined flat. It did work on the breather and IMS cover which are much smaller and thus less warped.

Waiting on Piston Rings and Heads now

Image
Image
Image
Image
911hillclimber
Nurse, I think I need some assistance
Posts: 18857
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:26 pm
Location: West Midlands

Re: BIB5566

Post by 911hillclimber »

Good grief!
Well done on fighting and winning, bitch of a task, BUT, all done now, lots more fun to come.
The Dempsey rod and chan supports are very flimsy unless made of some spring steel, I got frustrated with mine too.

When you get to installing rings, invest in one of the machined taper compressors of the correct size. Gary told me about these things and they really are very good, no moving parts, no clamping just correct alignment and even pressure to compress the rings, drop of oil works wonders.

Onwards and upwards!
73T 911 Coupe, road/hillclimber 3.2L
Lola t 492 / 3.2 hillclimb racer
Boxster 987 Gen II 2.9
Post Reply