Engine and Transmission Tech

I just went & measured a Rover 3.9 block. The oil galley is 7/16. The crazy thing is I can find no reference anywhere to this mod being done on Rover blocks. Spent quite a bit of time searching v8forum.co.uk/forum/ and there is nothing about doing this to Rovers. I was sure the factory had addressed this at some point. Live & learn.

Carl, was that the pickup galley or the pressure side? I think it sounds right for the pressure side but the suction side should be bigger.

Jim

Jim:

Relative to reworking the Rover cast pan to redistribute the volume without extending below the frame, I had briefly thought of that, but then www.seight.com/baffle.html article made me wonder what sort of internal baffling and trap doors would be needed. I wonder if it would be OK to use the OEM windage tray without adding any baffles or trap doors.

I need to take some measurements to see what volume I could create by revising the Rover cast pan shape so that it doesn't extend below the frame. I'm pretty tight down there. The GT6 is a narrow frame and there is no room on the sides of the Rover pan, but there might be some room where the cast pan widens just before the bell housing.

Bill

You'd have to add back in the area you lost off the bottom. Can you extend the sump section any further forward? I'd probably try that first.

Jim

Jim:

I think you may be onto something! Here is the frame into which I have to set the engine. The gray metal is where I have reworked the frame to accept the Rover bell housing and T5.


Here is the pan resting in it's position as though the Rover 4.6L engine is installed.


This is a closeup showing the space between the frame and the Rover cast pan sump. I have about 2-1/2" clearance on both sides of the pan sump running about 6-1/2" from the back of the sump forward towards the engine mount. The space between the sump and the frame can't be used from the engine mount forward because the engine mount I built takes up the space.


I need to shave off 1-1/2 inches to bring the bottom of the pan up to be parallel with the front frame cross member (and the bottom of the bell housing cover).

If I shave the Rover cast oil pan 1-1/2" (2-1/2" at the drain plug sump) then the sump hangs down only 5" from the top of the pan (like the BOP 215 oil pan). That removes 58.5 in3 of volume (minus some wall thickness). If I put wings (or ears) on the sump portion of the pan that are 6-1/2" long x 2-1/2" wide x 3" deep, each wing will add 32 in3, for a total of 64 in3 from wings on both sides. Better than break even with what I shaved off.

This approach leaves the windage tray in place, and still provides the rigidity of the cast pan.

I can put the drain plug on the rear face to avoid it being struck. I can make the new floor of the shaved pan slope to below the new drain plug to create a sludge capture crevice.

I may want to add some internal trap doors, because I suspect slosh effects in a wide shallow sump are worse than a narrow deep sump of equivalent volume...hmmm.

Now I need to mount the Rover cast pan back on to the engine, drop the engine in place between the frame rails, and make cardboard mockups that I can provide to the welder.

(Whew...it's a lot of work to get pictures re-sized and attached to a message. Yikes.)

Thanks for the thought, Jim.

Bill

Quote:

Carl, was that the pickup galley or the pressure side? I think it sounds right for the pressure side but the suction side should be bigger.

Jim,

That 7/16" was at the front of the block where it goes to the oil pump. The hole in the bottom where the oil pickup is bolted is slightly smaller at 51/128" as best I could measure. I thought they would both be bigger. This is on a 1989 3.9L block.

Yeah, I did too but it's been awhile since I looked at one. That's definitely on the smallish side. I went up to 9/16" on my 340. Could have probably gone to 5/8" but the iron block is thinner there than the aluminum one and I'd already lost one block (stock unmodified) due to a casting flaw into an oil galley and didn't want to chance the second. 9/16 is considered good for performance applications, 5/8 is better. Remember that double the diameter quadruples the flow so even a small increase is very helpful.The aluminum blocks are a little bulkier in that area so they have a little more margin for error. Even so, just drilling out the hole with a larger bit can lead to trouble with the drill wandering. It's been done, and the nice thing about an aluminum block is that if you do break out it can be welded back up and done again. But it's not that hard to make a long piloted bit if you have access to a lathe or someone who does. That and an angle grinder is about all it takes.

Here's how I go about it: Buy a standard short 5/8" bit with a 1/2" or even 3/8" shank. Put it in the lathe and steadying the angle grinder against the toolpost and with a steady hand and light pressure, grind the tip down about 5/16" back to the needed pilot size, (obviously a toolpost grinder here will do a much better job but a hand ground tip will work) testing it to fit the hole as you go. It doesn't have to be perfectly smooth and uniform, just fit well enough in the hole to stay centered. Use a zip blade to get the corners sharp and grind cutting edges at the flutes where the pilot ends, you can undercut the pilot a bit at the root to get a sharp corner. Grind the relief angle behind the cutting edge at 7 degrees or better, aluminum will easily tolerate an angle of twice that so it isn't critical at all. The angle of the edge to the centerline can be up to 90 degrees (flat) but should not be tapered back any more than a standard drill tip (135 degree included angle) . Try to get the two edges the same distance from the tip but don't obsess over it, with the pilot just one edge can cut and the bit will still stay centered.

Next make a shank extension. Overall length of 12" should be adequate (and you can also buy 12" length drills if you want to skip this part). I use whatever 1/2" steel round stock I have available. Using the lathe, drill a pilot hole in the end 1 to 1-1/2" deep and carefully enlarge it to the shank size if using a 3/8" shank. If not, drill to a convenient size and turn the shank down to a snug fit. Then flux the hole and shank, drop some pieces of silver solder or brass down the hole, insert the shank, put it back in the lathe, and while rotating at low speed heat it with the torch until brass appears at the end of the joint. Let it cool down, check that it is straight and your edges are good, and you're ready to go. Takes about as long to do as it does to tell about it. Now you have a nice piloted bit that will stay centered in the hole and let you enlarge the passage properly without breaking out.

I actually cut the flutes short on the back side once because I had tried to drill with standard bits and the hole had gone off path and I wanted to let the pilot steer it back on course and that worked quite well. Made a kinda funny looking bit but when it got to the point where the other bit had wandered it pulled the hole right back to center. That block would have been destroyed If I had persisted with unpiloted bits.

On the pan, that sounds like a good plan to me, I think instead of the trapdoors I'd consider just using about a 45 degree angle at the bottom of the extensions to direct the oil back to the middle. Unless you plan to do skidpad work that should be adequate I would think. (At anything less than 1G lateral acceleration oil with run down a 45 degree slope.)

Also, you say the Rover pan is deeper than the Buick. Have you checked to see if they are the same capacity sumps? You might be dealing with a 7 quart and a 5 quart sump respectively in which case things get simpler.

Jim

PT Schram
Who will make the mount and drive work???


PT Schram?

PT Schram of Churubusco?

Would that be the PT Schram of Churubusco, Snap-On dealer to the world of British V8?

I hope that you have taken the steering rack into account. The pan obviously needs to clear the rack.

Have you considered modifying the crossmember ?

Jim:

Except for maybe some initial suspension tuning, the longest "skidpad" should be a carousel at a track, maybe 10-15 sec? But I doubt I'll generate 1g. Maybe 0.9. (I'm guessing.) So the 45 degree baffle might be good enough.

I have not checked the sump capacities, but the Rover sump is the same basic dimensions as the BOP sump, only 1.5" deeper. I figure there is a good reason why Rover made the sump larger. I realize the reason is most likely *not* capacity for high RPM (where a lot of oil is dispersed around the engine and has not made its way back to the sump), or large long lateral accelerations, but its probably for long and large tilt angles, which is a good simulation of lateral acceleration. And it might be for cooling, which is good for working an engine hard. It might be just so the Range Rover can be operated longer without needing to add oil. Whatever the reason, more capacity is better than less capacity as long as one controls slosh. So I'm motivated to retain the stock sump capacity.

Jukka:

The steering rack goes across the front of the engine under the accessories, so I'm good there. As far as the crossmember is concerned, the problem occurs behind the crossmember where the oil pan sump is located. The engine sits with the front of the oil pan over the crossmember, so notching the crossmember would only make the sump ground clearance less. Nuts.

Bill

The late Rovers with the cast pan definitely take more oil. I could never get 6 quarts in my 215.

I found the hard way that fitting an engine and steering in the same space may be difficult. When I fitted a Rover V8 into a Morris Minor I mimicked the Triumph front suspension. Uprights and A-arms were Triumph items, coilovers uprated GT6 specs and brakes a mix of vented BMW discs and European GM calipers.

I had to modify the pan quite a lot, lower it at the front to clear the rack, add some capacity in the rear (1 inch deeper). Things got complicated when I realised that I had to move the rack further back because the track rods would not allow enough movement.

The last surprise was that I could not drop the engine/box combo in place. I had to tilt the engine back but the heads hit the body berfore the pan cleared front crossmember. I had to remove the intake and heads to fit the engine. Well you can´t think of everything :-)

Jukka:

I have been ignoring the steering assuming I will come up with a solution once I get the engine installed. Now may be the time to think about steering.

My steering rack stock installation is, of course, what you show in your picture. I will have to move the rack forward to new mounting pads ahead of the oil pan - about 3" minimum. Based on your experience, that will cause the track rods (tie rods) to not provide enough movement at the hub steering arm, as well as screw up the Ackerman angle. I don't want to raise the engine to clear the steering rack because then the engine definitely would not fit under the bonnet. Moving the steering rack seemed like an easier problem to solve than relocating induction components. Maybe not.

Maybe making the pan thinner in the front ahead of the cross member to clear the rack is a possibility, but I worry about getting it too close to the rotating crank counterweights.

Another possibility is to lower the steering rack mounting pads, but that would require rerouting the frame ahead of the crossmember....

I need to place the engine into its intended mounting spot and check some clearances. Now is the time to do that. Thanks for motivating me to think about how I am going to make the steering work.

I will need to do the very same upgrades you have done to the springs and brakes so I am interested in the specifics. Where did you get the springs and shocks? Which BMW disks and which GM calipers did you use?

I am intrigued by a Minor with a Rover V8. What a neat idea! Do you have a blog? I'd like to see more.

Thx,

Bill

I've laid out how I think I can mount the Rover V8 and the steering rack. The rack can sneak under the engine between the front of the oil pan and the back of the crankshaft pulley. This picture shows the rack laid where I plan to mount it.


This picture shows the rack and crank pulley from the passenger side. You can see the stock steering rack mounting pads. I am moving the steering rack forward about 2-3/4", but not changing it's height.


This picture is looking up from below showing the steering rack in the notch between the crankshaft pulley and the front of the oil pan.


So unless someone points out why this mounting location is not a good idea, I'm moving the stock mounting pads forward 3".

I have already decided (see earlier posts) I am going to shave the oil pan and add wings to keep an equivalent volume, but as it turned out, I could not lower the engine anymore than these pictures show because of the steering rack, the bell housing, and the driveshaft offset. If I moved the steering rack farther forward (ahead of the crankshaft pulley), I could lower the engine another 3/4"-1" by notching the frame cross member (and reinforcing it elsewhere), but then the bottom of the bell housing was too low. I also found I had to raise the back of the tranny to keep the offset angle between the output shaft and the diff less than 3 deg. Raising the rear of the tranny a couple inches lowered the the height of the alternator and AC compressor pulleys a smidge (since the engine/tranny is pivoting about where the engine passes over the cross member), and this is a good thing because these pulleys are going to hit the stock hood...but that's another problem for the day when I am doing body work.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2015 09:31PM by GT8MX.

The problem I had was with the inner joints at the rack, not at the steering arm. I´d say that your setup would definitely cause problems. I had the factory measurements when I did the front suspension but moved the rack forward from factory position to clear the oil pan. This caused problems with the steering.

Another issue in the ackerman angles especially at full lock, also depending on the wheels your track rod might end up very close to wheel rim. So I would say that if possible keep the rack where it is supposed to be and modify the oil pan. I did quite a lot of oil pan welding to make it fit and yes the pan is very shallow at front cylinders. There is now about 1/4" clearance from pan to the rack :-) Hard braking from 100 mph+ does provide some blue smoke from the exhaust... I can live with that if the steering works properly.



Here´s a pic of my pan. You can see where the rack is compared to the engine. I also modified the K-member by adding a bolt on section (missing in this picture). This helps during engine removal.

Have you considered the Accusump from Canton ? If you think that your oil pan volume is too small the Accusump would provide some backup ?

About the front suspension stuff: I bought them from Triumphtune which nowadays is part of Moss in UK. Another source for parts is Rimmers ( [www.rimmerbros.co.uk] ) also in UK.

I did have website at geocities.com but they are long gone. There is some info left but very ancient:

[www.reocities.com]

[www.reocities.com]

A lot has been modified/uprated since then.

I’ve decided the only way I am going to solve the steering rack mounting problem is to move the A-arms and steering rack forward about 4” so the rack can use the stock mounting pads and leave the entire front suspension intact, thereby preserving Ackerman angle, maintaining turning angle, and avoid introducing bump steer. Here’s a picture that shows what we’ve been discussing in this thread.


Here is a picture that shows where I intend to add about 4”to the frame.


It should be relatively easy because the frame is a straight square at that point. I am fortunate that the hood flips forward like the E-type so there are no fenders to fool with. I will lengthen the hood by the same amount with a band inserted into the hood in front of the rear edge and behind the louvers (a GT6 hood). I need to figure out how I will handle where the hood meets the body since it closes like a clamshell on the sides. I will have to extend the lower half that is the body where the hood and body meet.

Extending the frame to move the front suspension forward solves several problems:

1. I was planning to reshape a section of the firewall on both sides where the wheel would have impacted it in a turn. Now I don’t need to.
2. Moving the hood forward moves the point forward where the hood begins to slope down to the bumper, providing more clearance for the AC compressor and alternator pulleys.
3. The cross member will be moved forward along with the suspension, so interference with the oil pan is noi longer an issue. (Although the orignal problem with the oil pan hanging down too far still exists.)
4. I can extend the oil pan forward to regain volume that I lose by shaving it so it doesn’t hang down so far.
5. Without a crossmember, I can lower the engine 1”-2” which will aid me in making the EFI throttle body clear the underside of the hood.
6. Moving the front suspension forward, without moving the engine, will place the engine and it’s accessories completely behind the front “axle”, which can only help weight distribution.

I find lengthening the front frame and hood annoying because it’s yet-another-thing I need to do. When I made the first post of this thred, I thought I only had an oil pan ground clearnace problem to solve. I seem to keep iterating and can’t get the drivetrain finalized! 

But seriously, thank you Jukka for making me aware of my steering rack problem. I had not yet discovered it. Without your followup pictures and descriptions of the specific problems you had, I would have mounted the rack as I had shown in my earlier post and not known I had caused problems until I took the car out on the road.

If you are willing to such drastic actions maybe you should consider another option. Why don´t you get rid of the factory suspension and fit a Mustang II based suspension. Have a critical look to the Triumph suspension: pressed steel A-arms bolted together, no lower ball joint, quite thin upright, 1" diameter bushes etc. Once you add up the cost to replace/upgrade the suspension you have a quite a large total of USD.

Which wheels are you going to have 13", 14" or bigger ? Triumph PCD is a weirdo 4x3,75" so wheel selection is quite limited. This is one thing where I was stupid. I should have chosen a more common PCD for wide variety of wheels. I had to special order 15" alloys from Compomotive in UK with that PCD and it was not cheap. Bigger wheels allow bigger brakes which might be a wise investment with a V8. Now have an another look at the Triumph upright and spindle/hub and think about big wheels/brakes on that setup.

I personally would leave the body as is. Having modified my oil pan I would say that this would still be the easiest way. Get two steel pans, lengthen the front section and modify elsewhere. As for additional strength, I am running a 300 hp 4,6 engine and have not had any issues. I´ll get you another photo tonight, I am swapping the brake discs and have enough access to get a side view photo of the rack/pan.

BTW, I got rid of the Triumph suspension simply because I thought it is a bit flimsy and it wore bushes quite fast. I used European GM stuff when fabricating a new suspension and have been very happy with it.

Jukka:

I'm disappointed to hear that you replaced the Triumph suspension because I had been using your car as motivation for me to keep it! The front suspension is the only past of the drive train left from the donor Spitfire. :o I agree, the Triumph suspension is a tad wimpy (it was, after all, a bottom-feeder sports car). I didn't realize it does not have a lower ball joint. That can't help cornering precision....

I had a set of PCD adapters machined so that they bolt to the Triumph front hubs and then present Miata PCDs. It adds about 3/4" to the track on each side. Since I have grafted a Miata rear suspension on - I didn't want a swing axle and I didn't think the Spitfire differential could handle the Rover V8 torque - these adapters give me Miata PCD at all four corners, and there are lots of wheels for the Miata. I've got 17" wheels. I found I had to go to at least 17" to get decent tire widths and profiles. Tire manufacturers make a very limited selection of 15" and 16" road tires. I wanted a wide foot print relative to the width of the car, and a low enough profile that the overall diameter of the tire was within 1" of stock so I wouldn't screw up the stance too much. I ended up with Yokohama S.drive 235/40 R17 in the rear and 205/40 R17 in the front. Yes, it's more tire than needed, but it looks cool! :)

300 HP is the target for my 4.6. What mods did you do to get there? I plan to run it for a while with the stock 255 HP / 275 TQ and then pull the engine and rebuild it for 300 HP.

As far as replacing the Triumph suspension, man, I really don't want yet-another-scope-creep to keep me from getting closer to driving it. I think I'll get it on the road and then once I get the myriads of more basic problems sorted out, I can consider replacing the Triumph suspension. One of my worries is the teeny-tiny Triumph lug bolts. But since they don't have any torque (except braking) and the car will weigh within 200 Lbs of stock, they shouldn't break off. I hope.

And there is just no way to modify the oil pan to clear the steering rack if the rack is in it's stock location. If you look at the pictures I posted, the perspective may not be there to tell, but the steering rack would cut right through the lower lip of the block and interfere with the crank weights' swing. The oil pan is already snug to the crank at the front of the pan, and that's where the steering rack would need to pass under the engine. There is just no extra crank counterweight clearance in the pan to remove at the front. The Spitfire bonnet is so low that I can't raise the engine enough to clear the steering rack without requiring an unsightly bulge on the hood like I a had a Roots blower. I will still need to rework the pan in the rear to get sufficient ground clearance.

Extending the frame brings in a new problem: The Rover 4.6L with the crank driven oil pump has its filter mount as an integral part of the timing chain cover. The filter mount sticks out about 3 inches from the engine. I can only move the front suspension forward (by extending the frame) about 4” before the front suspension uprights run into this oil filter mount.

Unfortunately, moving the suspension and steering rack forward 4” places the steering rack directly under the engine between the front of the oil pan and the back of the crank pulley, which is OK, but I would have to lower the steering rack (or raise the engine) to clear. I already discovered I can’t notch the frame and lower the steering rack because of the lower A-arm mount that is there, and I don’t want to raise the engine.

So here is what I am considering:
1. Move the suspension and steering rack forward 4” (as much as I can) by extending the frame,
2. Move the steering rack forward 4” from stock location (so it’s in front of the crankshaft pulley and not under the engine at all), and
3. (Here comes the steering sacrilege and suspicious part) extend the steering arms on the uprights by about 4” so the tie rod mounting hole on the upright’s steering arms are still in the same relationship to the steering rack as stock (directly opposite). The steering arm extensions would have to move the tie rod mounting hole forward and inboard so that it is parallel with the inner edge of the tire.

Other than decreasing steering difficulty by 1/2 and increasing steering sensitivity (fewer turns lock to lock), I think this will keep the stock steering geometry. There is sufficient clearance under the hood that the extended steering arm won’t hit anything.

What am I missing? Maybe the steering becomes twitchy with too much feedback?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 09:57AM by GT8MX.

why dont you modify the front cover and get rid of the oil filter at that location? with some cutting and tig welding you should be able to have some fittings in the oil galley for a remote filter....