Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi guys so I have a customer's car in ready for some fab work and something has caught my eye & I believe it's going to cause alot of issues but the customer has been reassured by his engine builder that its fine. But basically they have put a 10mm spacer under 1 engine mount to keep the sump off the steering rack. The mount isn't even sitting flush on the chassis either. Refer to 2nd picture. I will let the pictures do the talking. 

Appreciate any feedback you might have. 

20200520_092348.jpg

20200520_093708.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/480426-dry-sump-rb2630-fitment-issues/
Share on other sites

In my opinion the motor needs to come out and the sump needs to be notched around the rack. 

You Can see in this pic here where the issue is and it's already been rubbing. 

What issues do you smart gents foresee happening in this situation?

20200516_125725.jpg

That is pretty ghetto. Considering if you are messing around with a dry sump it is a serious build, not a backyard shit box.

no way would i be ok with that, especially considering it is an AWD car.

Yep it's a serious bit of kit. I wouldn't be happy with it either. 

Think it would eventually crack the sump?  

Diff is obviously gunna be loaded up more on 1 side than the other. Especially when the motor running and twisting under power!

As you can see the engine mount is floating on the chassis already 

4 hours ago, Mick_o said:

Yep it's a serious bit of kit. I wouldn't be happy with it either. 

Think it would eventually crack the sump?  

Diff is obviously gunna be loaded up more on 1 side than the other. Especially when the motor running and twisting under power!

As you can see the engine mount is floating on the chassis already 

Ally fretting on steel cross member is either going to wear it paper thin, or cause fatigue.  Problem in the making.

Also I'd reckon the mounts require a zero set - twisting it (power train) while tightening it all down is only going to introduce stress points under load as you say.

Matt's solution looks the goods.

3 hours ago, R32 TT said:

Had same issue - but did something about it.

 

IMG_6671.thumb.jpg.cf19ad57f934d2ee35422dfc3bbed7a4.jpgIMG_6668.thumb.jpg.08122df54ab340d368e9af19da31cede.jpg

IMG_6691.jpg

IMG_6694.jpg

IMG_6696.jpg

IMG_6697.jpg

Thanks mate! That was exactly what I was thinking needed to happen. Unfortunately the owner is going to run with the spacers as he has been reassured there wont be a problem 

  • Like 1

Wow really?   

I don't think I would like a sump resting on, or chafing on, the subframe like that.   Ironic that you would put a dry sump in for ultimate reliability in oil supply, and then let something like this through.

Edited by R32 TT
  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I should try the experiment you're talking about, the throttle switch is still there carried over from the R32 and it's still all wired up but after I did the whole intake manifold refurb and had to recalibrate the TPS I managed to somehow get the idle switch reporting activation at 0.22V, then when I adjusted it to 0.45V for idle it decided the engine was permanently no longer idling which caused some very weird behavior, closed loop idle was disabled so it would basically be at the whims of the cold start valve and whatever the base timing table was at. Then just unplugging/replugging the TPS with the ECU live caused it to relearn the idle TPS position and decide 0.45V was idle. Presumably there's nothing in the TPS that allows for the throttle switch to "recalibrate" like that, not easily at least.
    • Duh... to answer my own silly question, it's actually described in the FSM... ...400 pages away at the end of the manual, for RB25DE/DET signal descriptions, it cites the TPSwitch signal action, is dependent on the TPSensor value ~ this tends to infer the builtin POT voltage signal is the primary, and the switches are fallback/secondary should the POT fail/TPSensor signal lost (and switch alone with no TPSensor signal allows for base idle speed setting).... makes sense... they (TPS units) used to fail/wear the POT with time, they're not exactly built to last ~ having the switch as a redundancy gets around this...(or, it's less likely both signals would be lost as they're on different power rails)... and of course wrt RB26DETT, you have to electrically disconnect the IACV solenoid from the harness, to defeat idle air control...  
    • Dose is unaware just how much fun 145-150kw would be in a 2.5L NC MX5. It would be one of the most fun things to drive to ever grace SAU.
    • Same thought crossed my mind ~ depends on how one connotes 'stalling'...ie; gets a rough/stumbling idle as it get warm until it stalls... or... idles ok and simply falls-over when it gets to temp... ...you can test the whole circuit with a couple of resistors ...unplug coolant temp sensor, bridge terminals with a 2K7 resistor (ECU will do cold start), or with engine warm bridge with a 330R resistor (ECU will consider engine to be at normal operating temp)...it's a quick way to check wiring integrity/ECU response when you don't have a multimeter handy ...
    • They also make them with the motor mounted on the side 
×
×
  • Create New...