That makes sense. Persons that habitually installed the engine and
transmission separately found that they needed the clearance, and
recommended it as part of the procedure. Persons that ignorantly charged
ahead, but habitually installed the engine and transmission as a unit,
didn't run into this problem. At least it's a theory...
on 3/21/02 9:57 AM, Dodd, Kelvin at doddk@mossmotors.com wrote:
> Max:
>
> I may have run into an answer here. I have not had a problem with
> the two conversions I did on 1965 chassis's. I installed a number of
> different engine/trans combinations with new and used motor mounts. But, I
> always installed the engine and trans as an assembly.
>
> The last time I pulled the engine on my race car I left the trans in
> place. When attempting to reinstall the engine, I found that the nose of
> the trans would not lift up high enough to allow the engine to engage.
> Bumping out the trans tunnel edge just above the starter lump was required
> to solve the problem.
>
> The clearance to the starter bump is tight, and I can see how it
> would not take much in the way of varience for the shell to interfere. Keep
> in mind the tolerance on the welded seams of the shellare not critical and
> may vary widely from car to car.
>
>
> Kelvin.
>>
>> Hmm, the point of difference seems to be this "bump-out" for
>> the starter.
>> Some people have done this, and others (including myself)
>> haven't. Let me
>> ask you, Norm, did you do this on your own initiative,
>> because you noticed
>> interference, or was it part of a procedure you heard from
>> someone else? I'm
>> curious why it sometimes is necessary, but apparently not always...
>
--
Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the primer red one with chrome wires
///
/// mgs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
|