jakeshoe Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Now that the install is complete and the car is legal to driver as of yesterday I'll post a few thoughts on the swap. The JTR kit is excellent quality and works well, however I don't think I'll mount another one in that position unless the ultimate goal is auto-crossing or drag racing. The average street car won't notice a huge difference I believe in the position and it brings a few problems that the "Scarab" position wouldn't. 1. One of the major PITA parts of this swap is the auto trans dipstick. In the JTR position, even with the floorpan "clearanced", the dispstick is against the bellhousing and floor. I will probably go to a flexible Lokar style dipstick. 2. Distributor clearance. very limited and removal requires pulling the hood latch components loose. Not a real big deal, but if the motor was 1" further forward it would have more options. 3. Balancer to steering clearance. A couple of inches forward would solve this issue also. Overall I think a more forward position would save the average street car alot of hassle on the install. I think maybe a position somewhere in between the Scarab and JTR might be best. I would be tempted to use the JTR mounts and drill a different set of holes to move the motor forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 jakeshoe... interesting observations. My Alpha 1 currently has a forward-style kit like the Scarab. I bought the JTR kit to replace it for two reasons... 1) better weight ratio, and 2) more room to mount an electric puller electric fan and electric water pump. I think I can get by with just 2+ inches extra spacing though. What is your recommended mod for an uninstalled JTR kit to move the motor forward 1.5 inches from the JTR standard? Maybe I should trace the existing JTR mounts and add 1.5 inches, then have some new mounts made from the sketch??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakeshoe Posted October 21, 2006 Author Share Posted October 21, 2006 Mike, I would just drill a new set of holes in the JTR mounting plates. There is plenty of room for a fan and pump even in the Scarab location i woudl think. I have lots of room in my car. I don't think the weight ratio is a huge deal unless you are after the last ounce of traction in a drag application, or the very best handling in an Auto-X application. Especially with an aluminum headed SBC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 jakeshoe... I tried an electric pump and puller fan. They don't fit with the engine mounted this far forward. I need at least 2 inches more room. The 50/50 weight ratio thing is for bragging rights and resale value... every little thing counts to the buyer. I have no intention of selling this car but I can't predict future circumstances. I'll drill new holes in the plates then... it's easier. Thanks for sharing your insights. This will save me some trouble. BTW, do you think moving the holes just one inch will resolve the issues you experienced? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 One more question... Do you think moving the engine just an inch or two forward of the normal JTR postion will allow use of headers with longer equal-length runners. I don't like the block huggers that are on the car right now. I don't think they're a particularly good match with my heads and cam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Okay... I did some searching and found a thread discussing JTR, MSA, and Scarab mounting schemes. Aparently, the MSA kit sets the engine somewhere between where the other two do. This eliminates the issues you discussed plus it allows use of full-length headers instead of forcing use of block huggers. QUOTE: "With this kit (MSA) the motor sits farther back than a Scarab but not as far as the JTR. You can use full length headers with the MSA kit." Here's the thread... http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=96879&highlight=headers+scarab+jtr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pop N Wood Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 The big advantage of the JTR kit is it puts the shifter of a T5 in the middle of the stock shifter opening. MikeJTR, the guy who developed the kit, says he built the kit to allow the use of the manual transmission and made up all the weight distributions stuff to help sell the package. Hopefully I didn't butcher his word too horribly. The MSA kit is generally believed to not work with a manual trans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 MikeJTR, the guy who developed the kit, says he built the kit to allow the use of the manual transmission and made up all the weight distributions stuff to help sell the package. Hopefully I didn't butcher his word too horribly. I think "made up" might be butchering it a bit. I don't think weight distribution was a goal at first, but it isn't a "made up" benefit either. Look at a GT2 Z. One of the things they do, and they ALL do it is to move the engine back 2". John Coffey's Z has the engine moved back, as does tube80z's autoxer. It's not a theoretical benefit, and it isn't made up. If it was unintentional on Mike's part when he designed the kit, then he got lucky. But moving the engine back (what is it 4" vs the Scarab?) is a DEFINITE advantage for those interested in autox or road course racing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 JON... Agreed. However, for those of us running automatics (I'll be running a 200R4) in street-driven cars, stick placement is a non-issue. For those of us with street-driven cars probably need (WANT) the low/mid torque supported by the longer headers. Perfect weight distribution is not critical for in many applications. I'm an impatient man and little things like the tranny dipstick issue and cumbersome access to the dizzy drive me crazy and I'm sure others feel the same way. Besides... I just want to PI$$ off Mustang, Camaro, and Viper owners who put a bunch of $$$ into their over-weight cars;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 True enough Mike, I just wanted to clarify that moving the weight back DOES do something. But you're absolutely right, full length headers ALSO does something. Depends on what you want as to which is the bigger advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 JON... Yes, indeed. It's all a matter of how one's car is set up and how it's driven. Honestly, I continue to learn so much from the hybridz forum that I feel obligated to donate more $$$. The measely $50 I just sent seems... well, measley compared to the time and $$$ I'm saving. I'm strapped for $$$ at the moment but more is coming in the next few weeks!! BTW, you admin guys are awesome!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 to that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 If I decide to redrill the mounting holes in my JTR setback plates, is there anything else I would need to do? I know nothing about custom fabrication but, if I need to move the motor mount holes up as well as forward, I'd need to make new setback plates, right? For only moving the engine forward, do I have the direction correct (see pics). http://forums.hybridz.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=1521&stc=1&d=1161477825 http://forums.hybridz.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=1523&stc=1&d=1161477832 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forces Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Now that the install is complete and the car is legal to driver as of yesterday I'll post a few thoughts on the swap. The JTR kit is excellent quality and works well, however I don't think I'll mount another one in that position unless the ultimate goal is auto-crossing or drag racing. The average street car won't notice a huge difference I believe in the position and it brings a few problems that the "Scarab" position wouldn't. 1. One of the major PITA parts of this swap is the auto trans dipstick. In the JTR position, even with the floorpan "clearanced", the dispstick is against the bellhousing and floor. I will probably go to a flexible Lokar style dipstick. 2. Distributor clearance. very limited and removal requires pulling the hood latch components loose. Not a real big deal, but if the motor was 1" further forward it would have more options. 3. Balancer to steering clearance. A couple of inches forward would solve this issue also. Overall I think a more forward position would save the average street car alot of hassle on the install. I think maybe a position somewhere in between the Scarab and JTR might be best. I would be tempted to use the JTR mounts and drill a different set of holes to move the motor forward. I had all of these problems during the install which cost me time and money to resolve..... 1. Had to use a Lokar flex dipstick for tranny. If you go that route, make sure you get the firewall mount version, the tranny mount leaves no room to actually check the fluid level. 2. Had to mount up locking hood-pins and fab brackets, deleted the stock hood latch all together 3. Common 8" balancer won't work, had to use a 6" (as mentioned in the JTR manual. I wish I would have read that part a little more carefully when dropping the engine in. Not to change the subject, but I am skepical of the pressure points with the JTR kit. The very front of the motor is supported and the very back of the transmission is supported with the JTR trans crossmember. It seems like this puts a lot of stress of the trans to engine bolts, regaurdless of what grade bolts you use. But I guess if it's tried and true, it isn't a big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuntry Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 I was given the MSA kit with my Z, but after looking at the mounting a little closer, I think Im going with a motor plate. Just doesnt seem like that thin metal attached to the crossmember is going to hold much power. I know the plate is going to transfer some vibration, but Id rather be safe than sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 kuntry... can you post a drawing of the plate you're suggesting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Forces... what remedy would you suggest to relieve the stress on the transmission bolts? Can you post a drawing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavyZ Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Not to change the subject, but I am skepical of the pressure points with the JTR kit. The very front of the motor is supported and the very back of the transmission is supported with the JTR trans crossmember. It seems like this puts a lot of stress of the trans to engine bolts, regaurdless of what grade bolts you use. But I guess if it's tried and true, it isn't a big deal. It's a totally triangulated mounting position, so you are correct, it doesn't matter at all. If you were suspending both the engine and transmission from just the front engine mounts, then yes, that would put tremendous stress on the front mounts. The rubber biscuits take up any vibration and are a built in stress compensator so to speak. As I'm re-reading your post, I am realizing that you may be talking about the bolts that join the engine and tranny at the bellhousing??? There's no dangerous tension there either. Mike Knell fabricated/designed brackets for military if memory serves, so I'm pretty sure that the kit is designed well from a stress, tension point of view. Good to see you are thinking about this stuff. That's how we all learn. The forum is a good place for information too Davy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuntry Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 just a regular motor plate from jegs. since Im redoing the from frame rails, Ill have a solid base to attach it to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuntry Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 I forgot to add... with the motor plate, you can set the motor basically anywhere you want. One of the reasons I decided to go this way was that I heard that I would have to "massage" the firewall for an HEI dist to fit. Im covering the firewall with a piece of aluminum diamond plate to cover all the holes Im not using, plus a bit of dress up. I didnt want to have clearance issues with the aluminum. Plus it keeps motor mounts out of the way for headers. Im not trying to hijack this thread, but it is titled "my thoughts" which is what Im giving. It just seems like those stock motor mount brackets on the crossmember would barely be strong enough for the origional 6, much less the 383 Im throwing in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.