Administrators BRAAP Posted March 8, 2009 Administrators Share Posted March 8, 2009 could you reshape the top of the bell housing? or you could always go aftermarket. … That would definitely help! … I dont think you should toss out the idea of a tubular x-member though, as it would solve almost every problem and wouldnt take nothing but a couple days to design and build. The cross-member itself is not so much the issue. in fact, if the rack was removed, the cross member is fine "as is" and poses no real clearance conflicts. The Rack placement IS the issue! Custom cross member allows us to alter the rack location, but so does modding the stock cross member. As it is, the rack sits approx 1 ½†above and just behind the cross member, too high and too far rearward in the engine bay! If the rack was ahead of, and level to the cross-member, (front steer style like the S-30) the LSx would be literally, almost a bolt in with an LS2 or F-bod oil pan. The problem with lowering the rack is to keep bump steer to a minimum, you also have to drop the inboard LCA pivot points with the rack, (easier to just lower the entire cross member with the rack attached). The Z-32 front suspension is a double A-arm design, so lowering the inner pickup points of the LCA and and the rack will have some affect on the suspension geometry, most likely negative. Now to what degree of a negative impact that is, we don’t know yet. I do plan on plotting that out and running it by one our resident suspension guru’s for his input, if he is willing to offer his input. It just hasn't been that high on my priority list lately, sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoov100 Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 I wasnt saying completely redo the xmember, just re do the center, right where the oil pan would be, ive done it on quite a few race cars using stock front clips when we set the motor back. specifically for oil pan clearance. i was planning something similar for my z32 before it got canned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators BRAAP Posted March 8, 2009 Administrators Share Posted March 8, 2009 (edited) I wasnt saying completely redo the xmember, just re do the center, right where the oil pan would be, ive done it on quite a few race cars using stock front clips when we set the motor back. specifically for oil pan clearance. i was planning something similar for my z32 before it got canned. Maybe I didn't mention this already. If the x-member was in the way of the oil pan, yes, modifying the existing or constructing a new x-member is a great idea. Thanks. In this instance, the x-member is fine, x-member is not in the way, even where the oil pan is. It's the rack that is in the way, being 1/ 1/2" above the cross-member. Edited March 8, 2009 by BRAAP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meindaparish Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I'm itching to get back to it tomorrow so I can give you guys a definite answer. I'm not saying it will definitly work, but for mine and everyones sake, I hope it does. Also, Has no one yet tryed to kind of notch and modify an fbody oil pan to give more rack clearance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators BRAAP Posted March 10, 2009 Administrators Share Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) Believe me when I say that I also hope/pray that what you are finding will work. You have no idea how badly I want your observations to be true, but after my various mock ups with trans and intake attached, and phone conversation yesterday with another that has done this confirming the exact same issue I have been calling out all along?.... Those specs I spelled out above is with a modified oil pan, F-bod or other wise. If you don’t modify the oil pan, it’s even worse! This picture is the absolute maximum you can modify the F-body oil pan and just clear the spinning crankshaft by ¼” inch. Set the oil pan only ½” above the rack, and the rack still has to be lowered ¾” for the bell-housing to clear the tunnel entrance and the Throttle body to clear the hood! GREEN is material to remove. MAGENTA is the rack! With the pan modified that much AND the rack lowered 3/4" this is all the hood clearance we have! ALL this and more dimensions clearly labeled, etc in this thread; http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=144469 Hurry up and get your trans bolted up, intake with throttle body installed AND an oil pan and mock that whole thing up! We are anxiously awaiting some one to find an easier, less problematic approach to installing an LSx without cutting the firewall, hood, or modifying the rack location! Edited March 10, 2009 by BRAAP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meindaparish Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Ohh god, so much pressure! Stop looking at me! lol. Just kidding. Im gonna be back on it tonight at like 4:00pm. Keep an eye out for updates tonight hopefully. Btw, i don't know if you all read my other thread, but I've solved the problem of the clutch/flywheel/pressure plate. I spoke with a fellow hybrid builder on v8rx7forums.com named Graham/fx who did a 5.3 to world class t5 build on his vert FCRX7. Amazingly enough, he said a stock ls1 flywheel, clutch, and pressure plate is what he used. For throwout purposes he used a Howe hydraulic throwout bearing found here: http://www.howeracing.com/p-7753-imp...-clutches.aspx That with a pilot bearing from a newer GM truck and its a wrap. He said it goes together like stock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meindaparish Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Update.... again with the help of graham from v8rx7forum, I found this http://www.shopfbparts.com/servlet/Detail?no=266 Thats the exact pilot bearing needed to adapt the ls1 to the t5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators BRAAP Posted March 10, 2009 Administrators Share Posted March 10, 2009 AWESOME news on the T-5 to LSx set up. I wonder if that would help with the early LT1 T-56 to LSx conversion?... (could've kept my other T-56 then.. DOH! ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meindaparish Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Well BRAPP, in all your infinite knowledge and research, you were right! I can fit the ls1/t5 without cutting the firewall/trans tunnel , but I would have to have it position about 3 inches more forward than I want to (since im going for a ultimate road race / drift setup). It would still technically work fine, but its not worth it to me, Id rather just cut the trans tunnel a bit so i can have it as far back as possible. So you were right, I will need to cut a bit. But no worries, Im not scared! lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crash Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Hey, I know this is asking for a lot of monetary investment, but have you thought of a dry-sump system? The pans are usually really small: http://www.daileyengineering.com/oilpans.htm I imagine that this would solve the pan issue and should clear the rack. Any thoughts? Other benefits are that you'd pick up some good power, the motor will last longer and will be more reliable, and you can put the oil reservoir where ever you'd like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators BRAAP Posted March 15, 2009 Administrators Share Posted March 15, 2009 (edited) Cool, one piece billet dry sump oil sumps! Very nice, uber exotic. Thank you for sharing this alternative. As for the engine lasting longer? Not necessarily. A wet sump system can and will keep adequate oil supply and pressure above and beyond what the bearings, cam, lifters require over the life span of the engine, so long as it has access to a supply of oil in the pan, i.e. the pickup doesn’t get uncovered for some reason. Price of the dry sump system has already been noted. Another strike against the dry sump is the need for the dry sump pump itself to be rebuilt on a regular schedule. Over the life span of the engine, dry sump vs wet sump, a dry sump oil system is not known for being a cost effective, or a maintenance free alternative to oiling an engine for a street car. It is uber cool and who doesn’t want race car technology in their street car right? The OE dry sump oiling systems we are starting to see are a more complex approach vs off the shelf SBC/SBF style dry sump oiling systems. As for the rack clearance issue, this only pertains if the firewall is not to be cut. It seems many are assuming that dry sump pans, (because they are shallow across their entire length), is the shallowest and will solve these issues. In the region we need the pan to be shallow, (over the rack itself), it needs to be shallow enough that it is almost touching the spinning crankshaft. Dry sumps are still not shallow enough in that region and will need to be modified. If the firewall is to be cut, then the engine can be set a little higher as it will be set further back, then we are given a bit more leeway in regards to oil pan design and rack clearance. If we are not cutting the firewall, we need to get the spinning crankshaft as low as possible, ideally occupying some of the same space as the rack! An oil pan, regardless if it is wet sump, dry sump, no sump, front sump, rear sump, side sump, all sump, billet sump can not, will not, alter or change time and space in a manner that will allow the crankshaft and rack & pinion to occupy the same space at the same time! That technology is not available yet.... So we need to lower the rack a smidge, but only as little as possible so we are disturbing the suspension geometry as little as possible, and then either build a pan from scratch or modify an existing pan to allow us to get the spinning crankshaft as close to the rack as possible. I’ am currently helping another shop with the design of a scratch built pan just for this conversion, no cutting of the firewall. More details to follow in the real near future. For now, those wanting to DIY it, keep in mind the spinning crankshaft can only be placed “so close” to the rack and that's it! The modifications I mention here and elsewhere puts the crank as close to the rack as it can be, and at that, is probably too close. Those specs I spelled out above is with a modified oil pan' date=' F-bod or other wise. If you don’t modify the oil pan, it’s even worse![/size'] This picture is the absolute maximum you can modify the F-body oil pan and just clear the spinning crankshaft by ¼” inch. Set the oil pan only ½” above the rack, and the rack still has to be lowered ¾” for the bell-housing to clear the tunnel entrance and the Throttle body to clear the hood! GREEN is material to remove. MAGENTA is the rack! Edited March 15, 2009 by BRAAP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biohzrd Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 UPDATE!!!! wil have pics soon!!! been working on my x-member setup, and lowering the rack / mid section of the x-member. what i am in the process of doing may work out perfectly. looking at using the stock rack( lowered of course ) and adding late 80's early 90's 4-runner irs outer tie rods. they are actually called j-rods a lot of times. basically cure the lowering aspects of the rack. as soon as i have it setup the way i like, i will post some pics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crash Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Braap, thanks for clearing that up. Now I understand what we're up against. I don't want to mess with the suspension at all in my setup. But I am pretty sure that now I do want to do the LSx instead of the VH. Since I haven't yet pulled a motor out of a z32 yet, I have no clue what I'm going to be working with here. Obviously, I'll need to modify the firewall, so I assume this means that I'll mostly be opening up the trans tunnel for the most part, correct? I'm going to start reading up on the LSx conversions on this board and see what they've done about the firewall. But if you guys can come up with something brilliant ahead of time that works well, that may also be my ticket! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meindaparish Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I really hate to mess with suspension geometry. It is something that is gets so much R & D, moving it around seems too risky. But at the same time, alot of people dont realize that putting coilovers on a car changes the roll center of the suspension, so maybe moving the rack wont be that big of a problem with a little calculation. I just think that the added bump steer would be detrimental in a road race/ drift/ autoX car, since track surfaces are far from perfect. Thats why I just decided to trim the tranny tunnel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crash Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Have You started working on your project? I agree. I love the way my Z handles as is.. It just needs better sway bars and I'll be set! I don't want to change the handling characteristics of the car at all. That's why I'm doing a motor swap into a Z32 and not any other car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meindaparish Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I've been working on my project, but I work 6-7 days of the week. Hopefully Thursday and Friday I will be finishing fabrication of the trans tunnel I cut, and the motor mounts( which are mostly done). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crash Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Sweet... Start a thread on it and post up some pics. I work a lot too and will only have time to work maybe 5-6 hours a week to start. That should be good enough for me to gut the interior and pull the motor/trans on the donor car. Looks like we're going to have a few 570zx's! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crash Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 could you reshape the top of the bell housing? or you could always go aftermarket. I dont think you should toss out the idea of a tubular x-member though, as it would solve almost every problem and wouldnt take nothing but a couple days to design and build. Found this bellhousing, finally. I'm wondering how much clearance it actually gives you. Certainly around 2 inches, but is that enough? How many inches are needed to be shaved off of the trans tunnel as is with the standard T56 bellhousing? http://www.byunspeed.com/product_info.php?products_id=5002 http://www.exoticperformanceplus.com/performance_parts/index.html?item=1117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zangiefisgod Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 1. The first link says, "ALL G.M. LS MOTORS (EXCEPT CORVETTE)" How would the Corvette LS1 differ from the Camaro/Trans-Am? 2. Does anyone know the dimensions of the McLeod bell? I am interested exactly how much room you can buy for $400+ bucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators BRAAP Posted May 11, 2009 Administrators Share Posted May 11, 2009 1. The first link says, "ALL G.M. LS MOTORS (EXCEPT CORVETTE)"How would the Corvette LS1 differ from the Camaro/Trans-Am? 2. Does anyone know the dimensions of the McLeod bell? I am interested exactly how much room you can buy for $400+ bucks. The transmission of the corvette does not bolt to the engine like it does on every other LSx powered vehicle. The '97+ Vette transmission is actually a trans-axle, i.e. transmission is in the back of the car, integral with the differential. 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.