Chuck!

Thank you for the pics of the MGW. Ill have to compare.

I emailed Holly and they said they were going to release rails for the LS7 airforce manifold early 2019 incase these dont work out.

redmaroz

iTrader: (4)

Hey QwkTrip, just wanted to tell you thanks for all the info on here. Especially the holley hp info. Santa brought me one of those, and i was pulling my hair out trying to figure out how to get the vss signal to the hp along with how to use the reverse lockout. The info you posted on it was a life saver. So many thanks for it!

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

That's fantastic to hear, thank you!

I just found your build thread. That is one nice car you're putting together!

redmaroz

iTrader: (4)

thanks man! I gave up on trying to add pics to my thread lol. But I've been trying to keep the ol flikr page updated.

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

Anybody know what is the correct orientation to install LS1 motor mounts on engine block? I had mine taken off the old engine and nicely laid out ready to install when a friend showed up and kicked them around the garage by accident.

ShiftyCapone

iTrader: (7)

Which mounts are you using again? If they are the clamshell design there should be an indent in the inner shell that goes only one way. You should see a relief on the shell that mirrors the side of the block. I think I have a picture somewhere.

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

Well, I was using the OEM rubber mounts until you asked me what mounts I had and it reminded me that I had bought some UMI solid mounts. I'm running on all cylinders today, boys!

That reminds me, I need to feed the cat some cereal and pour myself a bowl of Friskies for dinner.

ShiftyCapone

iTrader: (7)

Ha, the UMI solid mounts have a giant arrow pointing up on them. You can't mess that up. If you do, its time to switch to lite beer.

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

Looks promising! Stroker oil pan with the stock K-member!
Can't verify steering linkage clearance until in the car but that didn't appear to be much of a concern earlier.

Holley stroker oil pan (302-1)
UMI aluminum solid motor mounts (2323)
Spohn LS1 motor mount adapters (971)

I tried the Hooker motor mount adapters (71221003HKR) and the oil pan probably would have cleared, but my headers fouled with the rear A-arm mounts and I couldn't quite pull in the engine mounts all the way. It's a problem specific to the routing of my Hawks 2" primary headers, which were undoubtably designed with the Spohn mounts in mind.

I am real happy with the idea of ditching the flimsy BMR K-member. Based on the rumors, using the stock K-member should drop the engine and move it forward a bit. I'll take whatever I can get in both those directions!




Dimensions of more oil pans in Post #936, https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/ltx-...ml#post6193942

JayBoCC2

Yikes, do you really have issue with the Hawks/SS works headers an the K memeber?

I have UMI RR k member and ls adapter plates. I also have the Hawks 2" SS Works Headers but i haven't installed them because i'm a lazy POS.

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

You shouldn't have any issues with header routing other than the passenger side v-band tapping on the subframe all day. Just stay away from the Hooker engine mounts and you'll be fine. The Hooker mounts pull the engine forward several inches compared to others.

ShiftyCapone

iTrader: (7)

I can't speak for the hawks headers but my 1-7/8" holley headers have lots of room around my UMI mounts and road race k-member. If the Holley headers were 2" they would clear. Not sure how the hawks route though.

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

Sent pictures of the flywheel to Ram and I am told it is time for a full rebuild. I had gotten this RTrack clutch used back in 2011 and didn't pay a dime for it after wheeling and dealing, but it looks like its time is up. Rebuild is less than half the cost of buying a new clutch kit though.

Ram RTrack, strapless, dual disc, organic
Aluminum flywheel with steel insert -- 13 lb.
Clutch assembly -- 27 lb.

I looked at one of those fancy dancy RPS carbon clutches but it's just not worth the extra $2000 to me. I'll rebuild what I've got for now.

ShiftyCapone

iTrader: (7)

You're making the right decision. I have the Mamo RPS clutch and although its awesome it was crazy expensive.

alan91z28

you probably are all set on what you are doing, but you may want to consider the UMI RR k member before you put this back in with the stock one. the stock k member is strong no doubt but the amount of room you give up is incredible. i have the UMI rr k member in several LS and SBC swaps and really like it. it is very strong and still gives you lots of room which makes for clean install and easy to work on. compared to your BMR, the UMI will move the engine back down and you can adjust position of engine forward to your liking (i had a BMR in my first LS swap originally as well before going to UMI). i now use the holley x member with these swaps as well to make easy mounting with the t-56 and torque arm with good exhaust installs

anyways great work as always, just my 2 cents

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

I became convinced that my oil pan would clash with the UMI k-member. Wasn't willing to spend that kind of moola with a low chance of success. What are your thoughts about that?

alan91z28

we have been using the holley 302-2 oil pan in several swaps, I know you are using 302-1

posts 10 and 12 give some representative view with the 302-2 in my son's formula-

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/ltx-...-ls3-swap.html

I have my 85 iroc on a lift right now for the winter, I could take a couple more pics showing the fit with the 302-2 for you to gage the clearance as we have plenty with the 302-2. I use prothane or energy suspension mounts and you can see especially in the formula swap I have the ls moved forward more like what holley does as I am using their cross member. having so much clearance all around the engine is so nice. I can also probably give you an idea of how much forward the engine moves / drops with the UMI vs BMR as on my 85 iroc with the TVS supercharger I have the iroc hood cut out based on the bmr and the cut out is now not exact anymore as I hadn't gotten back to changing it

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

It's been bitterly cold so I've not been playing in the garage. And what does one do to bide time in the middle of winter? Online shopping, of course!

I've been chewing on the idea of a Detroit Speed steering brace for quite a while now. Finally decided to order one up. It will replace my old Global West "Wonder Bar". The nice thing about the Detroit Speed design is that it spans between the mounts at the steering box on the driver side, and the idler arm on the passenger side. It's a proper bolt-on steering brace if there ever was one. It does however need to be used with a unique sway bar to allow everything to package on the car.

Installing the brace requires the steering box to be removed. The box has never been off my car in 30 years so I figured I might as well rebuild it whether it needs it or not. I've heard a lot of bad stories about people buying reman boxes from parts stores and ending up with random stuff that isn't what they paid for. So I went to the Lee Manufacturing website to rebuild my original core and SUFFERIN SUCCOTASH THEY ARE EXPENSIVE!!!

.... Then I promptly went over to the Turn One website and saw that I could have a brand freakin' new 600 series box for nearly the same price. No brainer. Buh-bye 800 series box! So somehow I went from having cardiac sticker shock to thinking it's a no brainer decision This just feels like a waste of money but I'll find out one way or the other come spring.

ShiftyCapone

iTrader: (7)

You'll like that DSE kit. Easy install and looks great too. Curious when you get the new steering box in. I'm torn between turn one and Sweet MFG.

straightbuchana

I'm curious about the steering box as well... I never thought about my steering box so I went to Turn One and looked at the prices. I had no idea they could be that pricey

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

I know! It's completely incomprehensible, isn't it?!

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

I've been toying with the idea of going back to a stock brake combination valve and stock master cylinder because I've had nothing but trouble with the aftermarket stuff, and the pedal feel has never been right, and there is too much slack in the pedal. Not a single OE fitting has ever leaked but I am constantly fighting with the aftermarket stuff. The roll stop leaked so bad that I removed it and tossed it on a shelf where it has sat for years. I had two front line tees that I threw in the garbage. About 1 in 5 tube nuts I throw away. The first Wilwood 5-port prop valve I installed ended up having a crack in the body at the threaded insert. The second Wilwood valve has been a struggle with leaks too. I've tried different brands of tube nuts, I've bought really expensive flaring tools, I've tried tubing with manufactured flares, I've tried different tube materials and so and so forth. Last year I got the leaks to stop by tightening the living life out of the tube nuts at the prop valve. I had to buy very high quality tube nuts just to crank on it that hard. Something is going to crack with that kind of stress and I'm afraid of losing brakes some day.

So the real trick with the stock stuff is making my rear brakes work. Weak rear brakes is why I have aftermarket stuff in the first place so I can drive up the rear line pressure. I've been looking at old threads on the site and found the "Grainger replacement spring" trick. I think I'm game to give it a try. The worst that can happen is I put my aftermarket setup back on.

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

First thing I've done is try to baseline what the heck I have in my hands to begin with. I have an OE valve laying around with "NB" stamped on the housing, and the plunger is the longer style. Seems this is a 4-wheel-disc valve, '86-'88 (J65 option). Thanks Drew, IROCZman15, and LiquidBlue for the help with that.

http://www.gmpartswiki.com/getpage?pageid=129796

In all the threads about the "Grainger spring" I never once saw anybody baseline the specs of a stock spring (and there are different springs). I removed the spring from my valve and measured dimensions:

Overall Length: 1.5 inch
Outer Diameter: 0.500 inch
Wire Diameter: 0.055 inch
End Type: squared and ground
Material: Music wire (it's definitely not stainless)

The spring rate is estimated to be 19.5 lb/inch, using the calculation tool at https://www.acxesspring.com/compress-springs.html But my own hand calculations put it at less than that. I tried to measure the actual spring rate with a 10 pound weight but the spring shot off the table across the room and I've never seen it since.... so uh, I guess that's the end of that.

Then I did a search at Grainger for precision springs with 1.5" overall length, and about 0.5" outer diameter. These are the options I have available to me. Higher spring rate will increase rear brake fluid pressure during hard braking. Now it's just a matter of trial and error to dial in the rear brakes.

I also bought a master cylinder pushrod depth gage from Master Power Brakes so I can measure for proper rod length and finally get rid of the extra slack in my pedal.






Prop valve guts. There was a spring too but dummy lost it.

Aviator857

I have seen reports were people have gotten it dialed in with the spring and then one day down the road they end up locking the rear brakes and spinning out.

So far no leaks on my set up... Though I do think I want to go back to a thirdgen master.

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

That gmpartswiki site is fantastic! I was able to map out all the various options that were in production and how parts were matched up. It's really helping me to see my options and pull together a game plan.

Looks like there were only 4 master cylinders ever made:
.

• Two of them are for disc brake cars from '82-'88 and share the same secondary piston and quick take-up valve. These likely behave the same with the only difference being SAE vs. Metric fittings.
• One was for drum brake cars from '82-'83. You poor suckers.
• One was for drum brake cars from '84-92. And then beginning in '88 it was also used with the 1LE package, and then used on all cars from '89 on. Same secondary piston and quick take-up valve in all.

I have an '89+ master cylinder in storage so I think I'll use it.




But the big question on my mind is what prop valves were offered through the years, and how close is my J65 "NB" version to what is used on the 1LE cars? All I really care about is '86 and newer.
.

• Drum: From '86-'89 there was one valve (code NC) used with drum brakes, having 1.0 thread pitch.
• Drum: From '89-92 there was one valve (code MB) used with drum brakes, having 1.5 thread thread.
• Disc: From '86-89 there were two valves (code ND , NB) used with disc brakes, having 1.0 thread pitch. I don't know the differences between these valves.
• Disc: From '89-90 there were two valves (code MD , MC) used with disc brakes, having 1.5 thread pitch. Code MC was used with 1LE, and perhaps some others too.
• Disc: From '91-92 there was a part number change to codes MD and MC. I don't know what drove the part number change.

I'm really curious what is different about the '91-92 because my understanding is that's the prop valve to have. Hoping somebody can shed light on it.

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

I found the spring!

straightbuchana

Goodness, I'm learning a lot on this thread lol lots of great info! You're putting a lot of thought into this, which is great.
And congrats on finding the spring, I can just imagine how proud you were when you found it

MoJoe

iTrader: (5)

To add one more option to the mix, you can use an LS master cylinder as well. The overall MC length is shorter than 3rd gens, and the port spacing is closer as well. It has metric threads. You can use the factory tubes (tweaked for the port spacing) and master cylinder.

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

Thanks. I have one today. It is the reason for the slack in my pedal. It wasn't meant to be used with a 3rd gen booster rod and there is too much gap. Took me a while to figure that out because of all the other noise I was dealing with with leaks and mismatched components.

skinny z

Is this not something that can be addressed with an adjustable proportioning valve? There are installations I've seen that put the valve in the cabin. You'd think that would ease the tuning process but I'm guessing that, your aftermarket parts notwithstanding, that your issues are deeper than that? Or not?
By the way, thanks for posting that table. Having charts and lists like those is invaluable. I've put together and posted a few of my own regarding MCs and calipers. (maybe even in this thread).

alan91z28

one thing to consider is stainless brake lines in my experience are very hard to get to seal. i have used SS on several swaps and even using all original OEM parts otherwise it can take several times to re-tighten to really get those lines to stop weeping. stainless is just so hard that the flares / bubbles if not almost a perfect match have a very hard time forming to the mate and completely sealing. also consider that some of the mating components are aluminum and it can be very concerning. on my latest swap in progress i went with all ni-copp that i made all lines myself as i was sick of the leaking SS. i had no leaks to date (have not drive yet). i am using 4th gen pedals, 4th gen booster, 4th gen master, wilwood proportioning, ls1 front / lt1 rear... will find out this spring, but i suspect this will be an improvement overall

TTOP350

iTrader: (8)

Lot of good info here. Guess I'm lucky (likely) or smart (unlikely), I've only ever had 89 and up J65 cars.

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

TTOP350,

If you've got a MB, MC, MD code valve laying around I would really appreciate some measurements of the spring.

Overall length
Overall diameter
Wire diameter
Total number of coils

TTOP350

iTrader: (8)

Think I have a NOS one in the box still. I'll try to check it soon.

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

I've been digging deep on this prop valve thing. And the more I dig the more my thinking is changing. In a nutshell, it seems that setting up a prop valve properly is more about the piston rod than it is about the spring. And there are at least 3 different piston rods that I know of, maybe more.

The valve doesn't work at all like I had imagined. Whoever came up with the idea was a genius.
.

• The piston has a cup-shaped seal that is kind of loosey-goosey, doesn't fit tight to the shaft. That's on purpose. The spring pushes the piston against the cup-seal and causes it to deform such that it loses ability to make a seal. That allows fluid to pass thru freely, and the rear brakes will have full line pressure (same as front).
• The rear line pressure will walk up at a 1:1 ratio with the front until a point where the pressure overcomes the spring. The shape of the piston is designed so that the rear fluid pressure pushes the piston against the spring. When the piston moves, it pulls the cup-shaped seal back into shape, and the seal makes good contact again and stops the flow of fluid.
• Up until this point the rear lines were at the same line pressure as the front. Not any more. The spring has been overcome and now any increase in rear line pressure will be at a certain percentage of the front line pressure. And that percentage is dictated by the dimensions of the piston rod. The pressure in the inlet chamber + the spring force, pushes the piston one way; and the pressure in the rear lines pushes the piston back the other way. The piston seeks equilibrium where the forces balance. The trick is that the piston is shaped in such a way that the inlet side gets just a little bit of surface area to act on to produce a force (plus the spring force); and the rear line gets a much larger surface area to act on to produce an equal and opposite force. (Force) = (Pressure) * (Area), so the rear line ends up being at a lower pressure than the front when the forces are balanced. That's how the proportioning works.
• I think the different pistons are identified by color. Pistons with a smaller diameter spring rod will cause the rear line pressure to be a higher percentage of the front. The "percent proportioning" is really just the slope of the curve when drawn out on paper. Increasing the percentage (slope) keeps the brakes feeling the same during normal driving but puts the curve on a trajectory to much higher pressures when the brakes are pushed hard.
• Using a higher spring force will cause the line pressure to be higher before the valve "cracks open" and the proportioning begins to happen. But the slope (percent of proportioning) will not change. This is how an adjustable prop valves work.
• Also worth noting is that dropping in some spring with a higher spring rate could give random results. It's even possible to end up with more aggressive brakes using a weaker spring. This is because the spring rate isn't the key characteristic. The key characteristic is the spring force on the plunger, as assembled. Bottom line is you've got to know how far the spring is compressed. Drum and disc pistons compress the spring a different amount when assembled. Differences in spring free-length, and the spring seat position on the piston (disc vs. drum pistons) needs to be taken into account. For example, using a disc plunger vs. a drum plunger might change the spring force by 40%. That's HUGE! Installing a longer drum spring with lower spring rate in a disc valve might be the same as using the higher rate but shorter disc spring.

The only way to know what's going to happen when mixing and matching parts is to measure all the parts and do the calculations. I've created a spreadsheet that I think can predict the prop valve curve. I just need access to more hardware to get measurements so I can calculate what mix of parts is right for me.

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

I have created some brake prop valve curves with overlays on the Wilwood and Tilton curves for comparison. The stock valve curves are based on physical measurements of the proportioning piston inside the valve. I am not entirely certain my work is correct but I'm going with it for now.

The slope of the curves is the proportioning ratio of the valves. The height of the curves are based on the spring rate inside the valve. One thing that really stands out is that the aftermarket valves have much less aggressive proportioning ratios than the stock valves. And that made me wonder why did the original prop valves have such high prop ratio, and why are they so different between brake packages?

Wilwood prop ratio = 43%
Tilton prop ratio = 33%
NB code prop ratio = 54%
LF code prop ratio = 61%

Update: Methods of calculation are here, https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/brak...ng-torque.html

Update: Removed 4th gen master cylinder and went back to 3rd gen master,
Post # 1171, https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/ltx-...ml#post6293557
Post # 1178, https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/ltx-...ml#post6293639




So I did a "What If" scenario sweeping from 100%-50% front weight distribution on the tires, and calculated the ideal brake proportioning ratio across the range for different brake combinations. This gave me insight that the original engineers were targeting ~75% of the vehicle weight on the front tires during hard braking, both with the earlier Delco-Moraine brakes and the later PBR 1LE brakes.

My rear brakes are nearly identical to the PBR 1LE, but my front Corvette C6 brakes are much larger. This creates an imbalance where I have to make the rear brakes work harder to achieve proper balance with the front brakes again. The end result is I would need about 74% brake proportioning to the rear brakes in order to achieve the same balance as the PBR 1LE cars. I just don't know if I could ever achieve this using a stock proportioning valve.

The unknown factor here is how much weight am I really throwing onto the front wheels? I have more whoa power up front than stock which increases weight transfer, but I also have a stiff suspension and the car is lowered and that reduces weight transfer too. The 'LF' prop valve might work really well for my situation if the weight transfer is around 80%.

Aviator857

Good work,. The answer may be bigger rear brakes so it's mechanically balanced vs trying to do it in the hydraulic system? I've always heard these cars were 65/35 on the brake hydraulics so your are in the ballpark of "common internet knowledge"

I made my lines going to my wilwood combination valve using a master cool 72475, it's quite expensive but makes the best flares I have ever seen. One thing though it's important to cut square and debur the cut before flaring. Mild steel lines are less likely to leak compared to stainless lines.

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

It only took gobs of hours, but I finally have a spreadsheet that models the entire braking system (brakes, prop valve, master cylinder, vacuum assist). I have concluded that none of the 3rd gen proportioning valves can deliver enough pressure to my rear brakes. And I'm not even sure an aftermarket valve can either.

I used the late model 1LE 3rd gen as a baseline with the "LF" code proportioning valve. By my estimate, at full pedal smash (100 pounds) the brakes generate ~2350 lb-ft total braking torque with 76% front bias, and the prop valve delivering 66% pressure ratio to the rear brakes.

Using the same "performance street" brake pad CoF, vacuum assist, yadda yadda yadda..... Adding a set of C6 Corvette front brakes will deliver ~2800 lb-ft total braking torque with 80% front brake bias. Now you'd think it would be pretty easy to bring that back down to 70-75% front bias by using an aftermarket prop valve, right? Nope. I would need 87% pressure ratio to the rear brakes just to achieve 75% front brake bias..... and that's not possible with the Wilwood valve. The best the Wilwood can deliver wide open is 77.5% front brake bias. That explains why I'm running the valve near wide open today. I've been too conservative to crank it up to the max but maybe could. Even running with no prop valve (100% pressure ratio) only gives 72% front brake bias.

So I've convinced myself ONCE AND FOR ALL! that the real issue here is my 1LE rear brakes just aren't potent enough. I looked at what would happen if I swapped out rear brakes:

Front brake
C6 base Corvette

Rear brake (with LF code prop valve)
1LE: 80% front brake ratio ; 2790 lb-ft total brake torque
LS1 F-body: 75% ; 2960
C6 Z06: 75% ; 2970
CTS-V ('09-13): 74% ; 3025
5th gen Camaro SS: 73.5% ; 3025
Wilwood Superlite 4P: 69.5% ; 3200
Wilwood Dynalite MC4: 71% ; 3150

There are some favorable options but it's an awfully expensive fix. Ya, I have a problem but it's not a $1000+ problem in my mind. My brakes are great on the street and the drag strip. It's really just a problem if I were to try to road race or something. Frankly, I'll probably never do that.

I actually feel better now just knowing what is the problem. It was frustrating the last few years not really knowing. I'll just keep the Wilwood valve for now and work on taking the slack out of the pedal.

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

Spot on! 1LE car is 66% rear pressure ratio at full stomp by my calcs.

I estimate the "LF code" proportioning ratio to be 61%, but the actual rear line pressure varies anywhere from 100% to 66% due to the effects of the internal spring. Likewise, the "NB" code" proportioning ratio is 54%, but the actual rear line pressure varies anywhere from 100%-59% depending how hard you stomp the pedal.

I can figure out the proportioning curve for any of the stock valves if somebody has parts in their hands and is willing to take a few careful measurements for me of the spring and piston.

92BLKL98

On my build I have the BigBrakes LS1 brake kit on the front with a complete 2002 WS6 T/A rear axle and brakes but I'm using the original prop valve. Is this possibly not correct? I remember the original '92 disk brake rear end, the front brakes had a tendency to overpower the rear brakes. The 2002 disk brakes are not any bigger but maybe a difference in caliper performance to better match the LS1 fronts. Should I replace the prop valve with an adjustable valve or get a new 2002 version? Any thoughts? I'm still working on my LS install so I'm a ways from driving it now but am also thinking about the overall package.

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

Overall your LS1 front & rear brakes are better balanced and will give quite a bit more total braking torque than my setup. I think you'll be happy. I would give it a try and drive it for a little while before changing anything from your current plans.

Not sure which prop valve you have. The first 2 letters stamped on the side of the valve body will tell.

Jaysz28

iTrader: (30)

I have been running 1LE front brakes, LS1 rear brakes with a 4th gen master and booster. I did change the spring in my prop valve to one listed in a tech article on this site. My brake pedal feel is great.

When I was using the 3rd gen booster with the ls1 master, it always felt low and not confidence inspiring

just food for thought

-jason

Aviator857

The rear varying for 100% to 66% is by design, this provides max brake initially but as the weight shifts forward and you get harder onto the brakes it keeps the rear from locking up first. This is one danger on going to different spring rates, you not only want to increase the hydraulic pressure but you also need to maintain the progression from full pressure to the reduced pressure at the right rate this time delta can be increased (so you have more rear brakes longer) because with harder lower suspension the weight shift is not as fast and not as extreme, however if you get this wrong then you will spin out the car. Also a track car that will never see rain obviously can be calibrated for that condition, but a daily that may see rain, snow, mud, sand, etc on the road you need to make sure the front always (and I mean always) locks before the rear.

Once you have it dialed in you need a open test area, wet, and you need to do max brake tests in straight lines, turn then brake (both directions), brake than turn (both directions), you want to progress harder and harder test until you lock the first wheel. If its a front you are good, if a rear locks first at any point in the test its not safe for street use under all conditions. On the straight line tests both fronts should lock almost at the same time, if they don't then you need to balance the pressure (fittings, line length, air in the lines, pad thickness, calipers etc) If you have a track close by that has a slick pad, this is where you want to test but its not cheap to rent it, but once you are done with the brake set up drifting around it can be super fun

Aviator857

This is because of the gap between the 3ed gen booster push pin and the 4th gen master. You have to shim that pin or replace it with a proper length one. This is the tool QwkTrip references above, it tells you what the gap is so you can shim correctly vs trial and error. (too much shim the brakes can drag, too little and you have a dead zone in the first 1/3 of the brake pedal. 4th/4th master/booster should be close enough out of the box.

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

Ram RTrack clutch fully rebuilt. Time to get this show back on the road....

TTOP350

iTrader: (8)

Soooo pretty. With parts like that, it would be cool to have a see through bellhousing.

Zach/90\irocZ

iTrader: (6)

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

Me and this engine just don't get along. Another difficult time with a simple job.

Tried to remove the larger LS7 pilot bearing bearing so I could install my smaller LS1 pilot bearing. I hooked up my trusty slide-hammer bearing-puller and the bearing didn't even budge. Got a screw type bearing puller but the claws wouldn't grip and slipped out of the hole every time. So then I did something that I should have known better not to do..... I watched some fool on youtube. I packed up the hole, put a 1/2" bolt in there and gave it a whack many times over. Bearing didn't budge. But it felt like something else did...... I was so freakin' mad that I went ape on the slide hammer and the bearing came right out. I swear, if I didn't laugh about it then I'd scream.

So now I'm trying to determine whether I did something bad to the crankshaft oil plug.

* Visually it looks like the plug moved back about 0.25", based on shiny metal surface that looks newly exposed inside the crankshaft bore. I didn't see where the plug sat beforehand but nothing else inside the crankshaft bore is that clean.

* The plug measures 1.7" from the flywheel mounting flange, and 2.0" from the outer most end of the flywheel pilot. Anybody know what is the specification?

* The plug appears to be solid and square to the bore. If it did move backwards, then it seems it moved straight back and didn't rock in the bore at all.

What do you guys think?

Zach/90\irocZ

iTrader: (6)

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

Glad you responded. So it sounds like I can just leave it there as long as it's seated good and firm, which it is.