Author |
Message |
aaron_h Samba Member
Joined: September 27, 2005 Posts: 11 Location: mt angel
|
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:35 pm Post subject: why an engine crossmember? |
|
|
Is there some reason why IRS busses have a crossmember under the engine and not under the transaxle? This is an annoyance when you'd like to be able to plug any upright engine you want into your bus. I know there is an adapter kit out there that bolts onto the oil pump cover, but that's not very cool. Has anyone figured out how to support the transaxle with a crossmember instead? Don't IRS bugs have a crossmember under the transaxle? I have a 1970 bus, are all IRS transporters like this? Any insight would be greatly appreciated. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
billonthehill Samba Member
Joined: January 24, 2005 Posts: 38 Location: Virginia
|
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your transmission has a seperate mount on the rear above the bellhousing. I have used an upright in a 73 bus. I never had any problem with the mounts holding everything off of the street although it was probably not the best set up. Good luck, Bill |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aaron_h Samba Member
Joined: September 27, 2005 Posts: 11 Location: mt angel
|
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I haven't looked closely above the bell housing, but I know if there is supposed to be something hooked up there, it isn't. I see a mount at the front of the transaxle near the nose cone. It looks like the rear of the transaxle is supported via the engine, via the crossmember on the front of the engine. Not all upright engine blocks have the threaded lugs to accomodate the crossmember.....I'm guessing no type 1 blocks have them. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
steponmebbbboom Samba Member
Joined: May 01, 2004 Posts: 6390
|
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The transmission bellhousing support is only on type IV engine buses. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mharney Samba Member
Joined: June 01, 2002 Posts: 8352
|
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
VW didn't expect you to put your T1 engine in your T2 vehicle.
Later universal cases have the threaded bosses.
If you MUST put your T1 engine in your T2, there is an adapter that will allow you to support it by the oil pump studs. Bad idea, but people do it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Glenn Mr. 010
Joined: December 25, 2001 Posts: 76760 Location: Sneaking up behind you
|
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mharney wrote: |
If you MUST put your T1 engine in your T2, there is an adapter that will allow you to support it by the oil pump studs. Bad idea, but people do it. |
I hate those. _________________ Glenn
74 Beetle Specs | 74 Beetle Restoration | 2180cc Engine
"You may not get what you pay for, but you always pay for what you get"
Member #1009
#BlueSquare |
|
Back to top |
|
|
steponmebbbboom Samba Member
Joined: May 01, 2004 Posts: 6390
|
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mine did great. No damage and a few hard launches in the six years and 60K miles I ran it. If installed properly it is quite strong, you use elongated studs, a machined plat that fits over the oil pump, then the original cover flipped over, then the mount plate, then the bar. Youve got the four cover studs, one case clamp bolt & nut, and with a drill and tap, one of the bar bosses. As long as you dont overtorque the pump cover nuts (I would recommend stovers here) the studs wont pull. Mine didnt. Unless you put 150K on the damn thing I wouldnt worry, but that is just my experience with it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mharney Samba Member
Joined: June 01, 2002 Posts: 8352
|
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, they're a good way to get your engine to leak oil, and cause other fun issues. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
steponmebbbboom Samba Member
Joined: May 01, 2004 Posts: 6390
|
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I repeat, in my experience the adaptor plate caused NO ill effect, whether in stud pulling, oil pressure, or leaks of any kind. Take that as you will. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chillz1 Samba Member
Joined: August 03, 2002 Posts: 869 Location: Where You Least Expect
|
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not to mention, the cooling tin from an upright engine will not seal on the body of a type 2 designed for a type IV engine. They make adapter tin for that particular application, but the late tranny is geared all wrong for a stock upright. Your choice really, just do it informed. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ruckman101 Samba Member
Joined: March 15, 2004 Posts: 961 Location: Portland "Little Beirut", OR
|
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anyone hang an engine in their bus that had only two out of the three threads the cross-member bolts to? I have a block that's missing the passenger side upper threads for the cross-bar.
neal _________________ Where are we going, and why am I in this hand-basket? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
germansupplyscott Samba Member
Joined: May 22, 2004 Posts: 7090 Location: toronto
|
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:05 pm Post subject: Re: why an engine crossmember? |
|
|
aaron_h wrote: |
Is there some reason why IRS busses have a crossmember under the engine and not under the transaxle? |
no frame horns on an IRS bus, so the crossmember is needed. it prevents torsion of the engine/transaxle more than carrying load. _________________ SL |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Desertbusman Samba Member
Joined: June 03, 2005 Posts: 14655 Location: Arizona
|
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh boy, here we go again! Early Bay engine mounting question. Along with some good information we're apt to dig up more garbage than the local landfill holds and it has allready started. An early Bay ('71 and earlier) is different than later years. Check out what happened last time-
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=141721&highlight=
The poor gal turned to Samba for help but she probably ended up turning to booze instead. _________________ 71 Superbug
71 Westy |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chillz1 Samba Member
Joined: August 03, 2002 Posts: 869 Location: Where You Least Expect
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Desertbusman wrote: |
Oh boy, here we go again! Early Bay engine mounting question. Along with some good information we're apt to dig up more garbage than the local landfill holds and it has allready started. An early Bay ('71 and earlier) is different than later years. Check out what happened last time-
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=141721&highlight=
The poor gal turned to Samba for help but she probably ended up turning to booze instead. |
EEEP! Sorry, I guess I didn't read extensively enough. Why did I assume he was wanting to mount an upright in a pancake bus?? I'll be quiet now. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Amskeptic Samba Member
Joined: October 18, 2002 Posts: 8568 Location: All Across The Country
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:26 am Post subject: Re: why an engine crossmember? |
|
|
aaron_h wrote: |
Is there some reason why IRS busses have a crossmember under the engine and not under the transaxle? This is an annoyance when you'd like to be able to plug any upright engine you want into your bus. I know there is an adapter kit out there that bolts onto the oil pump cover, but that's not very cool. Has anyone figured out how to support the transaxle with a crossmember instead? Don't IRS bugs have a crossmember under the transaxle? I have a 1970 bus, are all IRS transporters like this? Any insight would be greatly appreciated. |
The pre-bay buses were following the center spine architecture of the beetles. They could pull this off because the engines were still relatively light and the output was relatively low.
Once the bay came along with its IRS diagonal arms, the engineers needed both the space to install bus payload carrying diagonal arms and they needed to secure the engine from torque flexing which would have been an issue with a 5.37:1 rear axle ratio and a 3.80:1 first gear. However, rubber engine mounts outboard of the engine were considered too noisy.
The Type 4 engine then added more weight and ever increasing torque, at that point it was deemed necessary to install bell housing mounts, and that allowed them to reduce the support loads on the rear engine mounts and move them back in towards the engine's rotational axis, you can see by the shape of the bell housing mounting points and the shape of the rear engine mounts themselves that they are designed to allow the engine/transaxle to absorb rotational forces before they reach the chassis.
In the great scheme of Volkswagendom, I doubt that the engineers wasted any time thinking about the loss of convenience as mounting became more sophisticated and quiet. The fact that the Type 2 and 3 engines both had similar mounting bosses on the 1600 cases does suggest that they had some consideration for application flexibility. At the time of the change over in 1968, the bug was still in its own 1500 universe, and the stronger 1600 was available for both Type 2 and 3 with the rear mount bosses.
Colin _________________ www.itinerant-air-cooled.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bub Samba Member
Joined: June 10, 2004 Posts: 1143 Location: Central Washington
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Colin-
in a world of opinions and heresay thanks for lending some analytical thought to the forums.
I was wondering what you thought of my mount setup- made to absorb mostly the torsional forces of the powertrain, BUT not much for supporting weight. I mean of course it does or the engine would fall out- but the bellhousing mounts on the T4 seem to 'hang' the whole deal pretty well.
On Tpoic: For putting T1 engines into late-er bay busses here's a thought too:
The H20 cooled vanagon has a pretty much T1 based engine block, theres an aluminum adapter used on them that looks like it will bolt directly onto a VW T1 Universal Case (3point). From there making a rear mount looks like cake and it has the same 4 rubber blocks as in my picture.
My question for those who want to consider it, do I need more "weight support" for my drivertrain?
I think the torsion will be handled okay,...but for support I dont know.
Bob O
_________________
hitest wrote: |
Had a girlfriend once who shall we say, nearly arrived at the mere sight of a semaphore in action- easy to please she was... |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Amskeptic Samba Member
Joined: October 18, 2002 Posts: 8568 Location: All Across The Country
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bub wrote: |
I was wondering what you thought of my mount setup- made to absorb mostly the torsional forces of the powertrain, BUT not much for supporting weight.
|
Based on the photograph, you do not have a bell housing carrier in that bus, correct?
Bub wrote: |
the bellhousing mounts on the T4 seem to 'hang' the whole deal pretty well.
|
They do. The nose cone and rear mounts are drivetrain torque absorbers for the most part, though I preload my engine mounts a bit by lifting the nose cone 1/4-3/8" to get rid of off-throttle kicks.
Bub wrote: |
The H20 cooled vanagon has a pretty much T1 based engine block, theres an aluminum adapter used on them that looks like it will bolt directly onto a VW T1 Universal Case (3point). From there making a rear mount looks like cake and it has the same 4 rubber blocks as in my picture.
|
If that bus, which should not have the bell housing mount carrier, is supporting the engine with that pictured rear mount and the nose cone cone mount from a pre-'72 bus, it will do fine. However, you have a Type 4 engine here so my question is, are you utilizing only two of the four engine mount bolt bosses provided?
Colin _________________ www.itinerant-air-cooled.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bub Samba Member
Joined: June 10, 2004 Posts: 1143 Location: Central Washington
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Colin-
No top-bellhousing hanger on this, its a 71'.
The mount pictured is a late air-cooled vanagon mount, - consisting of an aluinum bracket which bolts on to all 4 theaded case bosses. The aluminum bracket is bewteen the rubber blocks and the case, and I sectioned 2 T4 bus rear crossbars to get a 'straight' corssbar.
I used a very similar mount in my T4 powered 912 and I hammered on that thing HARD- but it did have the nice 911 front trans mount.
I'm tempted to agree with you and say a bellhousing support may not be needed: in my 912 with a similar weight drivetrain (same engine in fact) there was NO support other than the rear engine hanger and the front trans mount. And NO dire consequences even in laying 40 foot patches of rubber.
I may run with it and see how it goes.
Thanks for the input, stay tuned,
Bob O _________________
hitest wrote: |
Had a girlfriend once who shall we say, nearly arrived at the mere sight of a semaphore in action- easy to please she was... |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
shiningstar76 Samba Brewer
Joined: July 12, 2003 Posts: 2689 Location: Savannah
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bub, clearly you are not screwing around.
Nice work.
I had a 69 that had an odd mustache bar......I don't know if it was fabricated. Did VW ever make one other than the standard one we all know? The 69 did have a tow hitch so I don't know if that was a factory option... _________________ KK4NTP
96 Tacoma
86 4Runner
My bus caught on fire and is now on the other coast with someone who gave me money for it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
shakor44 Banned
Joined: November 17, 2005 Posts: 78
|
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hmmm... not all trannys are supported properly, even when they say they are. I saw some FRUSTRATING damage being done when owners just assume the transmission will be supported.
Get some hooks and chains, play it safe, so we don't have to hear about another person having a hissy fit about their transmission snapping in two. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|