Build Thread: Reynard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

.....The manufacturers stickers are on the cells to benefit the manufacturers.

---

It's NOT a manufacturers sticker, it's an FIA requirement.


FROM ATL concerning the FIA latest label requirement issued 2013.

All new fuel cells purchased after January 1st, 2013 and used in FIA sanctioned events will be required to carry this new FIA hologram. Any existing fuel cell that is within the 5 year legal FIA life-span (2008 and newer) is “grandfathered” and will be permitted for competitive use for its entire 5 year life. Please consult with a representative from your sanctioning body if you are unsure whether this mandate applies to you.

I have some of these same concerns. Most of the fuel cells that I've seen that are weeping are cracked because they have hardened and it's questionable that they can do the job we have them for in the first place in terms of rupture resistance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

I'd be very careful pressurizing a fuel cell.
They are not under pressure when in use.


If you get the old foam out, you can put new foam in by cutting it up into numerouse tennis ball sized pieces.

---

Yes, do not put the old cell under pressure.

Also, be very careful about replacing fuel cell foam yourself. Some cells have a "lip" or flap, a couple of inches high on the floor. This helps traps fuel in a corner for pick-up. If your added "cell foam" pushes this down, you will have fuel pick-up issues when the fuel level get down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xmazdatracy

I know this thing is older than my last race car I bought new, but what goes wrong with these things? This looks OK and the foam in the inside looks like its in good shape, so who mandates that this thing needs to be changed every 5 years? And how can they know, I mean its under the seat inside a aluminum cover... Oh and its 15 years old.
...

---

In my experience, the black rubber cells are more durable than urethane cells, mostly because they are more resistant to damage from fuel with ethanol.

My urethane cell lasted ~18 years until I started using E10 pump gas in the F2000 series. It cracked and fell apart quickly (less than 3 years) with E10 gas.

I then got a new rubber cell from Eagle, and they say with E10 the cell should last well over 15 years. And they say to store it full to prevent drying it out.

So, since yours appears to be black rubber, as long as it appears intact and doesn't leak, I would continue to use it. If you start using E10, the foam will likely become an issue long before the cell does.

Most ethanol-free racing fuels (Sunoco 110, for instance) are very gentle on even the urethane-based cells.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

I have found fuel cells stored full of racing fuel in air-conditioned shops, in cars that are kept clean and vacumned, last a very long time.

I am not in favor of driving with a leaking/weeping cell. I found that Hartwig repairs them at a reasonable price.

The manufacturers stickers are on the cells to benefit the manufacturers.

---

http://www.hartwig-fuelcell.com/page2.htm#costs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickb99

It's NOT a manufacturers sticker, it's an FIA requirement.


FROM ATL concerning the FIA latest label requirement issued 2013.

All new fuel cells purchased after January 1st, 2013 and used in FIA sanctioned events will be required to carry this new FIA hologram. Any existing fuel cell that is within the 5 year legal FIA life-span (2008 and newer) is “grandfathered” and will be permitted for competitive use for its entire 5 year life. Please consult with a representative from your sanctioning body if you are unsure whether this mandate applies to you.

---

From the Nov 2016 GCR:

9.3.26. FUEL CELL SPECIFICATIONS
All cars must be equipped with a safety fuel cell complying with these
specifications, except for Touring, Spec Miata, Improved Touring, production-
based Vintage cars, or as otherwise specified in the GCR. All safety
fuel bladders shall be constructed and certified in accordance with the FIA
FT-3 or higher (FT-3.5, FT-5, etc.) or SFI 28.3 specifications. Fuel cells do
not time out and have no expiration date. Alternatively, safety fuel cells
shall be constructed in accordance with FIA FT-3 or higher or SFI 28.3
specifications and tested to those requirements by an independent facility
as witnessed and certified by a Professional Engineer. The results of these
tests shall be submitted to the Club Racing department for inclusion on a
list of approved suppliers. All safety fuel cells shall consist of a foam-filled
fuel bladder enclosed in a metal container at minimum.

WOW Dave,

Strange move by the SCCA because, according to the FIA rules all FT-3 or higher fuel cells built to FIA standards DO HAVE a 5 year usable life. So the SCCA has stepped out on its own again. I understand it from a club rules versus 'unreasonable FIA rules' but, I wonder what their legal department thinks of that??

The biggest deal I see in that is opening up the field to other suppliers.

Ethanol in gasoline is the bane of all things fueled by it that were not specifically designed for it. Small engines, particularly 2 cycles, race cars as Dave alluded to in the effect on his fuel cell.

And besides the fact that our tax dollars subsidize this questionable at best environmental improvement, this stuff should go away.

We are using food crops to allow the people that turn it into ethanol to line their pockets with questionable benefit to the rest of the population.

End of rant.

If someone wants to hear a real rant look Tom Pomeroy up.

Harmon offers a 7-year warranty and they are FT3 certified...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickb99

WOW Dave,

Strange move by the SCCA because, according to the FIA rules all FT-3 or higher fuel cells built to FIA standards DO HAVE a 5 year usable life. So the SCCA has stepped out on its own again. I understand it from a club rules versus 'unreasonable FIA rules' but, I wonder what their legal department thinks of that??

The biggest deal I see in that is opening up the field to other suppliers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickb99

WOW Dave,

Strange move by the SCCA because, according to the FIA rules all FT-3 or higher fuel cells built to FIA standards DO HAVE a 5 year usable life. So the SCCA has stepped out on its own again. I understand it from a club rules versus 'unreasonable FIA rules' but, I wonder what their legal department thinks of that??

The biggest deal I see in that is opening up the field to other suppliers.

---

It's only a rule for FIA sanctioned series.
You are putting way too much stock in the FIA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred Michael

It's only a rule for FIA sanctioned series.
You are putting way too much stock in the FIA

---

Oh? In that case why follow the limits for cars on track during a race. Just put 250 cars on track and see how that works out.

SCCA is a member of ACCUS

ACCUS® is comprised of the six major motorsports sanctioning organizations (known at the FIA as "member clubs"): IMSA, IndyCar, NASCAR, NHRA, SCCA and USAC, each nominating two directors to its Board. Additionally, a number of independent directors are elected annually. The World Karting Association (WKA) is an associate member.

One of the things ACCUS does is:

New vehicle and equipment homologation papers

Which means, meeting FIA 'standards.

http://www.accusfia.us/

Redline…..…...6800 rpm

Bore = 3.575"
Stroke = 3.029"
Rod length = 4.990"
Wrist pin = .944"

1 inch = 2.54 cm.

Race Engine Clearances: (BAT catalog)
Main Bearings……………… .002"
Con rod bearings…………… .0015 - .002"
Con rod side clearance……. .015"
Camshaft bearings………… .0018 - .0026"
Piston to cyl. Wall………… .005"
Top Ring End Gap………… .015"
Crankshaft end float………. .0032 - .011"
Camshaft end float………… .0016 - .0047"
Wrist pin………………….. .0007 - .00153"
Intake valve stem………… .002"
Exhaust valve stem………. .0025"
Intake valve lash………….. .010" cold ? (.008)
Exhaust valve lash……….. .012" cold ? (.010)

Race Engine Torque Specs: (BAT catalog)
Head bolt…………………… 85 lbs./ft.
Main cap bolt………………. 75 lbs./ft.
Rod cap bolt…(Stock)….. 35 lbs./ft ? (45) Oliver is different
Flywheel bolt ……………… 50 lbs./ft. ? (75)
Pressure plate bolt…………. 15 lbs./ft.
Oil Sump bolt……………… 8 lbs./ft.
Rocker Cover bolt…………. 5 lbs./ft.
Front Cover Bolt…………… 13 lbs./ft.
Water Neck bolt…………… 15 lbs./ft.
Camshaft Sprocket Bolt…… 35 lbs./ft.
Crankshaft Pulley bolt…….. 28 lbs./ft.
Intake Manifold bolt………. 15 lbs./ft.
Exhaust manifold bolt ……. 15 lbs./ft.
Carb to manifold nut……… 15 lbs./ft.
Spark Plug………………… 20 lbs./ft.


Phone Numbers:

Cricket Farm Motors 864-277-1268 Rollin Butler (SC)
Quicksilver 301-698-9009 Sandy Shamlian (Maryland)
Elite 262-306-1977 Steve Knapp (Wisconsin)
Farley 816-431-3550 (Missouri)
Loyning 503-775-2999 (Oregon)
Ivey 503-255-1123 (Oregon)
BAT 941-355-0005 (Sarasota FL)

Block:
GCR says:
2.0 NE series
Nominal bore 90.84 mm
Nominal stroke 76.95mm
Casting # HM6015BA or HM6015B3


Holes in the stock block to make sure you put something (a plug) into:
Water temp – right side rear
Front hole next to #1 journal
Inside oil filter
Dip stick
Top of block breather (filter side)
Rear of block below freeze plug
Two ports around jack shaft

Butler says main bearing clearance = .002 - .003"
Quicksilver says main bearing clearance = .002
New head gasket = .054", old = .052" Ford Motorsports "red"

Planing block will get you (per Kevin Roberts):
Plane .010" = 1.63cc/hole
Plane .020" = 3.26cc/hole

Head bolt torque………………………………85 lbs.
Pistons shall not protrude above the cylinder block surface @ TDC.
Main cap torque = 75 lb.

Pistons:
GCR says:
…shall be standard Ford production
Weighed with rings and pin, rod and bolts (no bearings)
p/n 80HM6102LA 1332.5 grams
p/n 85HM6102DA 1255 grams
p/n 21426 casting 21426 1255 grams
Piston p/n 21426, casting p/n 21426 (AE Hepolite)
oversize = std Grade "C" (90.83/90.82)
New Ford Forged Pistons p/n M-6102-B200 J&E
J&E Pistons p/n M-6102-B200


Wisco Pistons for 5.7 rods = #6119A3 .030" over :):)

Butler says piston/wall clearance .0045" to .0055 max.
…..about pin high on the skirt.
Loyning says piston/wall clearance .005" max
Cast pistons are worthless.
Loyning says Moly top ring gap = .015"
Quicksilver says Moly top ring gap = .015"
Butler says Moly top ring gap = .015"

Old piston top ring = 5/64"
New piston top ring = 1/16"


Oil:

Sandy (QS) say use Valvoline 13/30 Synthetic if you have an oil cooler.
I use Mobil 1 15/50
Oil filter…………………Wix 51348? NAPA gold 1335, 1374 may be better

Cams:
Farley says cam timing 2 – 4 degrees retard.
Quicksilver says 3 degrees retard.

Max lift against cam angle with zero tappet clearance measured in mm:
Angle Opening Closing
0 10.442 10.442
45 3.86 3.86
90 0.20 0.01

Same for intake and exhaust.

Maximum valve lift against cam angle w/zero tappet clearance = 0.400 +/- .005"
New Crane cam is an allowable substitute.

Valve clearance: Intake .008" Exhaust .010"
Adjust between cam and follower…..

Cam timing: what the 2.0 "straight up" intake valve centerline cam timing number should be…

The long straight tracks should shoot for a 114 – 115 degree centerline (more retarded) on the number one intake lobe.

- To increase torque on the short tracks the number should be reduced to 112 – 113.

Note: Retarding the cam by installing a 3-degree offset keys will not guarantee the cam is retarded 3 degrees. There are many factors/tolerances that can change the cam angle so it needs to be checked and corrected with the appropriate offset key. I say should because the offset keys themselves are not always exactly what they are marked. Check – adjust – and re-check.


Rods:
Oliver Rods = M-6200-C200
Butler Rod bearing clearance = .002"
Quicksilver rod bearing clearance = .0015 - .002"
Butler says old cast rods only good for 2000 miles.
Rod p/n M-6200-C200 is permitted (Oliver)
Rod bearing keepers face oil filter on block!!!!
Butler does 45lb. Rod torque
Old forged stock rods:
70HM-6205-B-A
knot sticks out side of pin end "+8BA"
"F" on side of casting


Head:
Cylinder head volume = 49cc min. (not including head gasket)
Head gasket = .9mm min. thick
Cylinder aperture = 92 mm
Max diameter of inlet port at manifold head face 39.5 mm.
Max dimensions of exhaust port at manifold face 35.5mm X 27 mm.
It is permissible to reshape inlet and exhaust port by removal of metal within limits.
Inlet valve 42.2mm
Exhaust valve 36.2mm
Valve stem 8.4mm
Butler uses yellow stripe valve springs (BAT).
Valve clearance: Intake .008" Exhaust .010"
Adjust between cam and follower…..

OK. I called QS and asked what they do to set the valves cold.

When they set up the head on the bench, for the intakes, they use 0.010 on cylinders 1-3, and 0.009 on cyl # 4. For the exhausts they use 0.013 for # 1, and 0.012 for the rest. They might have to adjust one or two slightly hot after they're run in, but that gives them the desired 0.008 intake and 0.010 exhaust (hot).

So the 0.002 extra clearance, as I said before, seems about right for cold valve adjustments of a head mounted on a block.



Head bolt torque………………………………85 lbs.

Flywheel:
Min weight = 14.4 lb. w/ring
Butler says 85lb w/blue locktite.
ARP says No Washers under bolts! P/N 151-2801
Torque to 75lb. W/ARP moly lube.
Torque to 85lb w/ 30wt oil.
Tightening sequence:
1. 70 lb.
2. Rap with hammer
3. 70 lb.
4. 75 lb.


Titan Oil Pump:
The chamfer on each round pump gear goes down into the pump body spigot.

Crankshaft:
Min. weight = 27.5 lb.

Ignition systems:
Spark Plugs…………NGK AP8FS <AP9FS>? (NGK 2227?)
.028" w/points, bigger w/electronic ignition
Bosch – Pertronix #1843
Crane 3000-0021 (or 700-0021) and 700-2231
Points……… .013… dwell 48 – 50 degrees
Points really around .014 !!!!

Carb issues:

Is it dumping fuel at idle (too high float level) or…
During cornering (need to solder shut the secondary idle jet)? or…
Is it some other problem?

Dave W. says: Is the secondary idle jet still working (open)? If it is, solder it shut. Fuel will slosh in the carb and come out through this jet into the throttle plate area, causing a bog. This is exacerbated by higher float levels.


Barry Haynie said: An interesting twist to this phenomena I often experience is the motor shutting off under very hard straight line braking. This seems to be a float-level sensitive deal. By raising the level (icroscopically!) and testing and resetting etc I can get it to not do this.
Any comments on this or similar experiences?

Dave W. replied: Barry, since the float bowl is at the front of the carb, meaning that the jets are in the rear of the bowl, it sounds like you are uncovering the jets, causing a very lean mixture, stopping the engine. As you said, raising the float level would help this, but may cause fuel to slosh into unwanted places. QS does extensive baffling, etc. to prevent this.

From one of Keith's previous posts:

"I set the seam in the float, parallel with the carb top and have a 1/4" float drop. Remove the carb top; slowly turn it upside down until the float seats the needle. At that point (before it compresses the spring loaded ball) the float seam should be parallel with the carb top. Measuring (side view) the seam, in the middle of the float, I want the drop measurement to be 1/4" more, when I now turn the carb top back (as if re-assembling the carb). If the drop is too small, it slows down the fuel flow in the bowl. If too much, it can "hang" in some corners and cause the car to stumble. I hope this helps. Keith@Averill

From: Dave Weitzenhof

1. The primary jets have more effect on cyl 2 & 3 than on cyl 1 & 4. The secondaries have more effect on 1 & 4 than on 2 & 3. Therefore, if 2 & 3 are rich compared to 1 & 4 (plug check after clean-cut, etc.), lean primaries or richen secondaries, and vice-versa.

2. A long time ago, before the widespread use of EGT sensors, I very successfully used a seat-of-the-pants trackside method of setting the over-all degree of richness. I would warm up the engine to operating temp, and then immediately run it to ~3000 rpm, let the rpm stabilize, and then open the throttle wide open for ~1 second. If the engine died or hesitated for more than ~1/2 second, the jets were too lean and needed to be richened. If the engine just barely hesitated and then revved cleanly, the jets were just right. If it picked up smoothly with no hesitation, the jets were too rich. All of this assumes no major carb or other engine problems. This really did work quite well.


Well... there you have it. 8 years of answers to the questions that weren't smart enough to go unanswered. Hope it helps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickb99

Oh? In that case why follow the limits for cars on track during a race. Just put 250 cars on track and see how that works out.

SCCA is a member of ACCUS

ACCUS® is comprised of the six major motorsports sanctioning organizations (known at the FIA as "member clubs"): IMSA, IndyCar, NASCAR, NHRA, SCCA and USAC, each nominating two directors to its Board. Additionally, a number of independent directors are elected annually. The World Karting Association (WKA) is an associate member.

One of the things ACCUS does is:

New vehicle and equipment homologation papers

Which means, meeting FIA 'standards'


http://www.accusfia.us/

---

Sanctioning bodies are free to set there own rules and the SCCA has NEVER required the replacement of fuel cells.
SCCA Homologation has ZERO to do with the FIA.
Yes the SCCA adopts SOME of the FIA standards but by no means is SCCA amateur competition bound by FIA rules.
By the way, I work in an FIA series and am involved in homologation of our car.

Now we have interrupted this build thread quite enough so I am done.

OK now I have another question I hope you guys can help out with. Is this the only bracket that is holding the pump on? It looks like it is getting ripped/torn by the belt tension. You can see that it was repaired once before and has cracked again through the weld!

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/1m...B=w640-h480-no

I mean I see that there is like three holes (two threaded) for another bracket to help support the front of the pump from belt forces... Does this bracket not exist nor does it need to be?

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_l...0=w640-h480-no

And why is there a 90* plumbing fitting where everything else is a AN fitting?

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/jx...6=w640-h480-no

There should be a bracket on the front of the engine holding the oil pump and keeping it from rotating. On you second picture you can see a small mounting tab on the bottom of the pan, and on the oil pump there is an open hole on the bottom left hand corner. There needs to be a pencil brace between those two locations to provide constant tension on the belt.

To repair that crack I'd grind the plate (60* bevel) all the way through and reweld. When you repair a crack by welding over the top it always returns.

Or... just cut out a new plate. :)

Scavenge lines can get away with low pressure fittings. On decades old cars one my find all sorts of "modifications". :o

I think the brace you need / are missing is here:

https://www.pegasusautoracing.com/pr...asp?RecID=3844

Interesting.... I've never seen a Van Diemen with that brace. Mine has the Fast forward pump, similar plate setup, no brace, never a problem - but it's a steel plate.

Whenever I've had stuff crack it's been aluminum in some vibration environment. Same size steel replacement has always worked flawlessly.

those aren't plumbing fittings - they're o-ring port swivel fittings, steel, as the brits supplied them.

Mine's a single plate holding the pump on, doesn't seem to be an issue. '93 VD, with some of those funny British 90 fittings as well. AN fittings won't fit in my chassis at that position. But there is room for an extra bracket as pictured above, might give that a try...

http://www.racingonthecheap.com/wp-c...4/IMG_3808.jpg

Sorry but what way is up on the new bearing?
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/fD...x=w640-h480-no

Flat side toward the clutch

before I pull the oil pan, I was going to order the gasket kit to put it back together. But my question is why cork? I see there is a Ivey kit that is less money and rubber. Or why not just thick RTV? My fathers cars all had cork and they all weeped oil.

This pan is in pretty bad shape. It looks like it had #4 rod tossed into it at some rpm, but all the pans I have seen for sale are big $$$. And on this car they have RTVed both sides of the cork to stop some leaking. But due to the car sitting for a decade most of the oil had leaked out I would assume here.

Any ideas?

I sent a PM.....Bruce

Went to mount the rain wheel set and the fronts do not clear the calipers...

Do I have to buy new mid sections of the wheels or can I use spacers?

update photo.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/CV...F=w477-h635-no

It matters...

How severe is the interference?
Many calipers get filed down to allow wheel clearance. So, if it is just a tad of interference a little "touching up" with a side grinder might solve the issue.

Check offset of dry wheels. Compare that to the offset of the wet wheels. Sometimes spacers will work. Especially in true wet conditions. But in dry conditions they could throw off the setup by changing track, etc.

When using spacers one must be diligent when mounting wheels to make sure one gets true torque when tightening.

That car has LD20s on the front and I believe the rains were mounted on Compomotives. One way to get around it is to go back to LD19 front calipers. The only downside I found with LD19 fronts is that the pad wear rate is somewhat high, but there were no performance concerns.

My Reynard had spacers for the front wheels. I ran them all the time, with slicks and rains. We had a Crossle that we converted from LD19 to LD20. We had to remove material from both the calipers and the back sides of the wheel centers to get clearance.

I just fitted AP LD20's to my 86 Reynard with Compomotive wheels. I had to grind down the calipers and the excess material from the bolts that hold the wheels together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWMyers

My Reynard had spacers for the front wheels. I ran them all the time, with slicks and rains. We had a Crossle that we converted from LD19 to LD20. We had to remove material from both the calipers and the back sides of the wheel centers to get clearance.

---

I looked, but could not find any online.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hdsporty1988

I just fitted AP LD20's to my 86 Reynard with Compomotive wheels. I had to grind down the calipers and the excess material from the bolts that hold the wheels together.

---

I will try this first before I have some spacers made. I know the Compomotives are heaver, but coming from the tuner world they are super friking awesome looking! I mean true 3 piece wheels were around $3-6K.

Now I just got to get them to hold air.:rolleyes:

Compomotives can be made to hold air. There are great threads on the subject in archives. DaveW has written up some good pointers.

It does take work. Disassembly. Cleaning. Reassembly with proper RTV. RTV painted on the joint inside rim after assembly.

Done correctly, it last for years.

Sometimes in a pinch, just painting the joint with RTV inside the rim of an assembled wheel will do the trick.

Usually you'll have to make your own wheel spacers. A piece of 1/4" Aluminum and a waterjet...

Not as wizzy looking, but sometimes assembling the wheels with the buttonheads on the inside will create enough clearance. YMMV

Link: http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...t=sealing+rims

Note to self: Dow 832 sealant

The reason I am mounting the rains is to move the car so I can dismount the 10 year old tires and get the red paint off the dry rims. The mounting holes for the tire mount/dismounter (yes harbor freight hand jobber) are under the front end of the car. Guess I will mount the drys and get to the rains first, lol. ;)

Also a big thanks to Averill again. I sent in my gear carrier in to fix the shifter leak (instead of installing the Pegasus band-aid per his advice), and got back a much better fix. Now the shifter linkage does not wobble and puke gear oil anymore thanks to new bushings! I wonder how this thing even shifted (dont forget the rounded out hole in the mid link connection I have yet to fix)! :thumbsup:

Now who's got some nice used Blackhawk Farm gears they have no reason to be holding on to,lol! :p

McMaster-Carr has Dow 832, also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xmazdatracy

Note to self: Dow 832 sealant

Found at...

http://www.skygeek.com/dow-corning-8...e-sealant.html

---

So, early last month I ordered some switches from Skygeek. They said 3-5 days.
2 weeks later I contacted them and asked a status. They replied and said they were looking into it. 5 days later I receive and email with a tracking number that they shipped and I'd receive them tomorrow. Okay. So, nothing. I checked the tracking number and it said they had been delivered, someone in FL !

I re-contacted them. Apparently the wrong tracking info and mine hadn't shipped. Another week and another tracking#. They finally arrived a month after I ordered them.

So, I immediately looked at the switches. Correct part number per their website, but the switches were momentary. All the info on their website was dead wrong....

So, it's taken a few days and I got an RMA and just shipped them out. They didn't have what I was looking for....

I ordered from Allied in TX and received the correct parts in 3 days at a total cost of $5 more.

YMMV

McMaster has always been good. I got Dow 832 from them too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing

So, early last month I ordered some switches from Skygeek. They said 3-5 days.
2 weeks later I contacted them and asked a status. They replied and said they were looking into it. 5 days later I receive and email with a tracking number that they shipped and I'd receive them tomorrow. Okay. So, nothing. I checked the tracking number and it said they had been delivered, someone in FL !

I re-contacted them. Apparently the wrong tracking info and mine hadn't shipped. Another week and another tracking#. They finally arrived a month after I ordered them.

So, I immediately looked at the switches. Correct part number per their website, but the switches were momentary. All the info on their website was dead wrong....

So, it's taken a few days and I got an RMA and just shipped them out. They didn't have what I was looking for....

I ordered from Allied in TX and received the correct parts in 3 days at a total cost of $5 more.

YMMV

McMaster has always been good. I got Dow 832 from them too.

---

Oh, well then. I guess I will delete them from my post. That sound unnecessarily complicated. Thanks for the heads up!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

Compomotives can be made to hold air. There are great threads on the subject in archives. DaveW has written up some good pointers.

It does take work. Disassembly. Cleaning. Reassembly with proper RTV. RTV painted on the joint inside rim after assembly.

Done correctly, it last for years.

Sometimes in a pinch, just painting the joint with RTV inside the rim of an assembled wheel will do the trick.

Usually you'll have to make your own wheel spacers. A piece of 1/4" Aluminum and a waterjet...

Not as wizzy looking, but sometimes assembling the wheels with the buttonheads on the inside will create enough clearance. YMMV

---

Why didn't I think of reversing the buttonheads? Great suggestion!

crap. how close do these ratios need to be? I will be running at blackhawk. However the baseline chart lists 21/25 and I dont even see that anywhere. I wonder if that list is any good?

http://www.mbrgearbox.com/images/Rat...MK8-ratios.jpg

21:25 is in the Hewland manual so it was available. 23:27 is only very slightly higher.

What do the locals run? please post your gear sets for BHF...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xmazdatracy

What do the locals run? please post your gear sets for BHF...

---

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12876

yet another question... Why is there no draw bolt in a 4 speed and one on the 5 speed?

There should be a draw bolt in any MK8/9 series gearbox - no matter how many gears.

Except for the Reynard box, as has been pointed out below... Sorry about that, completely forgot about the bespoke case.

Gary

There's no draw bolt in the Reynard case. Its a specific case with MK9 innards. Keith would have a better description for the why. I just know they don't have them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner

Flat side toward the clutch

---

I don't think that is correct. You want the radiused side facing the clutch.

now I'll have to go look again. My rear clip is off the car right now. i could have just brain farted my response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner

now I'll have to go look again. My rear clip is off the car right now. i could have just brain farted my response.

---

My DB1 is all apart so I was able to check. The Honda one is oriented the same as well.

my radiused side is facing the clutch as well. The difference between the front and back of my bearing is not nearly as dramatic as the one in his pics and that threw me off.

This build thread is not up to my normal potograpical standards. So let me try and correct this. Pics help me a ton when looking at others build threads so here are two.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/GT...A=w477-h635-no

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/FS...A=w640-h480-no

Note that the top two don't touch. That is so the gear that is inside the case can do its thing to make into a revers direction. 1-3 are pretty close to what I need, but 4 is more suited for RA. I guess I will make a WTB post later when I recoup some funding.

*puts flame suit on*

If you notice on the picture you will see that this inner race is lower than the top and is actually the only contact to the bench top. So as you spin the bearing that inner race does not move. However since is in lower than the top face is will not give any interference. Also the bottom side with the bearing numbers on it (the radius side) has the much thinner material. And with a audible test pushing on it and spinning it in this direction there is no noise. In the revers direction (radius facing clutch) the bearings make a unloaded rattle noise.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/oH...Q=w262-h245-no

I doubt there is any clutch fingers that close to the middle but if there where I would expect some decent rubbing in the other direction, but since there is not I would thing it would work both directions. I just want my best face forward. (pun intended)