Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: meursault Jun 16 2003, 11:04 PM

So I'm test-fitting my engine and transmission in the car right now, and I'm having some problems. Perhaps someone can offer some advice.

Engine is a 2.7 liter, transmission is a 901 pull clutch, mount (for now) is a Patrick Motorsport piece.

Issue #1: supposedly the clutch cable to use is a 72-74 911 unit. The sheath is a little short, though, and making a bracket isn't necessarily easy because part of the crankcase prevents me from having a straight shot. I have an idea of how to do this, but I'm wondering if anyone's done this before. Here's a pic:


Attached image(s)

Posted by: meursault Jun 16 2003, 11:07 PM

Issue #2:

Trying to find an oil line that will allow me to use the factory heat exchangers. The late style 911 hard oil line doesn't quite clear...


Attached image(s)

Posted by: meursault Jun 16 2003, 11:12 PM

Trying a long, early oil hose was even less productive; the oil tube is in just the wrong place...


Attached image(s)

Posted by: meursault Jun 16 2003, 11:19 PM

Issue #3:

I'm hoping this resolves itself when I get the oil tank completely secured. The supposedly correct straight oil line with male-to-male adapter just seems to want to kink. It seems to be too long.

I tucked it under the brake line for a test fitting of the heat exchanger. I don't think it's a good idea to drive it like that.

I think I need to see a pic of the 914-6 hook with the oil lines all present and accounted for. Anyone got that kind of pic?


Attached image(s)

Posted by: Steve Jun 17 2003, 12:08 AM

I ran the same conversion and used the stock 914-4 clutch cable, roller, ect...
Patrick Motor sports sells a factory return metal oil line that he cuts off in front of the motor and welds a male fitting on. This is what I'm running on my six. The metal line runs really close to the engine so you can easily run headers or heat exchangers. the rubber line that your running looks to thick and will interfere with headers or heat exchangers.
The line from the oil cooler to the tank looks fine.

Steve

Posted by: Steve Jun 17 2003, 12:16 AM

OOPs Sorry.
I thought you were running the stock push type clutch.
I ran stock everything when I did my 2.7.
I had no problems whatsoever with the stock 914 trans and 911 2.0 flywheel.
The only issue I had was the motor was over heating until I installed a front oil cooler.
I put 100k on my 2.7 until swapping it for a 3.2 last year.
I'm now running a KEP conversion flywheel with the stock trans.

Good luck with your conversion!!!

Steve

Posted by: meursault Jun 17 2003, 12:26 AM

Hi, Steve! Nice car. Thanks for the suggestions. Some clarifications, though:

I can't run the roller now even if I wanted to since the clutch arrangement is now backwards. Look at my throwout fork.

The metal line interferes because of a bend near the oil return tubes. I may try cutting and splicing it. Cutting it off in front of the motor won't solve my problem. I'll get another pic of the area soon.

Maybe another pic will show the kink a little better.


Attached image(s)

Posted by: 914Timo Jun 17 2003, 12:33 AM

Issue #1
Isnt that 911 gearbox ?? I mean the one between 901 and 915 gearboxes. It is used in 911 models between 1970 and 1972, I think....

Figure #3
Hope you dont use that early oil hose. It looks like it is broken.

Issue #3
I think one problem is the 4-engine mouunt. Original six dont have them and the oil line can have bigger radius. I had the same problem and I had to remove the old engine mount. But, I use the bulk head mount....

Nice conversion. Hope you manage to solve those problems.

Posted by: 914Timo Jun 17 2003, 12:38 AM

Ok, I saw now your last pic. Cutting the engine mount doesnt help. Can you rotate the 90 degree end of the tank ??

I use longer rear brake hoses. I am not sure if they used the same brake hoses in six and fours. My longer brake hoses are fron VW LT truck.

Posted by: elmonte Jun 17 2003, 12:46 AM

I looked at my six and the brake line is above the oil line
don't have a camera or i would shoot a pic

Posted by: meursault Jun 17 2003, 01:13 AM

Hi, Timo!

You're right. The transmission I'm running is the '70-'71 911 (type 901) box. I flipped the ring and pinion, naturally.

The flexible hose is a used hose I found around the shop. It cracked as I tried to bend it. I thought I'd see if that type of hose would work before I bought a new one.

You still may be right about the 4 cyl. mount thing. I hadn't thought of that. I will be using a bulkhead mount for this conversion. The Patrick mount, again, is for the test fit only.

The oil tank isn't entirely attached. Two nuts hold the studs down with a few threads. I need to get some small parts from the dealer to finish the installation. I also need to wrangle with the oil line out of the tank and figure out if I can tighten it with the oil tank in the car. (I'm thinking that's not the case).

Thanks for the suggestions!

Thanks for the suggestions.

Posted by: 914Timo Jun 17 2003, 01:32 AM

Wow !! If I look very closely the first pic, have you converted it to side sifter too ??

Posted by: meursault Jun 17 2003, 01:49 AM

Yep. It's a Frankenstein gearbox. The case, intermediate plate, and all the gearing is from the 911.

Shift rods and shift console are from a 914 sideshifter box that was sacrificed because an axle whacked the starter, destroying its case.

Just for kicks, the nosecone is an early tailshifter piece with part of the casting sawed off so it looks like a 914-6 nosecone. Since no shifting is occurring in that area, a pipe plug now fills the hole.

The bellcrank is from the 911, just cut and re-welded to get the proper 914-6 angle.

Drive flanges are from a sportomatic gearbox to better accomodate the Frankenstein big CV axles. We'll see how this all works. I'll post more pictures later on this week.

Thanks for your interest. I hope to work everything out soon!

Posted by: 914Timo Jun 17 2003, 02:16 AM

I am sorry I am nearly destroing your topic with all my questions, but I have to ask this; are you using 914 or 911 drive axles ??

I suppose you have bigger six bolt CV joints (outer diameter 100mm) if you have drive flanges from a sportomatic. So, you have to use 911 axles also.... Do you ??

Sorry about all my replys, but you have really interesting conversion. Good luck. I hope some will come and give you good answers, so that you can soon

Posted by: meursault Jun 17 2003, 03:34 AM

I'll try to answer this as best as I can. Everything from the flanges to the hubs is 911. I'm using the large CVs, as found on '69-'71 911s. Basically, these are the same size as turbo CVs. Whereas turbos use 6 bolts to attach the CVs to the flanges (I think), I'm running the 4 10mm bolts and two rollpins, as the '69-'71 911s did.

This conversion is kind of being done on the cheap, using parts I have access to and can cobble together. Here's how the axles worked out:

shafts are the longer '72-'73 911 units

CVs and boots are used '69-'71 911 units, cleaned, re-packed, and installed on the '72-'73 shafts.

Drive flanges (transmission side) are from a Sportomatic transmission of the same period.

Stub axles and hubs are again from a '69-'71 911.

I'm using 914-6 rotors and 914-4 calipers.

Hope that helps. I am concerned that at least on one side, with the wheels unsprung, I can grab the shaft and not be able to move it back and forth. I wonder whether I need to have any play at this extreme of the suspension travel.

Posted by: scotty Jun 17 2003, 09:47 AM

Couldn't you just cut-n-splice a 90 degree bend into the line from the tank to the cooler to get rid of the kink? It looks like that line would be a perfect fit (length) if it didn't have to have that adapter on the tank...

Posted by: meursault Jun 17 2003, 10:03 PM

Scotty-

Everything you see in that pic of the lines to the oil cooler should be 914-6 parts. They should fit. I'm trying to figure out why they don't. I don't want to go splicing factory lines unless it's absolutely necessary. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

Posted by: meursault Jun 17 2003, 10:12 PM

More pics of my transmission:


Attached image(s)

Posted by: meursault Jun 17 2003, 10:14 PM

and another. Hope these answer any questions.


Attached image(s)

Posted by: Steve Jun 17 2003, 11:35 PM

That is a really cool conversion.
I wonder if the 70/71 911 trans would work with a stock 3.2 flywheel and clutch.
I'm using a stock 914 trans with a kep flywheel clutch kit.
That's weird about the return line.
When I had my 2.7 I was running a stock 914-6 metal return line to the tank.
I had to replace the fitting on the motor with an earlier fitting to make the stock 914-6 return line work.
I'm now running the stock metal 911 return line but its cut off in front of the motor.
It has an earl fitting welded to it so I can run an external thermostat.
The mocal thermostat connects to the tank and a GT front oil cooler.
The cut stock metal 911 return line is a tight fit between the oil return tubes and the heat exchangers but it works fine.
I would check with Jim at Patrick motor sports.
My return line works great.
I'm also running a stock 911 oil cooler that was cut and a 90 degree fitting was welded on. The fitting allows me to run AN fittings and a steel braided line to the tank.
All my metric to an adapters came from pegasus.

Best of luck with your conversion.
We're all very curious about your trans and CV combo!!!

Steve

Posted by: meursault Jun 18 2003, 01:18 AM

Steve--

Do you still have that stock 914-6 hard return line? I've been looking for one and have so far come up cold. I've been trying to put this conversion all together "factory style" and I would prefer factory parts if I can get them.

This transmission should work with your stock 3.2 setup---you just need to change the throwout bearing to the 70-71 style (tabs on the sides rather than a ring).

I probably could muscle in the heat exchanger with the steel line, but I just want to pull it as far away from the exhaust as I can. As it is, it's contacting.

Thanks for the interest. I'm flattered that you all are interested in my transmission; I thought almost all this had been done before. I'm really trying to remember where I saw a bracket made up on a car running this transmission.

Argh. Where's Brad? I have a feeling he's seen this before.

Posted by: FlatSix Jun 18 2003, 06:10 AM

People proposing to do a six conversion should read this thread.

All the previous six conversion threads are "how much does it cost for..." etc. This is where the real time and effort goes.

It is impossible to say before hand what issues are going to turn up, even with all the correct parts.

One thing though - I'm sure you'll really appreciate your car after you've done this particular journey together.

Posted by: J P Stein Jun 18 2003, 02:58 PM

Well put.
Subtlety has never been my strong suit.

Posted by: Steve Jun 18 2003, 04:30 PM

Sorry I sold all my stock oil lines years ago.
Occasionally I see them on Ebay but its pretty rare.

Thanks for the info on your gear box.
I know that Werks II in burbank is using and recommends the 70/71 gearbox for 914-6 conversions.
I would love to go stock instead of using the KEP adapter mess.
I saw a mislabeled 70/71 trans on ebay.
He says its a 69 but you can tell by the throw out bearing fork that its a 70/71 trans.
I'm tight on money right now otherwise I would try to buy it.

Steve

Posted by: meursault Jun 19 2003, 11:42 AM

For Karl et al:

Here are some pics of sportomatic flanges. Another possible issue with the one I'm using: the seal area is shorter. The problem with the other one is that the outer diameter of the area that slips into the differential casing is too small.

They are both stamped with the same part number: 901 332 209 15


Attached image(s)

Posted by: meursault Jun 19 2003, 11:43 AM

Here's another:


Attached image(s)

Posted by: meursault Jun 19 2003, 11:47 AM

I thought I had a side-view pic of the flanges, but apparently it didn't take in my flaky camera. I'll try again today. You can see the diameter difference in the last pic. The one on the left has the narrower step.

Posted by: Brad Roberts Jun 19 2003, 01:31 PM

I'm playing catch up since I have been away from the computer and shop since this past Sunday. Hang in there... I'll be able to answer 90% of these later this evening.

B

Posted by: Steve Jun 21 2003, 11:04 AM

Meursault,

I'm very interested in trying this clutch assembly with my 3.2.
If I find a 70/71 trans all I need is the 70/71 throw out bearing and a 3.2 disk and pressure plate?
I looked in all my catalogs and they show a diferent disk and pressure plate for the 70/71 2.2 motor vs. the 72-86 911 engines.
What disk and pressure plate did you use with your 2.7?
Do you have the 911 part numbers?
When you put your trans on do you have to do anything special to get the throw out bearing to connect to the pressure plate?
The 70/71 trans conversion would be a lot less money than the 915 trans with the velios kit.
A 915 trans goes for $1500.00 plus the velios kit $1500.00 plus the shifter roughly $600.00.
All the 3.2 conversions I see out there with the 901 are using the KEP conversion.
The KEP conversion works great and the people and support at KEP are second to none.
But I still have problems with my clutch.
It feels like the clutch cable is stretching or the tube is broken.
I checked the clutch tube its been reinforced in three spots.
It's not going anywhere.
I replaced the weltmeister clutch cable with a factory six cable and that made a significant improvement.
I think my problem is either a bad KEP pressure plate which I doubt or the local machine shop machined my flywheel to thin and now the throw out bearing has to travel furthur to release the clutch.
I adjusted the pedal and stops for maximum throw.
I also did the KEP recommendations which is take out the washer behind the pivot ball and the modification of the throw out bearing fork tube.
I'm having to much fun driving my car to take it apart any time soon.
Some times I have to double clutch and I also have to make sure my seat is close enough to put the clutch pedal to the floor but otherwise its tolerable.

thanks for your help and good luck with your conversion!!!

Steve

Posted by: Brad Roberts Jun 21 2003, 03:46 PM

That pull assembly is not your answer. You'll gain nothing by converting to it.

What KEP clutch setup do you have ?? The 9 inch setup requires their throw out bearing.

B

Posted by: Steve Jun 21 2003, 03:51 PM

I'm running there complete kit.
9" stage II with there throw out bearing.
You don't agree with the 225m 70/71 setup for a 3.2?
I know that Rich Johnson is running this setup with his 3.0 and werks II is running it with a 2.7.
But I never heard of anyone doing it with a 3.2..

thanks for your help.

Steve

Posted by: J P Stein Jun 21 2003, 04:22 PM

In his book, B. Anderson discribes the 70-71 clutch
set-up as "problematical".....which is about as damning as he gets about Porsches.

Looking at old issues of "up fixen" there is at least one article about replacing that tab on the trans after it has broken off.

While the 914 set-up is not the best in the world, it works for me. I use the Kennedy stage 1, 215mm, behind my little 2.7L It'll haze the 225 Hoosiers with no signs of slipage, tho.

I can't see the 911 trans as an upgrade.

Posted by: Qarl Jun 21 2003, 04:37 PM

Rich J. is running a hydraulic setup in his 3.0 car. He is using the pull clutch but avoids the cable with a hydraulic master and slave setup.

There was a thread on here about such a conversion. Search the archives.

Posted by: Steve Jun 21 2003, 04:44 PM

Thanks for your opinions.
Right now my 9" stage II is tolerable.
When I get a chance I will pull it apart again and check it out.
I might change the stage II to a stage I.
I will also check the flywheel to make sure the local machine shop didn't shave to much off.
I've heard nothing but good things about the KEP conversion.
I just need to figure out what's wrong.
My motor is a Euro 3.2 I thinks its 231 HP.
The stage I should be fine.

Steve

Posted by: Qarl Jun 21 2003, 05:06 PM

Another thing to look into...

The clutch pulley on the tranny... are you running the factory white plastic one? Check it for damage and wear.

Yoy may consider replacing it with a stronger alternative.

Patrick Motorsports sells one made of Delrin. That;s what I will be installing in my 3.2 conversion using the KEP 225mm stage II setup.

I know billet aluminum ones are also available.

Posted by: J P Stein Jun 21 2003, 07:38 PM

Steve:
I wouldn't be too quick to change over clutches.
It sounds as if you have some kind of linkage problem.

You wrote that Kennedy suggested that the washer
under the T/O arm pivot be removed..did I get that right?

This will give you less adjustment.....I don't know how the stage II set up works (bigger clutch and all) and I'm speculating here, but it seems odd.

When the clutch pedal is fully depressed, does the T/O arm come close to the trans case? If not, you could add a spacer (or a stack of washers) between the adj. nut and pivot wedge thingy (the technical name, me thinks....the Brits would give it a real name...like bollard or sumthin'). This would get you some adjustment at the nut and the clutch pedal off the floor..... if my thinking is correct (a shakey concept) .

If the arm comes close to the trans case, replacing the washer under the T/O pivot is the answer...if it all fits without binding everything up inside the bellhousing......a PITA to even try.

I used the stage I because I feared the clutch linkage would be easily overstressed using something really stout. As I said, it ain't the greatest set-up in the world......the 215mm set up was cheep, also, since I already had the flywheel.

Posted by: Steve Jun 21 2003, 08:47 PM

They told me to remove the washer so I would get more travel in the throw out bearing arm or fork.
The fork never hits the trans opening.
I adjusted the clutch pedal and floor board to give me as much travel as possible to the floor.
I am running the white plastic roller thingy.
It looked ok when I installed it and it rolled smoothly.
The previous 2.7 motor did not have any clutch problems at all.
It wasn't until I put in the 3.2 with the KEP conversion that I ran into this problem.
I live in Orange County does anyone know of a local shop that is familiar with this setup??

thanks for the advice and help.

Steve

Posted by: meursault Jun 21 2003, 11:20 PM

This is what I can say for the 911 pull clutch transmission:

It was problematic in the 911 application because Porsche had to make a cable "push" the throwout fork. It had to go through all sorts of different gyrations to make the cable sheath effectively do the work. In a 914, it's just the thing to eliminate the cable pulley.

You have the same strength issues as other 901 boxes, but there's also additional strain on the ball pivot. A heavy clutch like those intended for 915 boxes can break or tear that pivot right out.

The best way to handle a stronger motor like a 3.2 is to upgrade to a stronger gearbox, like a 915. I'm sorry to have suggested otherwise.

I decided to go pull clutch more as an experiment than anything. If I had just stayed with a push clutch, everything would have been done by now, but no, I just HAD to challenge the pulley. Now it laughs at me as I try to figure out how I want to make a bracket for the cable.

Posted by: Steve Jun 22 2003, 12:10 AM

Thanks for the reply!!!
Let me know how you make out.
I'm still very curious how your ordeal turns out.
I heard diferent stories that the throw out fork comes off the throw out bearing and then you have to somehow reach in through those holes to fix it.
When I get some time I will try to troubleshoot my own clutch mess.
But I promissed the wife I would finish the back yard, front yard and other honey do chores first.
It could be months before I can dig into the beast again.
But for now its tolerable and I'm having to much fun driving it.
I have noticed that most 3.2 conversions either stay KEP or they win the lottery and go with the 916 conversion.

take care and thanks for your help,

Steve

Posted by: meursault Jun 22 2003, 12:40 AM

Well, that's how you install it. You have to rotate the throwout bearing to a point where the tabs are positioned behind the fork. As long as nothing else breaks (like a pivot, maybe) it'll hold itself in place. I hope.

Posted by: Steve Jun 22 2003, 09:33 AM

I have another dumb question!!
Can you use 914 spindles on your gearbox so you can use the stock 914-4 CV's??
Just curious!!
When I get a chance I will check my cable assembly and see If I can find anything wrong.
My wife just had surgery, so it might be awhile before I can get her to push on the pedal for me.
The surgery was minor. She had a hernia operation.
My twin girls trashed her pretty good.
I also have to finish landscaping the backyard and build the kids Cosco fort/playground.
I have to earn teener points before I can work on my car again!

thanks,

Steve

Posted by: meursault Jun 22 2003, 10:55 PM

914 drive flanges will absolutely work. The 911 tranny has the same differential and essentially the same case as the 914.

Posted by: Steve Jun 22 2003, 11:50 PM

Thanks!!!

Posted by: Brad Roberts Jun 23 2003, 12:21 AM

JP,

The 9 inch clutch from Kennedy use a special "thick" throwout bearing. This causes it to sit much closer to the pressure plate than a stock 901 T-O bearing. This is why you "can" remove the shim under the ball socket.. KEP designed the clutches with a stock setup.. but they have to deal with 30 years of people shimming the ball socket.

B