Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Another 2056 rebuild thread
914World.com > The 914 Forums > 914World Garage
nditiz1
So I decided to start this reBuild thread to keep track of everything as well elicit help and possible things to watch out for. I haven't owned my Porsche a year and I have already killed the motor and taken it apart biggrin.gif. If you are unfamiliar I was in the process of upgrading my distributor and out of sheer luck dropped a valve on #2 which I eventually found out it started its life as #3. The 2056 was rebuilt by the PO before the PO I bought it from. With the help from you all and some nice vids/write ups I confidentially dropped the motor (much easier with dual carbs). I purchased a 4 bar 914 stand from a place that manufactures all types of engine stand mounts. I broke down the motor to the short block where I found no other damage except the broken valve. Piston #2 was slightly injured, but I felt as new P&C was the best approach. Mark (McMark) has been a huge help through the process, thanks Mark! Since I didn't build this motor nor have any specs really on what was inside I decided to check it was a 2056. The bore measure 96, the stroke measure 71. I was told it has a mild cam. No markings could be found on the front of the cam gear. I did some prelim measurements of lift and found it is not stock and that the intake and exhaust have different lifts.

With the motor down to the short block it was time to buy some parts. I bought new P&C's from AA pistons. They are the 96mm flat top ones with a valve relief. I ordered new 2.0 heads (AA piston HAM heads) from Len. I bought the type4store spacer kit, thorsten 10mm swivel feet adjusters, and had everything machined by a guy on the samba that lives in CA.

I replaced the RMS with a Sabo one and checked the endplay to be in spec. The parts needed for this was the Sabo RMS, felt washer, flywheel bearing, inner flywheel seal, and a 5 hole crush washer. I wasted one crush washer as I did not put any lubricant on the flywheel seal nor the RMS. Following the pelican article it states to make the flywheel bearing flush, but this leaves little to no room for the felt washer and actually made the washer deflect slightly when torqued. It is now set to the 3mm protrusion which is the thickness of the felt washer. The flywheel is still currently off. I asked about my clutch and pressure plate and they look new so I won't be replacing them. The engine seal rebuild kit I bought is the Victor Reinz one. It only comes with the crush washer so be sure you get the other parts if you do this job. Back to the rebuild kit it would be really nice if it came with a guide for what every seal/gasket was and where they fit.



The rebuild:

Replaced both the taco plate, oil filter, and oil plate.
Test fit the P&C.

I removed all 4 pistons from their cylinders to just check the rings. They all looked good to me, but with nothing to really compare them I'm really just guessing. I did not check the ring gap. Not sure what it is supposed to be. I rigged a setup with a dial gauge, type 1 deck height plate, 2 aluminum bars, and a micrometer. I used the dial gauge to get the exact top of the piston stroke. I checked through several revolutions. Before doing this I removed the distributor drive gear as Mark (914sixer) showed if yours is not 100% in the correct position you can torch the copper gear on the crank. Once I had achieved the top of the stroke I micro'd the depth and subtracted from the thickness of the deck height plate. I came up with 1.4mm for all 4 pistons. Unfortunately, with the cc of the heads and the valve relief it was putting me at a 8.1 C/R. This is leaving power on the table and I know with the valve relief in the pistons I can get a pretty shallow DH. I decided to take the jugs to a machine shop to have them mill .5mm (originally .4mm) off the bottom of the step. I will be running no gasket at the top nor the bottom of the jug. With a .9mm DH it will put me right at 8.5 C/R as the heads are 60cc and the relief is 2cc. This motor had been running at 8.1 (possibly, don't know the cc of the stock heads) which is probably why it didn't feel as powerful as I thought it should and as others commented on my old post the heads were leaking between them and the top of the cylinder.

So that is where everything stands right now. I hope to get the jugs back later this week as well as the blocks, rockers, and adjusters. Mark (914sixer), Brent (bbrock) and I are building similar motors.

beerchug.gif

IPB Image
McMark
Looking good! thumb3d.gif
bbrock
Awesome! Thanks for starting this thread. I'm at the same place on my rebuild so this is perfect timing for me. Sounds like the Samba guy must have a very quick turn round on machining those rockers. Good to know. beerchug.gif
nditiz1
No problem bbrock. Yeah I needed to keep track of something as it is easy to lose what is going on as well as go back and reference with pics.

I sent out my rockers 2 Fridays ago. He got them Monday and started working on them on Thursday last week. He is supposed to be sending them out today. He currently didn't have anymore of the thorsten adjusters. I ordered them direct from Germany for the same cost as him (maybe a $3 more). Those were ordered last week as well and they are coming in today.

The breakdown from the samba guy:

$35 - two adj pushrods (for setting the correct valve geometry)
$45 - block narrowing
$65 - rockers
$25 - spacer narrowing and set screws
$30 - shim assortment
$14 - shipping
$9 - PayPal fees and insurance
$223 total

Last night I installed the oil filter bracket with the one gasket from the kit and permatex aviation sealer.
bbrock
Thanks for that break down. This adjuster/spacer/geometry thing is pretty new to me so I have a few questions:

Is the block narrowing and spacer narrowing to get proper clearances for the type4store solid spacer kit? If so, wouldn't the rockers need to be mounted in the heads or is that spacing consistent from head to head? And why not just adjust the shim widths? I think I have something very confused about this.

Also, what is the set screws on the spacers about?

Finally, which shims are the shim assortment for? If for under the blocks, I thought a benefit of machining the rockers was that it often eliminates the need to shim the blocks.

Sorry for all the questions but this is very helpful as I budget and plan my next steps. The rocker geometry makes intuitive sense to me, but some of the ways people approach setting it don't. Waiting for my heads to come home first though.
nditiz1
QUOTE(bbrock @ May 1 2018, 08:13 AM) *

Thanks for that break down. This adjuster/spacer/geometry thing is pretty new to me so I have a few questions:

Is the block narrowing and spacer narrowing to get proper clearances for the type4store solid spacer kit? If so, wouldn't the rockers need to be mounted in the heads or is that spacing consistent from head to head? And why not just adjust the shim widths? I think I have something very confused about this.

Also, what is the set screws on the spacers about?

Finally, which shims are the shim assortment for? If for under the blocks, I thought a benefit of machining the rockers was that it often eliminates the need to shim the blocks.

Sorry for all the questions but this is very helpful as I budget and plan my next steps. The rocker geometry makes intuitive sense to me, but some of the ways people approach setting it don't. Waiting for my heads to come home first though.


Yes, the block narrowing and spacer narrowing is to achieve perfect center of the rocker against the valve. Now, it is up for debate on what perfect is, whether the adjuster should be striking center or slightly off so that it rotates the valve ever so slightly with each opening. I will ask Len and get back to you on that.

The space kit that comes from T4store states that only the spacer needs to be shaved and that the shims included in the kit should take care of the rest, but I think Samba guy (I should really pull up his name) is allowing for complete adjustability within the blocks.

The set screws are to prevent movement of the space, as he explained it to me: every time the rocker strikes the valve it puts pressure against the shaft and everything in it. This in turn can put pressure against the other rocker and the end block. To alleviate that additional stress he put set screws into the spacer to ensure that the rocker would put pressure against it, instead of the other rocker thereby creating less wear. In theory if the correct shims are in place I wouldn't see a need for the set screw as it would be acting as a fully solid shaft, but I'm no expert biggrin.gif

I believe the shims that he is including are for that shaft in the case of variance between rockers, heads, and valves. The shims that would go under the rocker setup might still be needed to achieve proper valve geometry since its unknown (at this time) what the setup with my unknown cam, swivel adjusters, etc. will measure out to. Hopefully I can get away with stock pushrod length and no shims, but it is unlikely.
bbrock
Much appreciated, that helps a lot! beerchug.gif

I need to think about those set screws, I'm not sure I'm down with it. For some reason, it seems like having the spacers float would be better. Then again, the factory just used a spring which would have cushioned any side forces at the expense of letting the rockers slide around a bit. Then again, that is a pretty wimpy spring so how much side force could there be? Interested to hear what the experts think.

Strictly on non-expert intuition, offsetting the OEM adjusters with domed heads to rotate valves makes sense, but for swivel feet, I don't see where offsetting would provide an advantage. I look forward to hearing what you learn. biggrin.gif
McMark
QUOTE
Then again, the factory just used a spring which would have cushioned any side forces at the expense of letting the rockers slide around a bit. Then again, that is a pretty wimpy spring so how much side force could there be?

This is the first I've heard of using a set screw. But I like what you're thinking here. I can't logically imagine a way that large forces would be applied to the spacer, and definitely can't imagine side-loads so great that they could possibly affect the other rocker. So I guess for me, this sounds like adding a small steel pellet (actually, 4 set screws) that could fall out somewhere down the line and cause problems.... unsure.gif
nditiz1
Good point Mark. I was thinking the same thing. I may leave them out.
Bulldog9
I think the set screws on the spacers is a little bit Overkill. In addition to the concern that Mark mentions on the set screw potentially falling out and bouncing around in your motor, I think you also increase the friction points for the rocker arms because if the set screw is holding the spacer from turning it creates one friction Point against the spacer. However if the spacers able to rotate I think this decreases friction as the spacer will spin on the shaft. I got the idea of locking down the rocker arm so it doesn't move back and forth but I see this as over-complicating very simple and effective system. Remember the original rocker arm shafts had Springs between the rocker arms not solid spacers so the fear of the rocker arm sliding back and forth on the shaft is nonexistent in my opinion.
nditiz1
All points taken. I will leave them out.

I was able to get the machined cylinders yesterday and threw them on #1 and #2. I have now achieved the correct DH of ~.9mm or .35 in.

Also the thorsten adjusters came in from Germany. Looks like I will have everything this week to put the new heads on and start to measure rocker geometry.

Notes from machinist on rocker shaft shimming:
"The thrust loads will always push toward the right side, since they're offset. So blocks on the left side can get away with a .020" shim at the thinnest, but the blocks on the right side need a .040" to be safe. The center spacer should use a .040" on the left side, while the right side can use a .020". Get it? Thrust side needs the thickest shim.

The thin shims get sandwiched between thicker ones. .010", .020", and .040". I provided less of the thinner shims because of that reason.

So you have approximately .280" of free space with just the blocks, rockers, and spacers. With a .020" and .040" on each end of the rocker, you'll still have a little less than .040" total to fill-in. Use thin shims to acheive .003" per rocker, not per side. In other words, .0015" on each side of rocker arm.

You actually have a tolerance. That spacer is going to expand some when warmed up. .002" endfloat should be the tightest setting. .006" should be the loosest.

Try to use three shims between every side of the rockers.

Adjusters are supposed to be slightly offset from the valve stem, to promote spinning. Whether they're on one side or the other doesn't matter. Just be consistent. By slightly, I mean about .020" off-center.
"
VaccaRabite
With that deck height, did anyone measure to make sure you won't be putting valves into pistons?

Back when I did my engine, the rule of thumb was that .040 was as tight as you wanted to go without measuring and test fitting first. Though that was for flat tops and I see your pistons have a dish to them

Do you know your CR yet? Len probably CCed the heads for you so you will know that value. You will want to add in the CC for the piston dish too.

Zach
nditiz1
Thanks Zack.

I did not measure to see if there is a clearance problem, but from everything I have read it seems you can get as low as .030 without any clearance issues and that might even be on flat top pistons.

Len cc'd the heads and told me they were all 60cc. Mark told me the valve relief is 2cc. I came up with 8.4 C/R on a .040 DH. I was going for a little more as I knew I had the room. I had the cylinders milled .5mm to get to .9mm of DH or ~.035

Well I got the cylinders back yesterday (cost $134) I was a little concerned as on 2 of the jugs the lip at the bottom is flush with the cooling fin. I guess the castings of these AA jugs is still not perfect. Regardless, with the sleave going into the block sealant and torque I should have no leaks at the base of the cylinder. I rechecked the DH and looks like my initial calc was off by .1mm. I'm now at 1mm/ .040" DH which is where I want to be for my C/R of 8.4.

Waiting for some Curil T to arrive so I can seal the cylinders to the block and install my new HAM heads!

Current Deck Height Tool setup biggrin.gif Type 1 DH tool plus some aluminum bars from home depot. Sitting on the back of my 03 Xtreme. Couldn't get #3 on without taking off the engine stand

IPB Image

IPB Image
HAM Inc
Nick that looks good, but before you install the heads you better check their register depth to make sure the top fin on the trimmed jugs doesn't hit the bottom fin on the head. On the AAP heads the register depths are coming in .255"-.260"

Trimming the top of the jugs reduces the clearance between jug fins and head fins.

nditiz1
Good looking out Len!

I just checked the top of the jug to the lip which is slightly (maybe a mm) higher than the actual fin and it comes out to ~.270" so I should have a good seal here and no leak issues. I am wondering why the previous heads leaked between that gap as the pistons measured the same from block to top ~92mm. If it leaks than it would be due to non-square cylinders (oxymoron).
nditiz1
First crack at adding the spacers and shims. The blocks, spacers and rockers have been narrowed and cut to allow for the 10mm swivel feet adjusters.

IPB Image

IPB Image

IPB Image

IPB Image
nditiz1
Got one side of the engine bolted up with the new head. It looks great! Checked the gap between the bottom of the head and top of the cylinder fin and they don't touch. There looks to be the slightest gap as well. So this should be good and no leaks should result as the jugs will be pressed up against the inside of the head.

IPB Image

I started on the painful task of valve geometry. Read through several posts as well as Jakes nice write up. So I am using 2 aluminum type 4 pushrods that have been modified by the CA bug guy that did the narrowing of the rockers. I setup my dial gauge to be in line with the valve as though it had perfect (to the best of my ability) angles. The biggest unfortunate thing is I do not have a cam card so I don't know what the numbers should be. I took a micrometer to the lifter and measured the highest lift vs the opposite side of the cam lobe to come up with 8mm or .315 for the exhaust. .315 X 1.3 (rocker ratio) gives me .409 of total lift. Also, I have read through some of the posts about rockers being different ratios from the factory and for simplicity have decided to use 1.3:1 for everything. Bolted the rockers on and began the trials of measuring out to achieve full lift. Here is where I ran into my first hurdle. I can't seem to get close enough to my supposed highest lift without elongating the pushrod. After several attempts with the swivel foot and elongating the adjustable pushrod I got to .403. Since I didn't have anymore room to back out the swivel anymore I decided to check with the stock adjuster. I put that in with the adjustable pushrod and after starting from stock I got .409 after a few minor turns out. I think I need to buy one of those viernze micrometer that I have read about to accurately measure if the pushrod is in fact longer. If I put in the stock pushrod I cannot achieve the higher lift number with either the swivel nor the stock adjuster. Does this sound normal, to be increasing the pushrod length to get to the correct Total cam lift? I'm going to keep working at it.
bbrock
popcorn[1].gif
McMark
Here's the caliper I use:
https://www.harborfreight.com/12-in-digital...iper-63713.html

When setting the valve train geometry, you adjust the length of the pushrod to make changes. The valve adjuster screw is just used to set zero lash each time. Technically you're not adjusting it. If that makes sense.

Also, the hardest lesson when beginning the process is that you MUST NOT try and apply logic to the process. Don't try to figure out 'if I do this, then this will happen' because you're going to be wrong.

I just taught this process to someone and I told them, "Don't try to think of the solution, just keep making changes until the results start to lead you in the right direction." They ignored me or didn't believe me and spent twice as long as they should have. Afterwards they agreed -- it's not a process you can figure out.

Just make random pushrod adjustments until the results start moving towards your goal.
nditiz1
QUOTE(McMark @ May 7 2018, 08:57 AM) *

Here's the caliper I use:
https://www.harborfreight.com/12-in-digital...iper-63713.html

When setting the valve train geometry, you adjust the length of the pushrod to make changes. The valve adjuster screw is just used to set zero lash each time. Technically you're not adjusting it. If that makes sense.

Also, the hardest lesson when beginning the process is that you MUST NOT try and apply logic to the process. Don't try to figure out 'if I do this, then this will happen' because you're going to be wrong.

I just taught this process to someone and I told them, "Don't try to think of the solution, just keep making changes until the results start to lead you in the right direction." They ignored me or didn't believe me and spent twice as long as they should have. Afterwards they agreed -- it's not a process you can figure out.

Just make random pushrod adjustments until the results start moving towards your goal.


You're right Mark biggrin.gif

I have spent at least 10 hours at this so far. I am trying to think if I move it this was this will happen. Here is the run down of what I have tried:

The setup for the dial gauge looks to be accurate as far as measure travel of the retainer in regards to the movement along the valve axis.

Edit - All these values were grabage
I have only been working with the exhaust valve currently. I started with the swivel adjuster threaded in thereby making the PR shorter. The outcome was a lower lift value than with the stock PR.

Stock PR measures out to about .380 - .390 (can't remember off the top of my head) This would be in the +-5% of total lift if my cam is actually .409 total lift.

Tested making the PR longer than stock and it did start to increase the lift measurement. The problem I ran into was that the swivel adjuster was threaded so far out that it actually caused the swivel to lose its ability to swivel.

Swapping out the swivel adjuster for the stock adjuster net me similar lift with the stock pushrod, but I was able to keep turning the adjuster further away from the valve giving me more PR to stretch. This netted me the closest to my supposed .409 total lift.

Then I put some washers (1.41mm) under each block to check out what that would do. I was not able to get close to the lift numbers I had without them so I put that theory to rest.


Time to get back at it and find that perfect setup.

Edit - had time in between kid nap and the other being occupied. Looks like I was not getting perfect "zero lash" I was able to replicate getting .400 with having the PR shortened. I also think I was setting the length when there was slight lift on the setup. I could find a point that was less stiff when twisting the PR. The valve geometry looks good as well. I will mess with getting it closer to the .409, but if I don't achieve that I'm not too worried. I don't actually know the cam. I'm more focused on getting it close and getting the geometry perfect.

Check out this pic and tell me if that is what the valve geometry should look like.

IPB Image
bbrock
Okie dokie, I'm going to ask another dumb question. tooth.gif I need to read Jake's write-up but I did read this on on the Samba that looks to be similar to what you are doing here, but last week found several youtubes and other tutorials on setting VW valve geometry that focus on applying some kind of dye to the valve stem and then adjusting the pushrod length until the swipe pattern was centered on the stem. Looked pretty simple but this seems way different. Does this method not apply to type 4? Here's an example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRGFHKYF7Cw
Geezer914
I don't see how this would work using swivel feet adjusters.
McMark
QUOTE
then adjusting the pushrod length until the swipe pattern was centered on the stem....Does this method not apply to type 4?

You can do it that way. Different approaches to the same process. But Geezer is right, you'd have to swap in a normal adjuster to use the 'wipe' method and only install the swivel adjuster once you're done.
nditiz1
Made some more progress tonight.

Messed around with the adjustable PR on the exhaust valve. After several different tries I put in a stock PR (or so I thought) it came out to .402 lift. I checked the valve geometry and it looks decent. I think I may be ok with the setup I have. It was on the car before and seemed to work. Or it didn't and that's why the 40 year old valve gave out. I decided to measure the stock PRs I took out of the motor and none seem to add up to what I believed was stock length. Maybe they are close enough? Or they had been slightly machined. They range from 27.05cm to 27.07cm. None never measure to 27.1cm. Anyone else experience this on there stock setup ? Maybe factory spec were "close enough" or the PO builder did some cutting. I threw a PR in the intake side of the same cylinder I was working on and got a higher value than I thought to be the total lift .437. My goal was .425. The .437 is still in the acceptable 5% range so I might just leave it as is. Also, the geometry on that one looked pretty good as well. I need to double check the length of that one and see if by chance on of the other "stock" PR measures just slightly under. This would give me a slightly better angle and possibly even lower the lift. I will double check with an adjustable PR of the same length.

Oh and just for shits I think I will use a dry erase marker on the valve tip and throw on the stock adjuster just to see the sweep.
Valy
Your pushrods are fine.
Valy
BTW, looking at the picture where you measure the valve travel I noticed that the gauge doesn't look perfectly perpendicular to the valve head. Your readings will be off in that case.
nditiz1
Thanks Valy. I keep changing that biggrin.gif I either bump it or I thought I had it right and then look from a different angle and its not perfect.

nditiz1
Ok so I used the stock adjusters and just wanted to check the sweep geometry with the stock PRs. Here is how they look. I could tell from the swivel adjusters it was hitting slighty at an angle at half lift. I think I'm ok with how this setup will work. What do the experts think? biggrin.gif

Intake
IPB Image

Exhaust
IPB Image
VaccaRabite
I think that you are over-thinking it.

Unless your swivel and stock asdjusters are exactly the same length this comparison is not worth much.

Measure max lift and make sure you are within 5% (IIRC its 5%, its been a while, but maybe 15%) of theoretical lift and that the lifter at 1/2 lift is visually straight and inline with the valve stem.

All your valves should end up with roughly the same lift. That's it.

Zach
nditiz1
QUOTE(Vacca Rabite @ May 9 2018, 07:41 AM) *

I think that you are over-thinking it.

Unless your swivel and stock asdjusters are exactly the same length this comparison is not worth much.

Measure max lift and make sure you are within 5% (IIRC its 5%, its been a while, but maybe 15%) of theoretical lift and that the lifter at 1/2 lift is visually straight and inline with the valve stem.

All your valves should end up with roughly the same lift. That's it.

Zach


Well the distance between the rocker edge and the top of the valve would be the same as the PR length is unchanged. Whether it is swivel or stock it should be the same geometry. This test was just to ensure what my eye was seeing is same as what was happening. I could see when I adjusted the PR and made the PR shorter it would increase the distance between rocker edge and valve top. This made it a better angle, but caused the lift to be lessened. This seems to be the happy medium of angle and lift. I am within the 5% lift on both Intake and Exhaust. Unfortunately my valves are not lifting the same as the Cam is some older wierd cam that has a valve lift of .315 Exhaust and .326 Intake.
McMark
Looks good in pictures. The intake is better than the exhaust. You can have different lengths in the same motor.

And yeah, the adjuster won't make a difference. There's only two real adjustments: 1) pushrod length 2)spacers under the rocker shafts. The adjuster just takes out slack. Its not an adjustment -- it's permanently 0.006" or zero lash (depending on your pushrods) and never changes.

If you think you're going to end up using aluminum pushrods (stock) make sure you're looking at the valve/adjuster geometry WITH the 0.006" gap.
nditiz1
Just a minor update -

Installed the other head (1,2) went to town on setting the correct geometry.

I was able to determine that I can use close to stock length/stock length for the exhaust (270.50mm) This was however with the lash set to 0. I will need to set the correct lash .006/.008 to see if the geometry still holds true. For the intake I determined that 269.50 mm was the correct number for lift and angle. So I will have 4 of my PRs milled down by about 1mm.

I also installed the HD 8mm stud kit. Some of the rocker shaft holes are a very tight fit so I will need to slightly true them. For the one stud in each head I used some 518 locktite to ensure it would not leak behind it (The way the head was cast has a slight reveal at the base which could allow for a leak, believe this is only on Chinese AA heads)



nditiz1
OK! haven't made any posts lately, but have made great progress. I managed to get the intake pushrods cut to the correct length. Since the exhaust lift is only slightly more than stock (.409) I was able to use the stock pushrods. The geometry still looked good. I got the everything buttoned up and rechecked the intake geometry and it looked good. With using the aluminum PRs I had to set the valve lash (.006/.008) so I lost a little lift, but they were still in the acceptable 5%. I may actually readjust the exhaust ones to .006 as I have seen with most mild cams. On to work on the oil pump. I had a Melling that needed to be removed - it was working, but a poor choice as it is steel. I got a Schadek 30mm from Herb on here (forgot handle) and while I think it is too big McMark runs them with great success (knows more than I biggrin.gif ) and I have a gauge hooked up to see if the pressure will overload the relief. As long as it doesn't I will rock it. I put all the engine tin on and the fan shroud. I hit a snag with the alternator boot as I was unsure how it came off and ripped it. I sourced another one from Siagon71 (Bob). He is a cool guy and took me for a ride in his sweet 74 with a 2056 (FI). It ran good and pulled strong, its also a daily so that's even sweeter. Got all the heater system installed and had one hell of a time getting the heat exchangers back on - fitment very tight. McMark hooked me up with some nice 12mm (I think) locking copper nuts. I applied generous amounts of copper anitseize (good info from Len). After the engine was pretty much good to go I installed the clutch that was one there before as everyone said it still looked new. Mated that to my newly rebuilt tranny (Dr. Evil VA Clinic). The PO had built a nice little engine cart which I used to roll it over to the car. Success! Got the motor and Tranny bolted back up. Double checked all the electrical as well as installed my new dual post oil pressure switch hooked up to a grease gun hose out of the stock port. Once I was sure everything was in place I test fired the engine to try and build up oil pressure like Raby did in his rebuild video. Maybe I didn't give it enough time or maybe my plugs and carbs needed to be on, in any case I ventured on excited that it turned over. Reconnected the drive shafts to the tranny, installed the plugs, wires, and 123 distributor. Got the green light static timing set correctly. Next onto the Carbs. Sidenote* before installing the engine I made sure to run the fuel pump and rid the tank and lines of the November gas, almost 5 gallons. I had put the carbs away empty and dry with running brake cleaner through all the ports so I knew they were good. Last night I installed them and started putting the Tangerine Racing linkage back into place. With the end in sight I had to wait to attach the clutch cable, throttle, speedo and heater controls. Today gave me a few hours to put some fresh 93 octane in, hook up the fuel lines, muffler and triple check everything for its first start up. I primed the carbs and saw fuel so i knew the chambers were full. Triple checked all connections before the first fire up. SHES ALIVEEEEEE!!!!! She needed a little more priming, but then stayed running. I coaxed it along with a few bumps of throttle, but then it stayed running. I got a little worried when I started hearing some loud tapping sounds coming from both sides, like loud valve tapping. I shut it off and was going to check the valves but wanted to look things over one more time while running. I started her back up and the noise was present. I installed a screw on the passenger carb since the 123 doesn't use vaccuum, well you don't have to anyway. I bumped the throttle one more time before shutting it off and the noise died down. I did it again and it completely went away. I can only assume the oil had not gotten into all the passage ways. I let it idle for about 20 mins. My oil pressure started around 60 and by the end was around 25. Not sure if these numbers are too high. I think driving is more of what I need to check. The CHT did show as high as 300 on cyl 3. Can't remember if this is normal either for idle. I'll post the question for the experts. Whew that was a big update! Time for some beers and plan out the final items to get her driving again. Thanks for everyones help on here! beerchug.gif beerchug.gif beerchug.gif

IPB Image

IPB Image

IPB Image

IPB Image

IPB Image

IPB Image

IPB Image

IPB Image
saigon71
Congrats on getting her fired up. beerchug.gif
McMark
That's a milestone! Nice job. smiley_notworthy.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.