Moved from topic of first start of 10 year old build to tear down, inspect and reassemble. The 10 year old build is from a 73 1.7 to a 2270. Stroked to 78 mm and 96 mm cylinder diameter. Heads are Ham/RAT with 36 mm exhaust and 44 mm intake. Both are nicely ported.

Have torn it down to the case and checking crank end play before I split the case and pull the cam and crank. So far, everything is new and looks in good order. I'm concerned about oil passages being blocked with old assembly lube so a complete tear down and reassemble is happening. Discovered stacked cylinder spacers (4) totaling .150". So looking to replace those with single spacers. So far I can only find .160" spacers from type 4 store and may just use them as impact on compression appears minimal. Was shocked to discover crank end play is .450"! Sure glad I didn't try to start this thing. Will check again in the morning to make sure I'm checking it correctly, but I'm doing the same thing on the videos such as Ian Carrs YouTube engine builds so pretty sure I'm checking it correctly. Now to figure out what to do about that huge end play.

Any thoughts about what to watch out for?

Primary main bearing missing the thrust faces? Nearly half inch end play is unimaginable....
Get it back together right & you'll LOVE it! Mine is a Raby kit 2316 and is wonderful...especially with Chris Foley's tangerine headers & muffler--gives a sound that will put a grin on your face that you can't wipe off with a handful of hundred dollar bills!

Take your time. Make sure your dial indicator is mounted rigidly.

But fully agree that you’ll likely want to split the case to know exactly what is in there and to be sure that something isn’t completely whacked like that level of crank end play.

Keep posting here with pictures as necessary.

Get spacers custom made as necessary - don’t compromise compression ratio just to use off the shelf cylinder shim.

Can crank end play be checked with the case split?

Eh . . . Sort of but not really.

Bottom line - remeasure end play prior to case disassembly until you get the hang of it and have a repeatable measurement. Did you by chance typo the end play by shifting a decimal place? Like maybe 0.045” rather than 0.450”?

You will reset it later but you need to be comfortable and consistently measuring it properly.

The crank end play is set by shimming the space between the flywheel and the axial thrust surface of the last crank bearing. So this can’t be set when the case is spit. However, it can be mocked up in a case half and you would definitely see where excessive crank play was coming from if bearings were completely jacked up.

Have you gone through the Tom Wilson book? I know there are details in there about how to measure and set crank end play. I can’t remember the details of how Raby covers it in the DVD.

You should also bookmark this link to the factory manual which contains a wealth of information on engine specs, torque values, assembly informations

http://p914-6info.net/Manuals.htm

You were right. Crank End play is .045 - .052. Tried to split the case per Jake’s video with partial success. Got the fan end 1/8 “ apart but the flywheel end isn’t moving. Removed all fasteners and check again many times. I’m considering buying a case splitter tool to try to split it evenly to avoid binding when coming apart crooked. Anyone use the splitter from 914Werkes? Hope it works on both ends. The previous builder must have used rtv and gorilla glue!

Do not force it with a case splitter. Really should call those things case breakers, because that is what they do if used to force a case apart.


There are case fasteners behind the flywheel. Have you removed the flywheel to access those?

Also there is a hidden bolt down by the oil pickup.


Info on fastener quantity and location in link below

http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?showtopic=50873

If you have it split at the front, there is no need for a case splitter. Case splitters, large hammers, and pry tools do more damage than good.

Find the fastener that is holding it.

.045” of crank end play sounds like there are no shims there. 0.045” is excessive and about 10x the spec.

Shims are behind the flywheel. If you’ve removed the flywheel, were there 3 shims between flywheel and end of the main bearing?

Look closely - they can be stuck to the bearing with oil and obscured by the rear main seal.

Note: there must be 3, and only 3 shims used at reassembly to set crank endplay. Cross that bridge later but you need to be aware of this.

Not having those three back there ABSOLUTELY BLOWS the original build IMO.

If they couldn't get the "simple" correct HOW the FUCH could they do the complex...

I'm the TECHNICAL ninja...

Us proper nomenclature when you are posting about the engine.

You DO NOT have a 2270...

That requires a 78.6mm crank. At one time that size was common.

I believe you have a 78mm crank. (common today) Mathematically you have a 2258.

Proper nomenclature is 2.3L

A stock 2.0L is 1971cc. just sayin’

Let’s not be busting his chops over 0.6mm of stroke.

I would NOT worry about determining shim selection on ANYTHING now.

Take measurements, write them down, and then forget about them...

With botched crank endplay ALL of the build is suspect.

I'd be worried about internal clearances at this time if I was in your shoes.

Important questions IMO are.

Has the valve train been upgraded?

I'd EXPECT skinny ass steel pushrods.

Fixed solid shimmed rocker arm assemblies.

Elephant feet valve adjusters.

Explanation on this junk can be found in Ian Karr's vids (which are GOOD!).

Internally I expect
Billet oil pump with O-rings on the OD.
Adjustable cam gear.
Reduced base circle camshaft with serious numbers.
The LN 9520 might be a good choice.

You might get by with the aftermarket rods/reduced base circle cam and NO internal clearance mods, but I would EXPECT evidence of clearance mods to one of the rods and maybe the case. 78mm is getting close enough to other shit that VERIFING stroker clearance is a requirement.

I'd bet that hasn't been done on this build...

I'm going to take second fiddle on this thread.
You have the Hawk looking over your shoulder and he is BAD ASSED!
If he gives bad advice, I WILL eviscerate him publicly as I expect him to return the favor if the roles are reversed...

Of all the posters here, I'd bet MORE MONEY that he is "more" correct than anyone else.

You have a KICK ASS mentor...

Like the mythical frame-off restoration of unibody cars

I AM A CHOP BUSTING BITCH!

There is a REASON I was named "The Technicalninja" by my shop buddies...

If you're building an engine DECIMAL point are important...

I have Pi memorized to the 7th digit. 3.1415927.

Why 7?

Cause that is what fits in a normal ass calculator...

Just a point of note: when you put the engine back together you will have to measure more accurately than this. That range of measurement encompasses the TOTAL spec for crank end play.

Need to be repeatable at measuring this to within no more than 0.002” at most and really should be to 0.001”.

Plenty of time to deal with that at reassembly.

However, I’m with Ninja, that 0.045” or anything like that is a huge red flag and means everything needs to be looked at.

Could be as simple as an engine built to a high standard and someone threw a flywheel on it to sell.

However, I don’t think this is the case given some of the other warning signs we’ve seen like multiple cylinder shims.

And just one more reminder - keep everything indexed and organized with respect to where it came from.

Thank you for the kind words and you’re not second fiddle to anyone

I’d expect nothing less.

You guys are amazing and I'm very thankful that you are willing to share your knowledge. It's fun to learn from you!

Here are picts of my almost split case. It seems to be hanging up on the top of the flywheel side just on one side. Wonder if a dowel got wedged in there or maybe the plastic reinforcements on the 6 through bolts are somehow hanging it up. Maybe I should push it back together and start again to see it will come apart when pulled straight off instead of wiggling it back and forth?

Click to view attachment Click to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachment Click to view attachment

BTW - There were 3 shims on the crankshaft for end play. Without them, the end play was .060". Also, the felt washer was missing. Hope that comes in the gasket set.

You didn’t show photo of the oil pump pick up tube fastener.

I think you probably got it in order to get it split that far. But double check - count them.

Yes - case can bind and sometimes go have to go back and close it up and then be more careful to split it evenly end to end, just a little at a time.

You can also use a block of wood and a hammer to knock on the flywheel end ribs, back and forth, side to side to help open up the top side, flywheel end but as shown with it that far open at the fan, it’s probably binding.


Click to view attachment

Nothing brutal, . . . Finesse it more than force it.

Here's a thought I just had...

What if the crankshaft end play was .0045 to .0052 and Rodroe is just really, really BAD at reading dial indicators?

He had ALL three shims and still reported .040-.052.

I don't think that is possible either...

His end play is excellent, and his dial indicator readings were with .0007 of each other makes far more sense.

Hey Rob, the number of decimals PAST the dot is STUPID important!

Was the clearance a tiny little "click" that you can feel but not really see or a significant movement you could see?

We want the tiny little click...

The crank movement was large and loud. I could measure it with my tape measure. I would have preferred the little click. Was hoping I was wrong too.

Got the case split today thanks to your help. The cam and lifters are a Webcam Raby 2500. Crank is marked 78 mm and stamped 106299 on one of the counterbalances. The rods are marked VW 5.158".

Case pictures.
Click to view attachment Click to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachment

Oops!
Sorry for the insult!

If you could see it that's BAD!

I'm a believer in setting end play with rear main seal OUT and no 0-ring.

Those can skew results.

Seals and O-ring at final assembly only.

Pick those little bearing dowels out.

Those puppies will FALL out and you'll be hunting them.

When I take stuff down I re-install ALL of the hardware exactly as I removed it.

My cases have every single fastener in them.

Crap that I cannot affix I'll have in a small freezer zip lock bag.

If you label the bag first with a Sharpie 20 years from now it will still make sense...

Do it that way and you don't have to remember SHIT!

Crank and Cam Pictures
Click to view attachment Click to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachment

Rods Bearings Lifters pictures

Does this case appear to be clearanced? Click to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachment[attachmentid=917
731]Click to view attachment

Well the good news is that the internals are clean and the cam barely has wiped off the parkerized coating.

My first order of business would be to try to understand why there is so much crank end play. Typically it is about 1mm without shims. You seem to have about 50% more play than that. Is there anything mis-machined at the crank end that interfaces with the thrust bearings. It may all be OK and can be shimmed - now is the time to look to see if you can understand root cause.

Good to see they did use a double thrust cam bearing.

Good stuff in there.

Hopefully just as simple as confirming, operational clearance between case and moving components, bearing clearances (rod and mains), rod end play, and balance (highly recommended). Then, clean and reassemble.

Am I correct in remembering that you didn’t have any issues spinning the crank when the heads were removed?

Plan to send case to a machine shop today for hot tanking to get really clean. When back I'll start trial assembly and measure how crank/cam fit. Will watch Jake and Ian's videos again first. Was considering not taking the rods off the crank. Just check torque on rod caps, clean up with brake cleaner and then insert lots of oil. Or, I could take the rods off and do a thorough cleaning of all oil passages and reassemble. Do the cam bearings look usable?

From pictures I’m don’t think I see the Raby Rear Main Seal drain back modification . I’d do that while case is split.

Personally, I’d check at least one rod for clearance.

As an alternative you can check the split main bearing with Plastigage and if that is good, maybe feel safer that rods are OK?

Cam bearings seem to just have had the tin protective plating wiped off based on appearance. Again, those can be measured with Platigage if there is any question on clearance.

The issue is that now is the time to be 100% sure. It would be a waste to have done all this, start the engine, hear a rod knocking and then have to tear down. Agree - not likely, but at this stage it’s easy to be sure.

Case doesn’t appear to be clearanced to me. Those grind marks at lifter bores are typical of casting flash clean up. Just mockup and make sure you have clearance to all rotating / moving parts (crank, cam, rods, lifters).

Note: don’t assume oil galleys were previously cleaned or that hot tanking will clean them. Galley brushes and brake cleaner until you are sure they are clean.

I'd rattle all of the rods back and forth.

Get a FEEL for how much angularity they all have.

If you've got bad ones, you can often see/feel it.

All the same?

Pull and plastigauge one only.

Use brand NEW plastigauge!

With the internal oil baffles, a newer 2.0 case? What is the case stamping #? You should ensure the case deck is true. Jake’s go to case these days, as I understand it, is the earlier 1.7 due to saddle? collapse.

His case has the thicker case registers.

That part is fine.

In looking at the cam, I noticed that there are no lock washers of any style under the cam gear bolts. Aren't there supposed to be some type of lock washers under those bolts?

My Webcam kit (bought from the Type 4 Store) came with lock washers for them. What's the consensus of the 914World brain test on this issue. If you are not going to use any lock washers, should you use red lactate on those cam gear bolts for peace of mind?

As to the origins of the case, that is an EA series engine case with the cast in supports for the oil windage tray, so it is from a later 1.7 liter engine, not a 2 liter engine. One of the better cases to use when building a big bore engine, although Jake Ray says that the earliest 1.7 liter cases are the very best because they have no openings at all in the main bearing saddle webs like the later cases do.

Common helical coil style lock washers are useless. See the NASA white paper for details on other styles of lock washers.

A properly torqued fastener doesn’t need a lock washer. Would rather see a flange head bolt used instead of plain hex head but I’ve also seen plain hex head used on these cam gear bolts for years without issues.

Personally, I do use red loctite on the cam gear bolts at assembly as insurance.

NASA Fastener Design Manual, 1990 excerpt:

Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/1990000...19900009424.pdf

Previous post does being up valid topic though. What does the cylinder side of the case look like?

Any evidence that the deck was machined for flatness?

Easy to use a straight edge and feeler gauge to verify the cylinder mating surfaces are flat. A little bit more difficult to verify that they are parallel to the crank but this too can be checked pretty easily on a surface plate.

Not sure what resources OP has for inspection tools.

You asked about case clearancing. Generally, 78mm stroke cranks don't require clearancing. Larger strokes tend to be the ones with problems. But, you'll still need to check during mock-up procedures. Couldn't see any evidence of clearancing in your photos.

You gave a photo of the cam gear and fasteners. Here it looks like you should spend some time. The cam bolts can hit the oil pump. Included here is a photo of a cam gear with clearance fastener pockets and low profile heads. Best to use loctite.

And check the backside of the cam bolts to case clearance. If too long they can contact the case, so shorten them.

In Jake's engine case video, he stated that EVERY case shows un-evenness here.

He said casting sag might be the reason. Aluminum casting can change dimensions slightly with age.

If you don't see evidence of fresh milling, I'd automatically have it done due to his comments...

These pups are old enough now to have shit like casting sag as problems.

Another reason my inner self says "don't even try to build something older than your children"...

Video in question
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siPS_EBLxLY

Well worth watching...

Can you point me to Rabys Rear Main Seal drain back modification? Tried searching but haven’t found anything except reference to it, not what it is or how to do it. Thanks!

7 minute mark in the above video I linked show it.

Two v shaped groves at the rear main seal bore.

I believe he cuts them with a triangular file.

Additional drain back paths for the rear main seal.

Even MORE important if you're using a high pressure/high volume oil pump (which you should be!).

Reason for the top one is to allow an air path. You NEED both for it to work properly.

He discusses it further at 11:55 mark

A few times in that vid you can see big ass holes (3/4"?) in the "oil towers" on all of the cases.

He doesn't say shit about them.

I'm thinking crankcase ventilation but.

"Inquiring minds want to know..."

What do you think @Superhawk996

I don’t know for sure. I don’t think I see that on all three cases but maybe didn’t watch close enough.

I do know that HAM and RAT did some work to determine what really was needed for optimal case breathing but it isn’t entirely clear where they vented the 3/4” breather. It seems this was also focused more on racing and potentially on a dry sump oiling system so Seems like they said that for typical road use with wet sump, a more conventional breather can is sufficient. I’ve always built close to stock engines so I’ve never had breather issues.

Link to HAM/RAT breather study
http://newsite.hamheads.com/2016/12/10/typ...tests-analysis/

7:38 you can see 2 holes on the L. side of the fill tower. 1 above & 1 below the tin sealing shelf. The one below is closer to 1".

Yes, I was thinking about this question and came back to ask. But you beat me to it.

Some of us are visual people. Anyone have a photo of this modification they could share? Maybe with some measurements too? The video isn't easy to see things. Maybe a better screen would help, but a few good photos are better.

I looked at Bob Burton's friend's rebuild. But, it seems his was built before this modification was being used at RAT. We have a motor we're planning & rather than take a guess at how to make this modification, it'd be really helpful to see how others have done it.

On a related point, does anyone have photos of a roller cammed Type IV? We have Type 1 tool steel lifters that we plan to use with modified lifter bores on the next motor build. However, the roller cam has benefits over solid cams. Any help with getting a roller lifter/cam setup that you could share would really help the 914 community.

Thx

Thank you!

Agree with you. They are probably crankcase ventilation. We're running only an -AN 12 line from the oil tower to a catch can with no vents at the valve covers in a 2056 with no problems so far.

Didn't we have this conversation before?

OK, that was weird...

Got a message that that link was current under attack/taken over and my security suite wouldn't let me connect.

It also said this type of trouble was usually temporary and the site would work properly later.

I've never hit that before???

I believe Raby gathers crankcase pressure data a bunch. I've seen multiple posts from him mentioning it. He uses it to judge ring sealing performance mostly (I think).

Dry sump usually SOLVES all of your crankcase pressure issues.
Most of the systems I've messed with have dedicated vacuum relief valves to NOT allow too low an internal engine pressure.
If I'm remembering properly those valves have "low" settings. They vent at 3-5" of vacuum.
I haven't messed with OEM dry sump at all with the exception of 911 stuff.

Most of "my" cars didn't rate dry sump from the get-go.

I was going down this road as well...

I'm a full roller, VVT, 4 valve, DI, variable intake, DOHC, VATN turbo with two stage intercooler type of guy.

When you just say "Fuch it" and drop the WHOLE Type 4 idea EVERYTHING gets so much easier...

And a SHITLOAD cheaper!

The only way I'll build a Type4 is if I luck into exactly what the OP has.

That's what has made this thread interesting for me.

Be careful with saying rollers are better.
They are different.
Up to 230@.050 flats are usually FASTER at opening the valves off of the seats.
Rollers open slowly...
Rollers can run steeper ramps and are better for large lift/duration but anything below those numbers the flats will work better.

The cost of creating roller lifters for a type 4 vastly exceeds the value they will provide the engine IMO.

How much MORE power do you think they will make?
10% would be a shitload IMO.
So, 20-30 HP for how much money?

Raby bought up ALL of the oversize ceramic lifter stock on the market.
I think he's big into ceramics now.

He mentioned rollers at one time on one of his pages.
8K was the cost...

I can buy 2 used Bentley W12 twin turbo motors with all of the garbage on them for that type of money.

I can buy a 4-mile LGX GM V6 for 3K if I want.
Used ones can be had for 1K.

I actually want one of those...

He skims over it pretty quick. Any other photos and examples you know about? Not sure I want to file or machine my case unless I’m positive of the process.

It’s just another oil drain back passage at a lower point 6 o’clock position rather than the OEM oil drain to prevent oil from pooling up behind the RMS. As ninja stated, the 12 o’clock position is an air breather to enhance drainback.

It can be be done easily with a mill by a competent machinist. Hand filing it will take a little while but isn’t out of the question.

If it’s not for you, that’s OK too. It’s just a mod to help reduce the tendency for RMS to leak.

It goes right along with the risk of having an RMS fail because it was pounded in with a hammer and having the garter spring pop off the seal vs. pressing the seal in using a press tool that seats the RMS slowly and uniformly.

Shade trees have been banging seals in with a hammer for decades. There are also a lot of RMS leakers out there.

Personally, I do everything I can to avoid RMS leaks since they aren’t fun to fix and are so messy.
Click to view attachment