Engine Swap Forum

Ok, frame rails are about 27.5" from inside edge to inside edge.  And the bottom most bolt hole on your drawing (on my tranny) is roughly 2" above the top of the frame rail on my car.  Also, it's gonna take some creative shaping to get the mid plate to clear the steering shaft and exhaust but it can be done.

 

Fred

---

Instrument Cluster and Speedometer Repair

Now that I think about it, we might ought to look at making the mid plate attach to the bottom of the tranny (instead of the top) and curve upwards to the frame rails.  I'll look at it next week when I'm back to work and can see the car. 

 

Fred

---

Instrument Cluster and Speedometer Repair

From my intake manifold thread:

For the mounts, I didnt mean a solid stock style I ment Id be worried about a timing cover solid mount or one that goes between the engine and tranny. I would just think with an open deck and not being built for it, plate style engine mounts (what you guys are discussing now) could possibly interfear with the seal between the sleeves and HG, esp with boost.

Theres what a dozen RWD VQ swaps done or in progress and so far all have used the standered style mounts. Whats the real advantage to these plate style mounts? Would I like to work on an engine with them? Doesnt look like it. I don't know but it seems like over engineering when one could eaily be doing other things like making a high flowing IM or making an oil pan to lower the engine.

~Alex

Alex_V:

From my intake manifold thread:

For the mounts, I didnt mean a solid stock style I ment Id be worried about a timing cover solid mount or one that goes between the engine and tranny. I would just think with an open deck and not being built for it, plate style engine mounts (what you guys are discussing now) could possibly interfear with the seal between the sleeves and HG, esp with boost.

Theres what a dozen RWD VQ swaps done or in progress and so far all have used the standered style mounts. Whats the real advantage to these plate style mounts? Would I like to work on an engine with them? Doesnt look like it. I don't know but it seems like over engineering when one could eaily be doing other things like making a high flowing IM or making an oil pan to lower the engine.

~Alex

From page 5:

Pros:

1.Allows many header/turbo manifold possibilities (FWD manifolds would be an option)

2. Easy as pie to fabricate and reproduce (once designed)

3. Allows for solid mounting or could easily be built for soft mounting

4. Makes for easier motor removal/install (that's a biggie on a project like this)

Cons:

1. The front of the VQ isn't very flat so it would be a challange to make this clear all the accessories

2. Some people won't like bolting or welding the brackets to the frame rails (I don't see it as a      problem)

3. A little less "clean" looking then stock like mounts, more clutter in the engine bay, minor issue

 

That's my list of pros and cons on the subject. 

 

Fred

---

Instrument Cluster and Speedometer Repair

Sorry about the delay but I've been suffering from 3rd world country internet woes...

Alex_V:

From my intake manifold thread:

For the mounts, I didnt mean a solid stock style I ment Id be worried about a timing cover solid mount or one that goes between the engine and tranny. I would just think with an open deck and not being built for it, plate style engine mounts (what you guys are discussing now) could possibly interfear with the seal between the sleeves and HG, esp with boost.

Theres what a dozen RWD VQ swaps done or in progress and so far all have used the standered style mounts. Whats the real advantage to these plate style mounts? Would I like to work on an engine with them? Doesnt look like it. I don't know but it seems like over engineering when one could eaily be doing other things like making a high flowing IM or making an oil pan to lower the engine.

~Alex

Firstly, as mentioned in your int mani thread, using a 1 piece or 3 [connected] pieces will not make the engine a stressed member (by definition).

Good observation about the HG seal. On the same topic, one could argue that these holes being punched in the sides of boosted VQ (open deck) blocks are partially due to (stock) suboptimal engine mount placement [for the open deck] in the first place...

Among many other (seemingly obvious or previously discussed) advantages, using the plates distribute the applied torque over a larger area, reducing the localized stressed on the block. Apparently there are at least 2 sandrail buggies running around with front & midplates on turboed open deck VQ's. I'm awaiting pics from my sources.

 

Also, considering our setup will place a good majority of the torque on the 'mid' plate, as well as the fact that the 3 holes for the front plate are already used for engine mounts, I doubt the HG seal will be compromised as a result of the plates.

 

U mentioned having to work on the engine after they're installed. Other than having to wiggle one's forward-facing exh manifolds thru the front plate (or install them with the engine out the car...), my experience sees them as a benefit in regards to working on the car. Especially since we're involved in the design process of the plates...

 

If you or anybody else with successful VQ-240 swaps run into any problems with the mounts, feel free to start with page 1 and see the ideas and issues developed in the process of this thread. Who knows, u might end up using the plates, depending on where ur project leads u... Can u say turbo?...

 

Regards,

H. Kurt Betton

---

Argh... guess I'll stick w/ the plan...

Ok. Played with some more files and have some requests/ more points to note:

 

1)      The bellhousing bolt holes are not symmetric (see pic below). This restricts us to a 1 piece or 3 different pieces. I personally would rather go with a 1 piece but we'll see how the prices compare...

2)      I need the dimensions between the two bolts in the top of the bellhousing. I’m using the FSM to generate the hole locations but I need this dimension to get the FSM bitmap to the correct scale (I could use other dimensions off the bellhousing but this one is the most error-proof). Also while getting the hole dimensions, grab the dimensions of the little rectangular block on the back of the bellhousing itself (the one that gets in the way of the ‘mid’ plate).

3)      I need the dimensions and locations of the 3 bolt holes for the front plate. Apparently, the 350z FSM doesn’t give any drawings with these bolts. I’ll be looking to acquire a maxima FSM… I’ll still need at least 1 dimension to scale it after I get the FSM tho. And I’ll need the vertical dimension from the frame rails up to any of the 3 bolts.

4)      Some provisions have to be made for slight variances in engine positioning (height of engine in engine bay). I suspect my engine will sit 2” – 4” lower than Fred’s, as may anybody else’s doing crossmember mods/ replacement with skidplates and/ or dry sump. So now the multiple pieces are back on the table. Or everybody could just send me their specific location (relative to the frame rails) and I can make a file for each specific application (insert misfit liability disclaimer here). Of course, since the bolt hole locations determine the shapes of the slots, I’ll have to use design intent to make the plate shapes dependent on the hole locations. Great… More work for me. Any better ideas?

 

Kurt

---

Argh... guess I'll stick w/ the plan...

Kurt, pardon this one, but just play along for a bit

if you could make the mount plate 2 piece, and have each side tie into 3 bolts, wouldn't that be stable enough?
granted you would need a larger part than 3 individual pieces, but really, as long as your part is propperly fixed, cannot the transmission casting contribute to the rigidity of the mount structure?
- why the need for an external cross brace, most of these are "race" cars - not likely needing the tranny parts for chassis rigidity

alternatively - a small amount of chassis bracing in the area of the mount would go a long way towards linking your two mounts (assuming a non caged chassis, with stock floor pan and tunnel)

also - noone is running wet clutches here, right? (crickets)
Why then not cut two "Y" shaped mounts to hold the tranny up from either side

kinda --<  (trans)  >--

excuse me, i'm horrible with solidworks :-p

you could then run simple spacers for the remaining bolts - the machinist would have to be damn close on the tolerances for alignment, but i would trust *almost* any machine shop to make simple donut spacers

also - just for curiosity's sake, what is your profession that you get to go on such cool trips, and access  nifty design tools?

Bettonracing- I was thinking of different things or how Id do them any way. Id love to see a pic of a VQ in car, and with some cardboard or something where the mounts would be. For me to decide whether or not to do it any way.

Im starting to consider it, as it wouldn't be that bad to fab up. Maybe I will try it but I dunno this isn't an extreme duty car.

I wouldn't consider the stock mounting a stressed member as there are rubber mounts in there. I'm not an expert but I would think that couldn't transmit much load. But I don't claim to know much about stressed engine mounts and all that it entails either! 

Those sand rails/dune buggys sound very interesting

Any way you guys ignore me.....I know nothing about this stuff...

~Alex

Argh! Stupid wireless connection just deleted my post!...

JSC:

I definitely like the potential aesthetics of the double Y's and am intrigued by the more robust connection to the bellhousing (6 bolts, almost all the way round, rather than 4). Even tho in a properly braced car, the stressed bellhousing may not even be an issue, I recommend adding two simple links (top & bottom) that look like this (O===O) to avoid any hazards that may arise from unexpected situations (e.g. accident --> bends chassis --> overstresses trans --> ricocheting bellhousing chips off flywheels...).

Once I have accurate dimensions to work with (*cough-still need the dimension of the two bolts-cough*), we can get some accurate quotes and compare cost effectiveness with the 1 piece.

Keep the ideas flowing!

Kurt

---

Argh... guess I'll stick w/ the plan...

Alex:

One of the reasons I think this is such a good solution is that it doesn't require ur car to be an 'extreme duty' car! It potentially allows everything we're requesting of the mounts (maybe ups the price a small bit) and is even more rigid than any possible mounts in the stock location.

To help visualize it, surf thru Fred's galleries and u'll see some pics of his engine in his car. Maybe u could even persuade him to cut up some cardboard and go outside in the cold... (I suggest the "donate button" as a method of persuasion... Maybe I can do the same to get that dimension I need off the bellhousing too... )

The rubber in the stock mount will reach maximum compression and effectively become rock solid even with the torque from a stock engine. And by the laws of physics, the rubber has to push up on the engine as much as the engine is pushing down on the mount (weight of engine & accessories + torquing force). The rubber is meant to absorb the initial applied force (or the small forces such as at idle) but still has to place the same overall forces on the engine that a solid mount would. (maybe 3% less but that's a whole paper's worth of useless analysis...)

I'm still waiting on pics of the dune buggies (*cough-Mike-cough* I know u're reading this). As soon as I get them, expect to see them here. Apparently VQ buggies are popping up more frequently than VQ 240's! We need to change that!

And I listen to everybody! A seasoned engineer once told me how he was baffling his brain as to why his "perfectly engineered" machine wouldn't work and his 4yo son walks up and asks "Dad... what's this for?" *picks up missing bolt off floor*

Regards,

Kurt

---

Argh... guess I'll stick w/ the plan...

Ok, ok, ok, I get it, I'll get my lazy butt in gear!  Tell me again exactly what measurements you need and I'll round them up on Monday.  Also, have you been able to layout the front 3 bolt holes yet accurately?

Fred

---

Instrument Cluster and Speedometer Repair

Curse you betton!!! I don't need more options in my build!!! LOL

All this talk of sand rails and VQ's makes me want to build one in cali and take it to my aunts desert house......or make a VQ powered Locost ....

Any way Id look through the pics, but Im falling asleep as I type this...But I am considering a timing chain cover mount.....

Fred- Can you pretty please make some cardboard cutouts???

~Alex

I need the dimensions between the two topmost bolt holes in the bellhousing (I specify these b/c they're horizontal and eliminate another source of error). I need them as accurate as can be b/c I'm hoping to start making the actual files and getting some accurate quotes so we can compare. If u measure from the edge of one of the circles to the [same] edge of the other (if possible in metric as well ) that'll help w/ accuracy & precision as well.

For the front plate, I also need the dimension between the two topmost bolts (also horizontal as far as I can see).

Once I have those (+ some more free time...) I should be able to start making the files.

Thanks!

Kurt

---

Argh... guess I'll stick w/ the plan...

Ok, is there a good tool for making accurate measurements?  I'm sure there is but I don't know what it's called or what it looks like.  If it's not too much $$ I'll buy one for this project, I'll need it eventually anyway if I come across some cad software, somewhere, maybe somehow

 

Fred

---

Instrument Cluster and Speedometer Repair

A tape measure (+/- 1/16") should be adequate for the bolt holes but if u're really interested in measuring stuff for the future I recommend a pair of digital calipers (at least like these that measure to 0.001"). I f u have some money burning a hole in ur pocket, and can arrange the tax writeoff, then u could get a top quality set (like the Mitutoyo brand) but I very rarely ever use mine (and given the price to get in, I tend to keep them away from danger). I've only absolutely needed them once in the 3 years I've owned them) and with good GD&T they should almost never be needed (except for certain engine machine work). So just get the middle priced brand ($40) and call it a day. Get a 8" or 12" if possible. The 6" is annoyingly small.

Kurt

 

---

Argh... guess I'll stick w/ the plan...