New, or at least Remaining, Noises

[Carledo]

Plate under rack is n/s only.

When jacking up to check column alignment, be sure to support with stands under the subframe, not the body. To be sure, the difference between subframe loaded and unloaded is (or should be) only a couple of mm, but it's better not to introduce any more variables!

If you have a UJ at the bottom of the intermediate column (ie, adjacent to the rack) and it's the pressed type, it's usually best to shorten the intermediate shaft about half an inch and grind back the flat for the bolt a similar amount. this avoids binding and misalignment that may otherwise occur. This uj coupling is made originally for Ford Escort and is a tad long for most Dolomites! If it's the forged Chris Witor one, it should be OK.

Steve

[Gerard]

Gday Mark
My first post! Hope you manage to iron out issues.
I have gone down 2500 single propshaft as mine was shite and very happy with arrangement, easy to say when existing was garbage and needed some love and $$$
Also reckon single shaft a fit and forget job and no ford transit centre carriers needed

Hopefully I can sort out idle soon and your niggles solved and arrange a Perth sprint gathering

Gerard

[marshman]

Looked under mine again today. It was my exhaust that was just kissing the subframe (see pics) it is pretty close to the chassis rail as well by the gearbox. The oil pump to rack has a lot of clearance maybe 7 or 8 mm (3/8"). Couldn't see anything else close. See pics.

Measured from bottom of sub frame to sump both side. By oil pump it was 135mm, the other side by exhaust was 160mm. (engine mounts are not new) (see pics for measurement points). Don't know what exhaust I have fitted, it is an old steel one, some sort of sports exhaust I guess.

I had a new "Volvo" gearbox mount waiting to be fitted. So I fitted that. Didn't worry about adding washers to get height the same, just elongated the two mounting holes and bolted it in. The gearbox now sits 8mm higher than it did on the original mount. This has had the effect of increasing the clearance between the exhaust and the subframe. Didn't have time to start it up and take it for a run to see if it had upset anything else. But seeing the difference it made in clearance between the exhaust and subframe it might be worth checking your mount to see if it has gone a bit soft and is sagging. Before changing my mount it was easy to lift/push the back of the box up. When I removed the old mount it didn't look too bad, though it was soaked in gearbox oil - another job for another day!

For reference measuring from bottom of the crossmember to the overdrive sump was 45mm with the original mount and 53mm with the new "volvo" mount.

Pics attached:



Clearance Exhaust to Chassis


Clearance Exhaust to Sub Frame


Measuring LH side 160mm


Measure Oil pump side 135mm


Pump clearance (looks closer than it actually is)


Engine stabiliser bar, viewed from below.


Old Gearbox mount 45mm


New Gear Box mount 53mm

Hope that helps

Roger

[olr159w]

The mystery deepens.

I took some measurements today to compare with Roger's and a heap of photos.

The first thing that doesn't make sense to me is the impact of how the car is suspended . At the workshop it was on a hoist positioned under the jacking points and while the oil pump looked close to the rack clamp there was still a visible gap. So in that circumstance the subframe and engine are one and essentially dangling off the body held by the subframe mounts. The engine's position relative to the subframe is as ever though since it's bolted to it.

I jacked it up today and suspended the car on axle stands under the subframe. Completely different result - measured the pump to rack clamp gap with feeler gauges and it was around 25 thou. But wait how could it even vary? The rack is bolted to the sub frame and the engine is bolted to the subframe. I don't get that at all.

And then after taking other measurements and photos I lowered the car back on its wheels, rocked it a few times to settle everything and then squeezed under the front to measure the pump to rack clamp gap again. It was perhaps 50 thou.

Honestly freakin sick to death of this car and getting pretty close to selling it. Bear in mind I've replaced the engine mounts. This BS has been going on for several years on and off and is a prime reason why I barely ever drive it. Ergo what is the point even having it? Except you'd never sell it with the noise its making so on we have to go. Fun level = nil.

Other measurements :
subframe lip to sump lip NS 154mm, Rogers 160mm
subframe lip to sump lip OS 127mm, Rogers 135mm
gear box mount bracket to OD sump 42mm, Rogers old 45mm, new with Volvo mount 53mm (and guess what, mine has the volvo mount)

and
rack flange to solid mount spacing : OS 16mm, NS 14mm so the rack might be a bit offset but its just 1mm

and
remembering in posts of the past I've mentioned how one Gaz shock needs to be adjusted differently to the other to keep the car looking level....
…. base of shock to spring seat : NS 132mm, OS 143mm. Never had an explanation for this either.

I welcome suggestions because I basically have no firm theories on this. I don't see how these measurements can vary when everything is bolted together nor do I understand why this became a problem when it never used to be several years ago nor do I understand how I can have replaced every bloody part and it makes no difference at all. It's had new engine mounts and new gearbox mount and I've checked the subframe mounts etc etc

The engine mount plates are semi circle cut out to top and front. The mounts were supposedly NOS. Pictures below of various. Can they be put in upside down? Someone said not. Do they look right or knackered?

Bear in mind Roger took his measurements from an inspection pit with the car on its wheels so exact comparisons may or may not be valid I don't know. But what we can say if we ignore that is that Roger's relative engine position appears to be about 6mm higher on both sides. That would fix my problem for sure.

And his gearbox mounting is 53mm difference to my 42mm which means my gearbox is 11mm lower than his (remembering to question whether there is any effect from the different car conditions when measured). 11mm lower would be dropping the back of the engine with it which wouldn't be helping at all either. But how could that be...…… same substitute volvo mount in both cars ffs. Took a couple of shots of the mount and propshaft fyi - the two parts of the prop are pretty much in a straight line

I did also spin the rack from one limit to the other while the wheels were off the ground. Wouldn't say it was super smooth but it was ok; and nothing seemed to catch or grind

Help me before I burn this car for the insurance.




spotted this little dent inside the bonnet facing near the oil filler cap although not lined up with anything in fact....odd


stabiliser bar from underneath. weird bracket is for oil cooler


view of exhaust clearance


view of exhaust clearance


view of exhaust clearance


view of exhaust clearance


view of exhaust clearance


view of exhaust clearance


view of exhaust clearance


gear box mount


gear box mount


ns engine mount weird angle from front


ns engine mount from rear


ns rack mount


os engine mount from rear


view of propshaft


view of propshaft


oil pump vs rack clamp


oil pump vs rack clamp


oil pump vs rack clamp


oil pump vs rack clamp


oil pump vs rack clamp


oil pump vs rack clamp


view of shock body ref the measurement taken - ie from seat across threads vertically to end of tube


spline in bottom steering UJ. It has copperease on it. I think I did end up cutting and shaping this. you can see it clears


another spline shot


ridiculous photo to be honest but in centre you can just see UJ clamp nut and get an idea of how close it is to the bodywork....but it doesn't catch hen the car is on axle stands anyway

[olr159w]

One thing we can observe is that my gearbox mount appears to be installed totally differently...

[marshman]

My car was resting firmly on all four wheels when I took all the measurements & pics.

When the car was at the garage and on the hoist the sub frame was hanging from the car BUT the gearbox mount is fixed to the body so has not moved. When you did the measurements with the car on axle stands under the subframe this will have effectively lifted the engine up, but the gearbox mount will not have moved, this would move everything at the back of the engine (exhaust and oil pump) closer to the subframe, which is what you have observed - and probably why the "expert" garage can't see any problem!!

Your measurements are not that much different to mine. The pics of the rack height/position don't look any different from mine. I would adjust the stabiliser bar to pull the engine over (shorten it) this should lift the oil pump away from the rack. It will only take a couple of minutes and it is very easy to check that you have opened up the gap to the oil pump and keep an eye on the exhaust side as well. - tip: a short stubby ring spanner helps to get the the "hidden" nut on the underside of the bar. I was surprised at how little clearance (only a couple of mm) there was between the exhaust and the subframe after I adjusted the stabiliser bar to stop it knocking.

The nuts/bolts/knuckles on my steering run close as well, any problems there would be immediately felt through the steering wheel.

Roger

[Carledo]

Couple of thing I noticed from pics, neither very conclusive but......

Number 1, the rack mount already appears to have worn a considerable gouge in the oil pump housing. Note that engine torque reaction will tend to close this gap up when driving, ie the crank turning clockwise will try to turn the engine anticlockwise under load, which puts more strain on the o/s mount and would easily close up your 25/50thou gap.

Munber 2, in the last pic, I blew up the pic of the column coupling and there APPEARS to be a tiny, polished nick in the subframe, immediately adjacent to the nut head. Maybe that 1mm error in the rack position could make all the difference. The perspective isn't so good for me to check, but how close is the flange that the top bolt on the coupling goes through to the body just above the subframe?

I have not much to say about the differences between the 2 cars, except to repeat the old saw about factory production tolerances! A lot of manufacturers in the 70s worked to tolerances we would now find intolerable (pun intended) Triumph in particular seemed to consider 1/4" acceptable on bodywork! It's my experience that no 2 cars seem to match up when you get down to serious measuring!

I had the accident damaged shell of my Sprint jig straightened and the guy joked afterwards that it was probably straighter than when it left the factory! Since he worked to an 0.1mm tolerance on his jig, he was probably right! What I DO know is that he try fitted all the panels and i've seldom seen a Dolomite with such perfect panel gaps. It cost me a good wedge, but i'm glad I had it done this way, rather than borrowing a dozer and trying to yank it out myself!

One final point, on the gearbox mount, the only difference I can SEE is that Roger replaced the rectangular plate at the bottom which is not normal practice, mostly we just put a penny washer in as yours is. It's also fairly clear that you have quite the gear oil leak and the new mount already appears oil soaked.

Steve

[marshman]

One other thought, is the cross member under the rear of the gearbox bolted hard up against the body or has some one put some spacers in there to try to compensate for the difference in height of the Volvo mount and the original?

Still think it is worth a tweak of the stabiliser mount/bar at the front of the engine to see if it pulls the engine/oil pump away from the rack.

Roger

[olr159w]

Thanks for further thoughts.

I think I get the point about the engine on subframe on stands effectively causing a pivot about the gearbox mount.

Re gearbox mount itself you are correct I did not replace the rectangular plate but I just felt from the photos that there is much more "mount" sticking proud beneath my gearbox than the rect plate on Rogers appears to show. Mine has a black plastic bag wrapping obviously but does it otherwise look dimensionally correct? I suppose with that rect plate included the plate would be sitting in about the same position as Rogers.
Does the propshaft position and relative angles of two sections look correct? That might be another pointer re gearbox mount being correct.

Re the stabiliser bar it is currently adjusted to whatever length it is i.e. random with the engine end connection at the NS end of the slot. So there is plenty of scope for adjustment.
But I would have though that stab bar is there to stabilise the engine movement and not something that's supposed to drag the engine toward the NS all the time? I would have expected the engine to sit in the right spot and then be "gently" stabilised by the bar at the front NS corner.

I feel that the oil pump to rack problem was fixed when I changed the engine mounts but accept I may have been deluding myself. On the other hand maybe these mounts aren't what they seem and have settled/failed/compressed/warped since I fitted them. Do they look ok to you?
Clearly not fixed right now but again would expect engine to sit in a good spot avoiding oil pump-rack impact by default and then the stabiliser bar also avoiding this under engine torque reaction conditions per your note Steve

Re jig straightening etc I'm pretty sure my car had receive a new NS front wing when I got it in 1987/89 whenever it was. So maybe there is an issue from that. But.... then it had standard springs and shock and sat level and drove right so I sort of doubt it. And when it was rebuilt in 2001 or whenever it was it did receive new front wings but the inner wings and box sections weren't touched so hard to see an issue arose then either.

Your last post came in while I was typing Roger I did the volvo mount and didn't put any washers in so it is what it is. It would be interesting to take the various measurements when the car is sat on 4 wheels although as Steve says we're talking about British cars from the 70s/80s so too much fous on comparative measurements is probably pointless

New plan depends on your collective views on the engine mounts but trusting they are at least ok :
- crank engine across a bit with the stabiliser bar(still think this is bodging the symptom and not fixing whatever cause though)
- replace NS rack mount with std and move rack towards OS by a mm or so
- replace tie bars with Rob MacGregor ones
- review before taking any other actions

Make sense?

thks

mark

[marshman]

I agree with your sentiment about the stabiliser bar.

When I fitted my replacement one I thought just adjust it so it holds the engine where it is. Result horrendous knocking from the exhaust just "kissing" the subframe. So I adjusted it - not much - to just ease the engine over a bit. Result no knocking and the engine still rocks and "moves" about as before.

As you say it doesn't seem right but on mine it seems to work.

If I get time today I'll get underneath and try to take some better picks of various bits, clearances etc. Not sure how relevant they will be as we all agree B.L. just threw them together and trimmed bits to fit (or not!) so every car is different.

I have a 1955 Standard Vanguard and have several spare bonnets for it, they are all different lengths, varying by over 3/4". Years ago I spoke to an old gentleman who used to work on the production line. He said they used to fit the bonnets and then trim the back edge to get the correct gap, so they were all different. This implies the front end of the car must have varied by that amount to.

[olr159w]

Do you know where you got your rack clamps from? They look quite clean and compact. Can't be Rimmers as theirs are black.

Also I'm thinking that if the gearbox sat higher then it would raise the back of the engine a little i.e. some kind of spacer to raise the gearbox mount. Does that make sense? I've had a couple of glasses of red so...…………?

cheers !

[Carledo]

I think, besides your 4 point plan, which I can find no objection to, i'd be inclined to try turning over the o/s engine rubber mount. Again perspective makes it difficult but it appears (pic 768) the lower edge of the engine side plate is somewhat lower than the body side one, they SHOULD be near enough the same, so this one is saggy IMO. There is no sign of splitting or imminent failure however, so turning it over may fix it, at least temporarily and will give you a clue and data to pursue whatever happens.

TBH, this sideways arrangement is bad engineering by the factory, and has become worse since the supply of genuine mounts dried up. I don't see any way round it apart from re-engineering the whole mount so the compression force on the mount is vertical or nearly so, instead of the shear force the standard mount exhibits. Even having it at the same angle as the n/s mount would help.

The prop position and alignment appears OK and the centre bearing is correctly mounted.

Steve

[olr159w]

Thanks much.

I will experiment in due course - I need to buy a couple of bits from the UK so there will be some delay. Are there good sources for rack clamp/U bolt assys? I see the Rimmers one are black but the one on Roger's car is metallic looking and appears more compact, which would be good in the circumstances.

You know, given the known issues with engine mounts - both in terms of available product and fundamentals of design - there appears to be a clear case to find a better solution aka the Volvo gear mount solution. You wonder whether an L shaped mount bracket on the engine side with the hook at the top could then sit above an L shaped bracket on the sub frame side with the L hook at the bottom such that in-between would sit a vertical engine mount. The latter being sourced from some well known brand/model to help ensure longevity. Definitely a project there......

When I have the rack parts and have to jack the engine up a bit for that I'll swap over the OS engine mount. I assume it does allow for an alignment flip-over. And then we'll all see what we see about everything

m

[Ron1966]

Looking at your pictures your rear subframe bolts are protruding quite a bit , is this because they are just longer bolts or is the rear of your subframe moving closer to the body. I have had this in the past because of corroded rear subframe and collapsing chassis rails. Also if the gearbox is sitting lower because of new mount without the spacer this will add to your problem with oil pump and exhaust clearance. Looking at your chassis rails they have had a fair amount of welding. Looking through the inner wing is the subframe to body gap consistent along its length hope that makes sense. Ron.

[marshman]

I see the Rimmers one are black but the one on Roger's car is metallic looking and appears more compact, which would be good in the circumstances.

My rack mounts are the originals. I cleaned them up and zinc plated them - got a bit carried away and plated pretty much anything that would fit in the plating bucket I did fit SuperPro poly bushes from Robsport as the originals were a bit squishy.

Roger