Crankshaft seized after Trans Repair
08-24-2005, 11:26 PM
#46
Former Vendor
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Garth,
I'll try to answer your questions below:
That's a pretty fancy word there! Thank you very much for the kudos!
Kind regards,
Constantine
I'll try to answer your questions below:
Originally Posted by Garth S
Constantine,
More valuable input
.
In point 1., you indicate the issue I cannot find in my 8 vol WSM set ( perhaps it is in the latter 9 vol set?): namely " The manuals say that the LAST step to be done after a TT/trans R&R is to torque down the pinch bolt at the front coupler".
This is precisely the statement made to Michael at the beginning - but I cannot support that by anything located in any factory documentation. Could you please provide a page reference?
Answer: Well of course not, you don't think the manuals were that clearly written, do you? It is more of an inferred procedure once one reads the whole section on how to do a TT/trans R&R and follows the little asterisks which highlight more information such as the shims, circlip, washer arrangement has been discontinued and so on. I do believe the German to English translation of the workshop manuals did conspire to confuse this issue a bit. I see a post that will be above this one that has the most clearly written new procedure in the form of a TSB on this very subject. That's as good as it gets!
Under point 2., regards the suggestion of checking the flex plate annually, I would be the guilty party
: admitted, it is an arbitrary statement - based on 3 observations at the start/middle/end points of a 2 year window. As most cars had likely never been examined at all in their first 15 years of life, I thought annually would be a significant improvement. Having applied the "#290" fix as advanced by Earl G. no movement has been observed in that period - measured to the hundredth of a mm.
Your point is well taken - that if the collar/shaft splines are worn, then no amount of torque will prevent migration: Such migration clearly occurs on new components - so some frequency of exam is in order .... but what interval ... ?
Answer: Okay, once the driveshaft moves in the splined coupler it has already started the wear cycle of the coupler. Once it's repositioned and re-clamped and moves again, more wear occurs and so on. I have not tested how many movement cycles it would take to negate the clamping ability of the OE clamp but for that important of a job one should replace the clamp each time. That is not going to happen. The only solace most 928 AT drivers can have is that there are many high mileage 928 ATs still running without suffering the dreaded TBF. I still believe that most sudden occurences of TBF happened after mechanics with little to no knowledge of this problem do a TT/Trans R&R and do not take the few precautions needed to insure there is no forward pressure on the flexplate and ultimately the thrust bearing before they button up the car.
The penultimate redesign of this deficient coupling is the collet collar you have designed!!
More valuable input
.In point 1., you indicate the issue I cannot find in my 8 vol WSM set ( perhaps it is in the latter 9 vol set?): namely " The manuals say that the LAST step to be done after a TT/trans R&R is to torque down the pinch bolt at the front coupler".
This is precisely the statement made to Michael at the beginning - but I cannot support that by anything located in any factory documentation. Could you please provide a page reference?
Answer: Well of course not, you don't think the manuals were that clearly written, do you? It is more of an inferred procedure once one reads the whole section on how to do a TT/trans R&R and follows the little asterisks which highlight more information such as the shims, circlip, washer arrangement has been discontinued and so on. I do believe the German to English translation of the workshop manuals did conspire to confuse this issue a bit. I see a post that will be above this one that has the most clearly written new procedure in the form of a TSB on this very subject. That's as good as it gets!
Under point 2., regards the suggestion of checking the flex plate annually, I would be the guilty party
: admitted, it is an arbitrary statement - based on 3 observations at the start/middle/end points of a 2 year window. As most cars had likely never been examined at all in their first 15 years of life, I thought annually would be a significant improvement. Having applied the "#290" fix as advanced by Earl G. no movement has been observed in that period - measured to the hundredth of a mm. Your point is well taken - that if the collar/shaft splines are worn, then no amount of torque will prevent migration: Such migration clearly occurs on new components - so some frequency of exam is in order .... but what interval ... ?
Answer: Okay, once the driveshaft moves in the splined coupler it has already started the wear cycle of the coupler. Once it's repositioned and re-clamped and moves again, more wear occurs and so on. I have not tested how many movement cycles it would take to negate the clamping ability of the OE clamp but for that important of a job one should replace the clamp each time. That is not going to happen. The only solace most 928 AT drivers can have is that there are many high mileage 928 ATs still running without suffering the dreaded TBF. I still believe that most sudden occurences of TBF happened after mechanics with little to no knowledge of this problem do a TT/Trans R&R and do not take the few precautions needed to insure there is no forward pressure on the flexplate and ultimately the thrust bearing before they button up the car.
The penultimate redesign of this deficient coupling is the collet collar you have designed!!
Kind regards,
Constantine
08-25-2005, 01:04 AM
#47
Rennlist Member
Constantine,
Thanks for the response: I was simply trying to reference a clear, short statement for Michaels situation should one exist, for I never found anything so direct as when you quoted ..." the manuals say that ..."
Regards the exchange over point #1, there is complete agreement as to what the WSMs infer on this subject: the influence of translation, evolution denoted by asterisks, etc. further dictate it to be a game of inference. Clarity and the WSMs have little in common.
However, what the WSMs infer is subject to interpretation - and distinct from what is directly said: In a courtroom, this favours whomever has more time and money. on Michaels behalf, the question was raised hoping to capture a more direct 'black and white' statement that had been missed - to support his claim .....eg., WSM 99-xxx " the front flex plate coupling must be released whenever ..... " Such a statement would be far stronger in what is becoming a litigation
So, in that sense, the WSM does not directly say what we believe/infer - and that leaves a far more difficult case for a plaintiff about to nose up to Porsche ag aware that they have already taken the reverse position in their interpretation of their WSM.
Just stirring about, trying to find a 'silver bullet' for the victim in this unfortunate situation ..
Thanks for the response: I was simply trying to reference a clear, short statement for Michaels situation should one exist, for I never found anything so direct as when you quoted ..." the manuals say that ..."
Regards the exchange over point #1, there is complete agreement as to what the WSMs infer on this subject: the influence of translation, evolution denoted by asterisks, etc. further dictate it to be a game of inference. Clarity and the WSMs have little in common.
However, what the WSMs infer is subject to interpretation - and distinct from what is directly said: In a courtroom, this favours whomever has more time and money. on Michaels behalf, the question was raised hoping to capture a more direct 'black and white' statement that had been missed - to support his claim .....eg., WSM 99-xxx " the front flex plate coupling must be released whenever ..... " Such a statement would be far stronger in what is becoming a litigation
So, in that sense, the WSM does not directly say what we believe/infer - and that leaves a far more difficult case for a plaintiff about to nose up to Porsche ag aware that they have already taken the reverse position in their interpretation of their WSM.
Just stirring about, trying to find a 'silver bullet' for the victim in this unfortunate situation ..
08-25-2005, 10:49 PM
#49
Intermediate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: MELBOURNE
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Constantine, Garth, Tails and All. Thanks for the attachments, Andrew. Actually, they're the few docs that I do have and that's why I was asking about the item 7 clearance. Wait a minute..am I seeing right? I am looking at a printout from my printer of your copy of, I presume, 39-51 (actually 51 does not showat all). I am seeing 0.2+0.2 I swear! But the copy that I have directly off a WSM shows 0.3+0.2 ! Distortion from your copier? My printer? Divine intervention?
Yes, this whole thing has been bizzarre right from the start. Ever since it came out of the trans repair job things just went downhill. I swear I didn't get first gear but they kept saying, That's first gear! Sometimes when it was cold it would knock into first (from rest) like a huge jack hammer and jerk forward. Then one day the battery went flat without warning. Then I lost all torque (three months later) when warm which they later said was a faulty ignition module on one bank hence only firing on 4 cylinders. And while they were checking this in the workshop, they called me to say the engine had seized. You can imagine the shock and disgust.
Yes, Garth I quoted the dealership correctly. They had told the investigating engineer (and me) that someone must have incorrectly fitted the engine in the past causing a "misalignment" of 10 mm.
hence causing "wear over time". Now, I know the engine hasn't been out so not wanting to be treated like an idiot (or liar) I pointed out that they have just opened up the sump, replaced sump gaskets and oil six months prior to the trans job. If there was wear wouldn't they have seen filings at least? I knew he was groping for an answer but it really it was an insult.
Constantine, you mentioned " mechanic shop ". If it was any other shop, perhaps it's understandable.. but this is the official dealership. I do not wish to imply in any way any wrongdoing or lack of integrity on the part of Porsche AG. I bought the car in 1991 from the offic dealership and I had it serviced at this dealership the whole time except for a two year period after which they invited me back and gave it clean bill of health. The reason we spend a bit more money in dealing with official dealers is simply for peace of mind. We expect integrity. We have been discussing a great deal of technical issues over the weeks but equally important from a customers point of view is integrity. From being an uninformed Porsche owner I have learnt that real expertise in 928 is quite rare. And that even if a workshop has a full set of manuals and bulletins ( not likely from my recent travels ) AND reads it all it does not automatically make them experts as is obvious in your discussions above this post. The service manager told me that they are THE best and definitely would not make a mistake like that. Quite simply a consumer would expect them to be the best and any arrogance on their part - be it relying on memory or not taking due care - is simply negligence.
Back to the technical discussion. I know I am sounding like a tape recorder but I am still confused! Constantine, in your first listing on this thread, point 1 :" No preload is currently used." And also Bill B must be sick of telling me " Porsche WSM simply said the pre-load adjustment is no longer needed". I am yet to rec JM's cd's ( has anyone got Jim's tel no?) but is that trully in black and white guys
(and not some esoteric interpretation)? Pardon my simple mind but if the zero pre-load is required i.e. item 7 in 39-51 becomes 0.0+0.0 and not 0.3 ( 0r 0.2 or any other divinely figure ) then surely that flexplate must be released or at least checked ( to ensure zero pre-load) after trans refit if not simply for the reason that the shaft moves. (Other reason: new housing)
Which brings me to my old question: What about the shaft from the torque converter ( that the double clamp coupling connects to drive sgaft) How moveable is that? as far as I can see it's protrusion too would have a tolerance (not to mention tolerances on the bolts and grooves) that must effect the famous null point ( WHICH PAGE GUYS?)
On a more serious note, Constantine Golovaty has redefined the term expert with his simple explanation of "interpretation" but I must thank my good man Garth for showing the way..
..granted that silver bullet is illusive.
Yes definitely, Ernest Sw, we must not reveal . ....although it is quite tempting. I sometimes wonder if we should let them (Germany) know we're talking about them (Melbourne) and then perhaps they would do the right thing. As I have said above Porsche AG is not at fault here - the dealership has decided to take that stand and added insult to injury both in the bills and in their explanations and refusal to be recorded. But I am not resting... 
Yes, this whole thing has been bizzarre right from the start. Ever since it came out of the trans repair job things just went downhill. I swear I didn't get first gear but they kept saying, That's first gear! Sometimes when it was cold it would knock into first (from rest) like a huge jack hammer and jerk forward. Then one day the battery went flat without warning. Then I lost all torque (three months later) when warm which they later said was a faulty ignition module on one bank hence only firing on 4 cylinders. And while they were checking this in the workshop, they called me to say the engine had seized. You can imagine the shock and disgust.
Yes, Garth I quoted the dealership correctly. They had told the investigating engineer (and me) that someone must have incorrectly fitted the engine in the past causing a "misalignment" of 10 mm.
hence causing "wear over time". Now, I know the engine hasn't been out so not wanting to be treated like an idiot (or liar) I pointed out that they have just opened up the sump, replaced sump gaskets and oil six months prior to the trans job. If there was wear wouldn't they have seen filings at least? I knew he was groping for an answer but it really it was an insult.
Constantine, you mentioned " mechanic shop ". If it was any other shop, perhaps it's understandable.. but this is the official dealership. I do not wish to imply in any way any wrongdoing or lack of integrity on the part of Porsche AG. I bought the car in 1991 from the offic dealership and I had it serviced at this dealership the whole time except for a two year period after which they invited me back and gave it clean bill of health. The reason we spend a bit more money in dealing with official dealers is simply for peace of mind. We expect integrity. We have been discussing a great deal of technical issues over the weeks but equally important from a customers point of view is integrity. From being an uninformed Porsche owner I have learnt that real expertise in 928 is quite rare. And that even if a workshop has a full set of manuals and bulletins ( not likely from my recent travels ) AND reads it all it does not automatically make them experts as is obvious in your discussions above this post. The service manager told me that they are THE best and definitely would not make a mistake like that. Quite simply a consumer would expect them to be the best and any arrogance on their part - be it relying on memory or not taking due care - is simply negligence.
Back to the technical discussion. I know I am sounding like a tape recorder but I am still confused! Constantine, in your first listing on this thread, point 1 :" No preload is currently used." And also Bill B must be sick of telling me " Porsche WSM simply said the pre-load adjustment is no longer needed". I am yet to rec JM's cd's ( has anyone got Jim's tel no?) but is that trully in black and white guys
(and not some esoteric interpretation)? Pardon my simple mind but if the zero pre-load is required i.e. item 7 in 39-51 becomes 0.0+0.0 and not 0.3 ( 0r 0.2 or any other divinely figure ) then surely that flexplate must be released or at least checked ( to ensure zero pre-load) after trans refit if not simply for the reason that the shaft moves. (Other reason: new housing)
Which brings me to my old question: What about the shaft from the torque converter ( that the double clamp coupling connects to drive sgaft) How moveable is that? as far as I can see it's protrusion too would have a tolerance (not to mention tolerances on the bolts and grooves) that must effect the famous null point ( WHICH PAGE GUYS?)
On a more serious note, Constantine Golovaty has redefined the term expert with his simple explanation of "interpretation" but I must thank my good man Garth for showing the way..
..granted that silver bullet is illusive.Yes definitely, Ernest Sw, we must not reveal .
....although it is quite tempting. I sometimes wonder if we should let them (Germany) know we're talking about them (Melbourne) and then perhaps they would do the right thing. As I have said above Porsche AG is not at fault here - the dealership has decided to take that stand and added insult to injury both in the bills and in their explanations and refusal to be recorded. But I am not resting...
08-26-2005, 06:05 AM
#51
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Victim
Page 39-51 is not relevant to your '89 Auto. Your '89 Auto doesn't have the early Drive shaft with the circlips that effectively prevent all lengthening or shortening howsoever it may be caused.
The page in the manual you need is page 39-46 printed in 1992.
I can't scan it right now but what it says (reproduced verbatim) in the Removing and Installing central tube (Autom. transmiss.) is
"Istalling
Note
To avoid placing the driver plate of the flywheel under strain, start by tightening the six driver plate bolts and only tighten the panhead screw of the clamping sleeve afterwards.
1. Note the specified tightening torque values
2. Adjust the selector lever and control pressure cables."
This is all it says in the "Istalling" section - (yes it does say "Istalling") obviously the only important things are to " only tighten the panhead screw of the clamping sleeve afterwards" and note the torque values etc.
Note that page 39-46 dated 1992 is printed on the rear of page 39-45 dated 1978. a fairly obvious later amendment. anyone got an earlier page 39-46?
I would say that this is fairly cut and dried no argument ?
The fact that Porsche AG issued a tech bulletin emphasising the above and emphatically saying that claims under warranty would not be entertained, a) demonstrates that Porsche AG were aware of the problem and that b) they considered that they had informed their dealers about it sufficiently well to tell them that it was the dealers problem if they hadn't read the tech bulletins and updated their manuals.
Hope this helps - if you need a scanned copy of this page of the manuals please let me know - jon dot holdsworth at slingshot dot co nz
Jon
Black SE - Alarmed
90 GT - Alarming
PS do you know Nick with the Amethyst S4 Auto and Black SE in Melbourne ?
Page 39-51 is not relevant to your '89 Auto. Your '89 Auto doesn't have the early Drive shaft with the circlips that effectively prevent all lengthening or shortening howsoever it may be caused.
The page in the manual you need is page 39-46 printed in 1992.
I can't scan it right now but what it says (reproduced verbatim) in the Removing and Installing central tube (Autom. transmiss.) is
"Istalling
Note
To avoid placing the driver plate of the flywheel under strain, start by tightening the six driver plate bolts and only tighten the panhead screw of the clamping sleeve afterwards.
1. Note the specified tightening torque values
2. Adjust the selector lever and control pressure cables."
This is all it says in the "Istalling" section - (yes it does say "Istalling") obviously the only important things are to " only tighten the panhead screw of the clamping sleeve afterwards" and note the torque values etc.
Note that page 39-46 dated 1992 is printed on the rear of page 39-45 dated 1978. a fairly obvious later amendment. anyone got an earlier page 39-46?
I would say that this is fairly cut and dried no argument ?
The fact that Porsche AG issued a tech bulletin emphasising the above and emphatically saying that claims under warranty would not be entertained, a) demonstrates that Porsche AG were aware of the problem and that b) they considered that they had informed their dealers about it sufficiently well to tell them that it was the dealers problem if they hadn't read the tech bulletins and updated their manuals.
Hope this helps - if you need a scanned copy of this page of the manuals please let me know - jon dot holdsworth at slingshot dot co nz
Jon
Black SE - Alarmed
90 GT - Alarming
PS do you know Nick with the Amethyst S4 Auto and Black SE in Melbourne ?
08-26-2005, 09:11 AM
#52
Rennlist Member
Jon,
An excellent find - the 'holy grail' to this debacle.
My 8 vol (burgundy) set has 39-45 as rev II, 1979 - and the back face 39-46 covers removal of the starter ring gear to removal of the lower mounting bolts for the drive plate housing to lowering the central tube with the auto trans points 20 to 23. Regards installing, it states ..
1. Note specified tigntening torque
2. Adjust selector lever and transmission cables
WSM 39 -47 is rev VI, 1982 and deals with disassembling the central tube ...
As noted to Michael earlier, it would appear that this Dealership have already lost this case through their dogged insistence on the statements in 39-141 rev VIII, 1984 which deals with the earlier determination and fixing of distance 'X' via a shim arrangement" .... this adjustment is not necessary after replacement of transmission or transmission parts." That is clearly not applicable to the 32v cars, so ....
They have publicly and incorrectly hung their hat on data for an earlier car - which can - and has led to a catastrophic TBF failure .
Thanks for finding that updated revision
An excellent find - the 'holy grail' to this debacle.
My 8 vol (burgundy) set has 39-45 as rev II, 1979 - and the back face 39-46 covers removal of the starter ring gear to removal of the lower mounting bolts for the drive plate housing to lowering the central tube with the auto trans points 20 to 23. Regards installing, it states ..
1. Note specified tigntening torque
2. Adjust selector lever and transmission cables
WSM 39 -47 is rev VI, 1982 and deals with disassembling the central tube ...
As noted to Michael earlier, it would appear that this Dealership have already lost this case through their dogged insistence on the statements in 39-141 rev VIII, 1984 which deals with the earlier determination and fixing of distance 'X' via a shim arrangement" .... this adjustment is not necessary after replacement of transmission or transmission parts." That is clearly not applicable to the 32v cars, so ....
They have publicly and incorrectly hung their hat on data for an earlier car - which can - and has led to a catastrophic TBF failure .
Thanks for finding that updated revision
08-26-2005, 01:26 PM
#54
Under the Lift
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Victim:
Yes. Jon has found it. Those pages are missing from the Morehouse pdf CD version of the manual that I have. It would be best to have 39-42 to 39-51 - the whole section on AT and TT removal and installation. My printed manual set, bought in 99, is complete with all the early sections and 92 update. I can scan and host all the pages later today. For your purposes it might be stronger to get an original factory manual. They are currently available for just over $200 from any of our major 928 vendors here in the US. That is screaming bargain that will not be available for long.
Yes. Jon has found it. Those pages are missing from the Morehouse pdf CD version of the manual that I have. It would be best to have 39-42 to 39-51 - the whole section on AT and TT removal and installation. My printed manual set, bought in 99, is complete with all the early sections and 92 update. I can scan and host all the pages later today. For your purposes it might be stronger to get an original factory manual. They are currently available for just over $200 from any of our major 928 vendors here in the US. That is screaming bargain that will not be available for long.
08-26-2005, 11:06 PM
#55
Former Vendor
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The instructions in the manual that Jon found are the same, more or less, instructions that are contained in the TSB pages that were posted earlier by Mr. Olson. The problem is the manuals and the TSB do not say clearly enough that, IMHO, the front clamp should be clamped as the very final step before putting on the lower bellhousing cover and lowering the car.
The reason I believe this is important is when the trans is placed onto the end of the driveshaft and bolted to it and the torque tube, it could cause a forward push against the flexplate. This is because the rear of the driveshaft has a groove where a bolt has to to fit in and the tolerances are small. After the trans is placed and bolted on, the front flexplate clamp should be released to ensure no forward pressure is being exerted on the crank. IMHO Porsche AG should have worded the new procedure to encompass this possibility.
As for the help to Michael, between the TSB and the manual passages, I believe he has enough to involve an arbitrator on his behalf.
Good luck Michael!
Constantine
The reason I believe this is important is when the trans is placed onto the end of the driveshaft and bolted to it and the torque tube, it could cause a forward push against the flexplate. This is because the rear of the driveshaft has a groove where a bolt has to to fit in and the tolerances are small. After the trans is placed and bolted on, the front flexplate clamp should be released to ensure no forward pressure is being exerted on the crank. IMHO Porsche AG should have worded the new procedure to encompass this possibility.
As for the help to Michael, between the TSB and the manual passages, I believe he has enough to involve an arbitrator on his behalf.
Good luck Michael!
Constantine
08-27-2005, 03:08 AM
#56
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Have to say that I agree with you Constantine it could be more explicit - along the lines of "Do not tighten the front coupler clamp bolt until other bolts have tightened and torqued."
Although a german would probably come back and say that if it was the very last step you would already have installed the bellhousing cover plate and wouldn't be able to torque the clamp bolt!
I am of the opinion that the manuals were written for an "inteligent" mechanic to use - who would know that if you tighten the clamp bolts before tightening the rear fastenings of the tube to the trany by implication you will end up pushing the drive shaft forwards, and that this would be a bad thing.
Cheers
Although a german would probably come back and say that if it was the very last step you would already have installed the bellhousing cover plate and wouldn't be able to torque the clamp bolt!
I am of the opinion that the manuals were written for an "inteligent" mechanic to use - who would know that if you tighten the clamp bolts before tightening the rear fastenings of the tube to the trany by implication you will end up pushing the drive shaft forwards, and that this would be a bad thing.
Cheers
08-27-2005, 10:05 AM
#57
Drifting
Hello All,
My morehouse cd states to tighten the flex plate screws(6) before the clamping sleeve. I just did it a couple days ago after putting my engine back in.
HERE IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION
Why are we so concerned with clamping so tight on the shaft? If the danger is moving forward then if it slipped forward it would not exert force on the flex plate at all which would then not exert any pressure on the crankshaft. The shaft itself could never go far enough to directly contact the crank so why all the worry about clamping?
My morehouse cd states to tighten the flex plate screws(6) before the clamping sleeve. I just did it a couple days ago after putting my engine back in.
HERE IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION
Why are we so concerned with clamping so tight on the shaft? If the danger is moving forward then if it slipped forward it would not exert force on the flex plate at all which would then not exert any pressure on the crankshaft. The shaft itself could never go far enough to directly contact the crank so why all the worry about clamping?
08-27-2005, 01:04 PM
#58
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by tv
Hello All,
My morehouse cd states to tighten the flex plate screws(6) before the clamping sleeve. I just did it a couple days ago after putting my engine back in.
HERE IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION
Why are we so concerned with clamping so tight on the shaft? If the danger is moving forward then if it slipped forward it would not exert force on the flex plate at all which would then not exert any pressure on the crankshaft. The shaft itself could never go far enough to directly contact the crank so why all the worry about clamping?
My morehouse cd states to tighten the flex plate screws(6) before the clamping sleeve. I just did it a couple days ago after putting my engine back in.
HERE IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION
Why are we so concerned with clamping so tight on the shaft? If the danger is moving forward then if it slipped forward it would not exert force on the flex plate at all which would then not exert any pressure on the crankshaft. The shaft itself could never go far enough to directly contact the crank so why all the worry about clamping?
This axial movement concaves the rearward face of the flexplate - and as there is a natural restoration force exerted by this plate ( its inherent elasticity/spring rate - for it is not plastically deformed) , the force is exerted on both the prop shaft and the flywheel. The prop shaft nicely resists compression, so the flywheel tends to move forward. The only mechanical stop to this forward axial movement, after the nominal crankshaft end float is consumed, happens to be the crank thrust bearing.
If such a situation is left uncorrected, regardless of how it occurred, the thrust bearing is eventually consumed .... then the saddle of the block = TBF.
08-27-2005, 05:02 PM
#59
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
What is really needed is entirely different TT center shaft structure for both automatic and manual gearbox cars. Manual gearboxed have problems on input shaft. Shaft is hardened because it also has one gearbox gear at its other end. Hardening means part of the shaft easily cracks off when it's clamped around TT center shaft. Only way to really get rid of these problems is to design completely new solution where there are no clamps at all. This would mean much thicker center shaft with free bores at both ends for automatic box, for manual gearbox mounting point for clutch shaft at front and free bore at the back. Free bore meaning two parts can slide back and forth freely. Bores need to be large enough to withstand this without wearing. 25mm solid shaft is way too small for this. More complex clamp for automatic gearbox discussed in earlier thread is nice fix for TBF but it does not help on other TT issues.
08-27-2005, 08:06 PM
#60
Under the Lift
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
FYI:
The Morehouse CD does contain all the updates. The WSM just has section 39 in two different places - volume II and Volume III, in hacked up order if you are going by volumes. The 1992 update is in Volume II.
Anyway, Victim, I scanned all the pages of the tranny removal/install section and posted them. They are VERY large files as I did 300 DPI scans. Look here:
http://www.billsworkshop.com/P928S4/TBF/
The Morehouse CD does contain all the updates. The WSM just has section 39 in two different places - volume II and Volume III, in hacked up order if you are going by volumes. The 1992 update is in Volume II.
Anyway, Victim, I scanned all the pages of the tranny removal/install section and posted them. They are VERY large files as I did 300 DPI scans. Look here:
http://www.billsworkshop.com/P928S4/TBF/
