TKX Transmission mounting

[hennessyVV]

Hit a big milestone with dropping the engine in! Gen 3 Coyote Aluminator + TKX 5speed.

However, I am now running into the problem of the transmission mount not aligning correctly with the a-frame mount. Any thoughts? Is the engine too far forward?

https://thefactoryfiveforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=224827&d=1769574350

https://thefactoryfiveforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=224829&d=1769574350

Transmission tailshaft + driveshaft.
https://thefactoryfiveforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=224828&d=1769574350

https://thefactoryfiveforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=224826&d=1769574350

[edwardb]

Highly unlikely the engine is too far forward. I assume the kit supplied Energy Suspension motor mounts? If so, they only go on one way and I assume they're sitting on the frame mounts properly with the pin on each side in the slot on the mounts. If that's true, rule out the engine position. Your driveshaft slip joint looks normal. That's about the normal amount that should be showing. It's normal to have that adapter in there for a Coyote build. They're slightly shorter than a SBF. The A-frame also only goes in one way, so that too can be ruled out. It's a little difficult to see exactly what the misalignment is and how much. It seems slightly unusual to me that the adapter plate is all the over on one side of those adjustment slots. My experience is they end up more centered. You do know the engine/trans is slightly offset to the right side? If you're trying to pull it straight that could cause things not to line up. Worst case, if nothing else, would be to make a new adapter plate. Your combination is very common though, so doesn't seem like that should be necessary.

[hennessyVV]

Hey Paul, thank you for the quick response. I do have the engine mounts sitting properly with the pin on each side in the slot on the frame mounts. I'll take a look and make some adjustments on the adapter plate. Just to clarify, the engine/trans is slightly offset to the passenger side?

*UPDATE;

Got that sucker in and aligned! Loosened the bolts and adjusted the adapter plate and it worked.

https://thefactoryfiveforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=224849&d=1769664623

https://thefactoryfiveforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=224850&d=1769664623

[edwardb]

Good to hear. Yes, the driveline is offset to the right and the holes in the A-frame reflect that. I suspect where you ended up shows the slight offset. Onward!

[hennessyVV]

Yes there is a slight offset to the right. For pinion angle, should I take measurements with the wheel on the ground? IRS btw.

[tnt_motorsports]

Yes there is a slight offset to the right. For pinion angle, should I take measurements with the wheel on the ground? IRS btw.

Yes, wheels need to be on the ground for pinion angle.

[edwardb]

For IRS doesn’t matter. The center section doesn’t move. Pinion angle is always the same.

[hennessyVV]

Sounds good. Thanks Paul!

[Grubester]

I have IRS for my Mk4 (289) and it's a real shame I can't adjust the pinion angle: it's almost 2 deg down, at the pinion. It really aggravates the driveline setup!
I'm ready to carve up my 4 bushings that mount the IRS to get some upward tilt. (well, I'm spit-balling the idea...)
The dwg is just a rough concept. Maybe it would just have offset thru-holes in the bushings.... not sure.
224925

[rich grsc]

I have IRS for my Mk4 (289) and it's a real shame I can't adjust the pinion angle: it's almost 2 deg down, at the pinion. It really aggravates the driveline setup!
I'm ready to carve up my 4 bushings that mount the IRS to get some upward tilt. (well, I'm spit-balling the idea...)
The dwg is just a rough concept. Maybe it would just have offset thru-holes in the bushings.... not sure.
224925

LEAVE IT as is, there is nothing wrong.:mad:

[Grubester]

'rich grsc' -- Thanks for the comment, really. I'm concerned because the driveline centerline is also down at the transmission by about 1.5 deg. That combination is not good. I've measured it carefully but will measure again in the next couple of days. I think I'm at risk of driveline vibrations at higher speeds -- maybe even at 40+ This is new to me.

[edwardb]

There's no way you should have to mess with those bushings. There have been thousands of these completed successfully and the frames are jig built. True, whatever the angle is on the IRS diff is can't be adjusted. But the engine can. Assuming you have "normal" motor and transmission mounts with a supported engine setup, your engine should be pointing down slightly. That can be adjusted if necessary with a spacer at the transmission mount. Easiest place to measure is on the harmonic balancer. Diff measured on the pinion flange. Unless you have the chassis perfectly level, the measured angles are relative not absolute. You're looking for the combination between the two. I'd also be curious what you're using to measure. Many use their phones. At least for mine, I haven't found it super accurate for this range of angles. I have a digital level that I trust a lot more.

[rich grsc]

'rich grsc' -- Thanks for the comment, really. I'm concerned because the driveline centerline is also down at the transmission by about 1.5 deg. That combination is not good. I've measured it carefully but will measure again in the next couple of days. I think I'm at risk of driveline vibrations at higher speeds -- maybe even at 40+ This is new to me.
You are wrong, that is just fine

[cv2065]

I adjusted my driveline angle a bit with spacers at the transmission which raised my oil pan up a bit, but left the pinion angle alone (IRS). I definitely wouldn’t be carving up any bushings.

[Grubester]

'edwardb' -- I'm using the stock, "complete kit" eng. mounts. I raised the engine on the four mounting points ~0.300" to get the pan at least very slightly above the bottom of the 4" frame tubes. I made aluminum block spacers at the trans mount: 1.300" rise. The engine is still down at the tail shaft 1.4 deg.
I'm using a new Klein digital level (accurate to 0.1 deg in the 0-1 deg. range; 0.2 deg for the rest of the range). I've taken multiple measurements at the harmonic balancer and at the pinion flange (down ~1.5 deg). These are easy to do accurately. (I have a machinist and engr background so measurement is second nature) My frame is dead-level, too, so measurements are 'absolute'. I'm going to pull out the driveshaft and measure everything again, for the record of this post. (later today, I hope)

Frustrated that FFR and BPE allow the oil pan to sit below the frame tubes, AND that the IRS unit isn't mounted closer to level (bad frame jig choice, IMO)

[Grubester]

'cv2065' -- Thanks for comments. I'll post latest measurements later, I hope. (I'm not dying to carve up bushings, that would be strange)

[rich grsc]

WOW.. you just don't know how u-joints work I guess???? Again there is nothing wrong, except how you perceive things? Go ahead and run U-joints a zero offset and see what happens. Been working around machinery for over 65yrs, and know they are designed to run at an offset

[Jeff Kleiner]

There have been thousands of FFR roadsters built with than combination—-however without the .300” engine mount spacers you have added—- and none of them shake or have had to have their diff mount bushings modified.

I’ll post this again and then I’m done:

https://thefactoryfiveforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=204763&d=1514586767

Jeff

[Grubester]

Thanks for the comment, but I have seen several videos about the necessity for some offset, otherwise brunelling occurs in the needle bearing area.
It's just that I believe I'm greater than the two degrees that Jeff Kleiner shows in his sketch.
I may just move on, or I might remeasure, I'd rather just keep working towards getting to the go-kart stage. Ugh.

[Jeff Kleiner]

https://thefactoryfiveforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=224961&d=1769979818

Don't be this guy ;)_

Jeff

[edwardb]

Frustrated that FFR and BPE allow the oil pan to sit below the frame tubes, AND that the IRS unit isn't mounted closer to level (bad frame jig choice, IMO)

Sounds like BPE used the wrong pan. That's not FFR's fault. You're assumption that the IRS should be level is incorrect. I've done three IRS builds. All were at a slight angle to complement the engine/trans angle and result in an acceptable pinion angle range. No signs of any vibration or whatever including at high track speeds. Have you seen in person or in pictures the frame jigs FFR uses? Pretty bullet proof and I'll leave it at that.

You're getting other responses and I agree the amount you've shimmed up the engine might be problematic. Nothing further needed from me. Good luck.

[Grubester]

Sounds like BPE used the wrong pan. That's not FFR's fault. You're assumption that the IRS should be level is incorrect. I've done three IRS builds. All were at a slight angle to complement the engine/trans angle and result in an acceptable pinion angle range. No signs of any vibration or whatever including at high track speeds. Have you seen in person or in pictures the frame jigs FFR uses? Pretty bullet proof and I'll leave it at that.

You're getting other responses and I agree the amount you've shimmed up the engine might be problematic. Nothing further needed from me. Good luck.


I'll contact BPE in the morning about oil pan type.
My thinking is that the IRS should start in a level position and let the raising or lower of the trans or engine create the slight offset vital for driveshaft health. The eng/trans have adjustment options that are much easier than the IRS, so why not start with the IRS at a neutral position? Just my observation.

Jeff Klein warns of "overthinking" problems. That's certainly a risk at times (so is "creeping elegance" in the design process), but with the project that FFR put before me, I've discovered many points at which I had to stop and figure out various assemblies. Many of you are at the point of MUCH experience with these cars. I'm envious. I'm glad I at least have the fabrication experience that I do have.

I appreciate every single comment I've rec'd over the months -- and I know it takes some time to respond to newbie questions. Thank you! Thank you!

[rich grsc]

Sounds like BPE used the wrong pan. That's not FFR's fault. You're assumption that the IRS should be level is incorrect. I've done three IRS builds. All were at a slight angle to complement the engine/trans angle and result in an acceptable pinion angle range. No signs of any vibration or whatever including at high track speeds. Have you seen in person or in pictures the frame jigs FFR uses? Pretty bullet proof and I'll leave it at that.

You're getting other responses and I agree the amount you've shimmed up the engine might be problematic. Nothing further needed from me. Good luck.
Paul, he's an 'engineer', and I think we are just wasting out time

[Jeff Kleiner]

I'll contact BPE in the morning about oil pan type.
My thinking is that the IRS should start in a level position and let the raising or lower of the trans or engine create the slight offset vital for driveshaft health. The eng/trans have adjustment options that are much easier than the IRS, so why not start with the IRS at a neutral position? Just my observation.

Jeff Klein warns of "overthinking" problems. That's certainly a risk at times (so is "creeping elegance" in the design process), but with the project that FFR put before me, I've discovered many points at which I had to stop and figure out various assemblies. Many of you are at the point of MUCH experience with these cars. I'm envious. I'm glad I at least have the fabrication experience that I do have.

I appreciate every single comment I've rec'd over the months -- and I know it takes some time to respond to newbie questions. Thank you! Thank you!

Grubester,
I just went out to the shop and measured the pan that Blueprint installs on a 347. It's 7.5" with the low point being the flush drain plug. 7.5" has been accepted as the maximum depth for the pan in these cars for decades. What's yours?

Jeff

[Grubester]

Grubester,
I just went out to the shop and measured the pan that Blueprint installs on a 347. It's 7.5" with the low point being the flush drain plug. 7.5" has been accepted as the maximum depth for the pan in these cars for decades. What's yours?

Jeff

Jeff -- thank you for the extra effort and info. BPE said the pan should be: Canton Racing Oil Pan #15-610.
I see the Canton label on the oil pan, but no p/n. Further, I measured the outside pan depth: 8.3"

Checked w/BPE again and they confirmed 8" as sump depth, which makes sense if I have an outside dim. of 8.3"
Checked JEGS website for the p/n and it confirmed an 8" sump depth.

Seems like FFR could have done better on their motor mount height, just my opinion.

Any further comments welcome.

[Jeff Kleiner]

Jeff -- thank you for the extra effort and info. BPE said the pan should be: Canton Racing Oil Pan #15-610.
I see the Canton label on the oil pan, but no p/n. Further, I measured the outside pan depth: 8.3"

Checked w/BPE again and they confirmed 8" as sump depth, which makes sense if I have an outside dim. of 8.3"
Checked JEGS website for the p/n and it confirmed an 8" sump depth.

Seems like FFR could have done better on their motor mount height, just my opinion.

Any further comments welcome.

I have further comments but I'll keep them in check for now and just say that IT IS NOT A FFR MOTOR MOUNT HEIGHT PROBLEM. The recommended maximum oil pan depth for a Windsor engine in a roadster or Coupe is---and always has been---7.5 inches. If you want to point fingers don't point them at FFR and say that they "could have done better on their motor mount height", point them at BPE for providing you with a pan that's too deep.

Of course that's just my opinion...I'm out.

Jeff

[Grubester]

This post also talked about driveline angles and so I'm posting my final re-measurement of my Mk4 289 w/BPE 347/TKX.
Earlier in this thread Jeff Kleiner posted his familiar sketch of eng. to differential angles. It indicates a preferred maximum angle of 2 deg.

I'm posting picture of my current condition, which includes an engine raised ~0.300" to get the bottom of the oil pan very slightly above the bottom of the 4" tubes.
If I give up on the oil pan goal and remove the shims it improves my 3.2 deg to about 2.7 degrees. I'll assume the 2.7 deg will work, at least at this stage.
.
*****Okay, big correction: I've replaced the orig. dwg with the correct one.
I had labeled the IRS center line as the trans centerline by mistake!

225107

[cv2065]

This post also talked about driveline angles and so I'm posting my final re-measurement of my Mk4 289 w/BPE 347/TKX.
Earlier in this thread Jeff Kleiner posted his familiar sketch of eng. to differential angles. It indicates a preferred maximum angle of 2 deg.

I'm posting picture of my current condition, which includes an engine raised ~0.300" to get the bottom of the oil pan very slightly above the bottom of the 4" tubes.
If I give up on the oil pan goal and remove the shims it improves my 3.2 deg to about 2.7 degrees. I'll assume the 2.7 deg will work, at least at this stage.
.

225071

As has been said, keep it where it’s at and protect your pan.

[PMD24]

My BP 347 was supplied with a pan that measured 8". Followed up with them and they said it should end up flush. Followed up with FFR. They requested the model number and confirmed it was 8" and subtly expressed reservations about it ending up flush. It didn't. It was below 1/4+.

Also have a friend nearby who just recently received a BP347, for his FFR roadster, with a completely different pan, also 8" deep AND the drain bung is off the bottom, further aggravating the clearance issue.

IMO FFR has a role in this. BP is their engine "partner". They have a unique 6 page cutsheet on the BP engines for the FFR roadster. They are also at the FFR Build school marketing that specific product. I don't understand why FFR won't address this with them. Seems like such a simple thing to do.

[rich grsc]

The center line of the engine and the centerline of the transmission are the same. So I guess you are referring to the differential CL? If so, then remove the engine mount shims and add some shims to raise the transmission maybe 1/2-3/4". Raising the transmission will slightly raise the oil pan.

[Jeff Kleiner]

I changed out the BP stamped steel pan for a Champ CP302LT-RR oil pan; 7" deep, 8 quart capacity, scrapers and trap doors.

Jeff

[Grubester]

'rich grsc' - Yep, I mislabeled the original dwg. Should have referred to the IRS centerline. (dwg. is corrected)

My trans tail shaft is already shimmed up about 1.25" or 1.3" (I didn't record actual number...)
And if I remove the engine shims my oil pan will be below the 4" frame tubes.

***As Jeff K. just point out, there is an oil pan option/purchase possible -- I really appreciate his comments.

[Grubester]

I changed out the BP stamped steel pan for a Champ CP302LT-RR oil pan; 7" deep, 8 quart capacity, scrapers and trap doors.

Jeff

Just looked up purchase sources: good. Does it require a different oil pick-up or other accommodations...?

[StangRacer]

Just looked up purchase sources: good. Does it require a different oil pick-up or other accommodations...?

Yes, you will need another pick-up tube for that pan. If you attempted to use the one currently on the engine you would not be able to bolt down the Champ pan...

[AndrewIdaho]

Just looked up purchase sources: good. Does it require a different oil pick-up or other accommodations...?

For my Ford Performance 302, I had to replace the pan provided because it did not have clearance as you have experienced. I got my Champ CP302LT-RR pan directly from Champ with a matching oil pick up and dip stick. Installation was some what of a challenge. See this post for my experience with the install and all the help I received from the forum.
https://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showthread.php?31877-John%92s-Excellent-Oil-Pan-Adventure&p=592794#post592794

Best Regards, Andrew

[tnt_motorsports]

I changed out the BP stamped steel pan for a Champ CP302LT-RR oil pan; 7" deep, 8 quart capacity, scrapers and trap doors.

Jeff

Jeff
Do you know if this means a CP351LT-RR is the correct pan for a 351 SBF? The Moroso pan that is listed on my engine build from Smeding appears to be 8" deep (7 quart), so I think I need to change it to the Champ pan.

Thanks
Todd

[PMD24]

"My trans tail shaft is already shimmed up about 1.25" or 1.3" (I didn't record actual number...)
And if I remove the engine shims my oil pan will be below the 4" frame tubes."

The 1.25" in spacers at the trans mount aren't helping because the pivot point is the motor mount and the edge of the pan is almost in line with the pivot point. Granted, it's below the mount and moves on an arc, but if you visualize this as a lever with a pivot at the mount, you'd have to raise the tail several inches to get 1/4" of vertical movement near the pivot point. I put 3/4" under the trans mount and got no measurable improvement in the pan being below the frame. Thinking through the geometry, it made sense that it does almost nothing.

Pat

[StangRacer]

Jeff
Do you know if this means a CP351LT-RR is the correct pan for a 351 SBF? The Moroso pan that is listed on my engine build from Smeding appears to be 8" deep (7 quart), so I think I need to change it to the Champ pan.

Thanks
Todd

Todd, that is the correct pan for use with a 351 assuming you have a Windsor and it does not have 4 bolts on all five main caps. It states in the description the sump depth is 7" and will not work with blocks that have 4 bolts on the back cap.

[Grubester]

"My trans tail shaft is already shimmed up about 1.25" or 1.3" (I didn't record actual number...)
And if I remove the engine shims my oil pan will be below the 4" frame tubes."

The 1.25" in spacers at the trans mount aren't helping because the pivot point is the motor mount and the edge of the pan is almost in line with the pivot point. Granted, it's below the mount and moves on an arc, but if you visualize this as a lever with a pivot at the mount, you'd have to raise the tail several inches to get 1/4" of vertical movement near the pivot point. I put 3/4" under the trans mount and got no measurable improvement in the pan being below the frame. Thinking through the geometry, it made sense that it does almost nothing.

Pat

I agree that the 1.25" spacer at the tail shaft doesn't help the oil pan height. I was using the 1.25" spacer to raise the tail shaft to improve the driveline angle with respect to the IRS downward dip that it has. (see earlier sketch)
Separately for the oil pan height, I was using washers (0.300") under the 4 eng. mounting points to raise the oil pan.
At this point from all the discussion I'm going to leave those shims under the engine and I'll leave the tail shaft spacer as it is and at least it solves the oil pan height for now.
I like the suggestions for the Champion oil pan but also in the different threads I noticed some people had quite a chore replacing it, including the new oil pickup handling, new gaskets, etc. None is insurmountable, just one more thing to do.

[cv2065]

I put 3/4" under the trans mount and got no measurable improvement in the pan being below the frame. Thinking through the geometry, it made sense that it does almost nothing.

Pat

I have 3/4" of transmission mount shims from Forte's shim kit and it was noticeable how much it was raising the pan. I started with 1/4" then moved up from there. Mileage seems to vary here.

[Grubester]

I have 3/4" of transmission mount shims from Forte's shim kit and it was noticeable how much it was raising the pan. I started with 1/4" then moved up from there. Mileage seems to vary here.

I drew a rough sketch in thinking about the effect of raising/lowering the tail shaft might have on the height of the oil pan.
Not sure how raising the tail shaft might raise the oil pan, but your empirical work seems to show the pan can be raised...

225126

[StangRacer]

I drew a rough sketch in thinking about the effect of raising/lowering the tail shaft might have on the height of the oil pan.
Not sure how raising the tail shaft might raise the oil pan, but your empirical work seems to show the pan can be raised...

225126

It appears the misunderstanding here is everyone, myself included, assumed you had a rear sump pan...

[Jeff Kleiner]

Refer to post #20

Jeff

[rich grsc]

Front sump?:mad: Never could find a 7-7.5" front sump, so that is why it's slightly below the frame. Why would the ship a front sump for a FFR car?