V-12 Engine into 308 Build, over on Grassroots

Just went through the old logs....when it was running it 2017 the fan turned on at 80C and the temp stayed at 80C...82 was the hottest I was and that I suspect is the 80C T'stat. Right now the temp keeps climbing to 95-100 when I shut down not want it it any hotter. I'm pretty sure that is the the less efficient Evans coolant effect. I and also seeing the oil temp climb faster then the coolant temp and the 30wt breaking oil pressure is dangerously low so I know the oil is frikin hot in the engine. I don't have old log data on that but I don't recall ever noticing that before and suspect the engine it actually hotter than the coolant temp suggests. I love the no corrosion risk, I hate the temps I'm seeing and that to keep using it I need a colder t-stat and a much larger radiator....not sure but I think.

 

I don’t understand the concern for corrosion. Do the corrosion inhibitors in water-based coolants not protect sufficiently for a build like yours? I didn’t think there was much oxidization in these closed systems.

 

Inside the system is generally ok as you say. I had a couple problems I was looking to avoid this time. Where the hoses clamp to metal there was a lot of corrosion, under the hose, I had to sand it off. Also any place the stuff spilled I had corrosion....plating gone from brand new hardware (nuts and washers) and rust starting, same on my starter, I had leaking ports so coolant in the cylinders which caused pitting and ruined them. If it had been contained as you say it would be fine but as this is a work in progress I expected more issue (like say leaking head gaskets) and just stuff that doesn't corrode anyhti5ng was a safer approach....but I don't like the way it cools so I may pull it back out once I know everything else is right

 

An Evans coolant leak into the combustion chamber will spike temps. Seen it numerous times. You've probably got oil contamination as well.

It's frustrating stuff to work with if the system and everything else isn't perfect. Hence my love/hate with it, esp if water is still in the system... Oh boy does that cause headaches! Though that's not something your fighting.

Because it'll burn it can detonate within the ring lands... As you can imagine that can be a problem. That failure become very apparent quickly.

Boy do I have lots of scary engine failure stories... Sorry.

 

I asked about coolant in the oil a few days ago. Does the Evans coolant not turn oil milky? It sounds like you need to solve the head gasket issue before worrying too much about the cooling system.

 

You did and no Evans does not foam up in the oil as far as I know and no I don't SEE any coolant in the oil samples I pulled from the top and bottom of the tank and I don't THINK its oil soluble but just now put some coolant into the oil sample I pulled and...I couldn't see it, the oil in the tank is just not all that clean any more and the coolant just seemed top disappear into the sample so I have no idea if there is coolant in the oil.

And yes the head gaskets are a larger issue at the moment than the coolant temp, I'm kind of assuming one way of the other I will get the head gaskets sealed and panning ahead a bit for that day.....at the moment though it's whether I save the $300 of coolant when I pull the heads or dump it.

 

It could be the coolant burning lean and combustion gasses getting into the cooling system which are both causing the overheating. I would save the coolant but dump the oil. Any luck torquing the head nuts?

 

Could be. I've not lost much coolant, I've not see the oil level come up, I've not noticed the coolant tank filling up and dumping like a bunch of air in the system would cause.....just the wet plugs. The gaskets are seeping, they are not blown or burned out I'm pretty sure of that. Could this be causing the hotter running? sure but a coolant with only 60% the heat capacity could too so as you allude, until the leaks are fixed I can't really diagnose the other issue.

yes the plan is dump the oil for certain. As far retorquing the basement floor is moving nicely but it may be a couple days before I see any shop time to check the head nuts.

 

Depending on the severity of the leak, most of it it'll burn. The fuel wont and will end up in the oil.

I call it raisin juice, on account that it kinda smells like raisins... And that'll be stuck in your head forever

 

The torque arm is supposed to be on the top of the rear valve cover on a 308 and is clearly not on mine. The 4? V12 conversions the were build in the 80's all followed the path of the 1st, which moved the torque arm to the rear of the differential because that is at least as far from the crank centerline and looks better.....but its also wrong the only real mistake I saw in the book/manual converter #1 (David Goldsmith) put together so I won't be doing that.

Why the stock location is right and the goldsmith location wrong takes a little explanation. The 308 V8 is a flatplane crank so it vibrates twice as bad as a 4 cylinder with no balance shafts. The solution to that is 4 fancy motor mounts at the lower 4 corner of the eng/trans assembly that are rubber but also have a spring and let the motor/trans bounce up/down a LOT but not front/back or side/side without that vibration transferring to the chassis. But that cause the assembly to also want to rotate about the axles and because the mounts are basically in a horizontal line with the axles, the reaction to torque at the axles is a rotation that an up/down at the mount, which they are not designed to stop. The OEM ferrari torque arm is basically horizontal to the ground and perpendicular to the mounts free up/down motion leaving the engine free to bounce up/down due to engine vibration but not with torque.

The Goldsmith design has 2 mistakes. First it assumes the reactions are at the crank, but the crank forces are constrained fully by the transaxle so the net reactions are at the axle making his arm design way too short. The second is that its inline with the motor mount so torque reaction cause the engine to move up/down at the mounts and the mounts are designed to not stop that. Together I think that torque arm just make the problem worse than no arm at all and he does talk about shifting issues and solving it be replacing the front (iirc) motor mounts with daytona mounts which are I guess the same size but solid rubber...which is also an issue because the the 2 rear mounts will still reaction up/down to torque.

Stupid simple part...stupid complicated explanation but it's been on the to-do list a long time and with the engine running (and even running badly still making enough torque to spin the 285 tires) and the cam cover coming off it seems like time to get it done.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Pretty much. Though having taken apart many many of the iso dampers, they've only contained a spring and steel mesh wading for function, the rubber boot is just a seal for debris.
I think it's a very unique and clever design. Much like isolation dampers on buildings and heavy eq for specific vibration frequencies. The TR does not utilize them, solid rubber mount.

Just weld a chain to it, works for big block Chevy

 

I'm pretty seriously considering a urethane mount conversion and skipping the torque arm as I don't think it would be needed with those mounts.....and no torque arm on top is prettier, Goldsmith was absolutely right on that point IMO

 

Choices huh? On one hand the iso dampers keep the engine buzz from transmitting thru the frame, but you need a TQ arm. Solid mounts can transmit more vibration but do not require a TQ arm...

The early GT4 has a separate bracket for the tq arm, it's not welded but bolts to the valve cover studs... Might be an option?

 

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Right, but I don't have a flat plane crank V8 that shakes in 2 planes, I have a silky smooth V12 so I'm not so sure the factory mounts are really helping me very much.

I could bolt something on for sure though. The factory mount point is basically straight above the axle and that lands on the cam cover. On my setup the engine is moved forward 3" and is a 60 degree not 90 V which moves the cam cover another 2"? forward putting the magic point out in space behind the engine so I could make a bolt-on bracket. I could also cheat a little move iot to a bracket bolted to say the exhaust flange...it would create a small vertical torque reaction but not bad I don't think.....don't know

 

Uh oh.. time for those moment vector force diagrams

The silky smooth nature of the V12 does help.

So what's less hassle, new mounts or a tq arm mount?

Given the vertical movement of the iso dampers you don't want any vertical swing moment in the tq arm, creates a 'clunk' in low gear high tq... Stop light acceleration, fast shifting low gears.
One of the builds required moving the reaction rod, tried many different locations and recorded the engine movent... In the end the factory location was best. Sucked as I had to redesign the intake all over again. R&D... Fun times

 

I actually need that arm for the outlaw, simply send it to me then your forced to do what you want anyway. See how I help

 

If you actually need one, I believe we've got a couple laying around the shop in Custer. I'd have to ask Nick what he wants for it.

But..... Not worth it.. Maybe if it's free, but not really.

I'll be honest though, you can weld and you could make a better one then the factory crap one. It's badly welded tube. Make one from scratch with a turnbuckle, L&R threads, then you can preload the rod.

 

I totally need one, I’ll have to modify it anyway, I enjoy using Ferrari parts as a base element, trying to keep this one mostly Ferrari. Happy to pay for anything

 

Which flavor?
There's two types, later style is ]===O early gt4 O===O
Hope that makes sense...

Ok just checked your pics... You need the double ended one
I'll check with Nick and see what's on hand.

 

Thank you!

 

I was ALMOST able to put the rear cam cover. When the intakes are off this time I'll add a bevel to the outside edge so the cam covers will clear incase there is a next time. I thought it kind of cool the the cover bolt bosses dropped right into clearance around the TBs like it was planned.....sometimes I amaze myself Image Unavailable, Please Login

Image Unavailable, Please Login

I'm now told the urethane mustang mounts fail in sort order and are not worth bothering with. Looking quickly this morning I could lower the stock torque arm and mount it to the rear edge of the cam cover....that wouldn't look bad.

Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login

There is of course no car structure to bolt it to in that location, just a sheetmetal panel so that would be additional work to add but not a lot of work I guess. Still thinking as technically this is a bolt-in conversion but welding frame parts would change that

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Hmmm...
Ok I'll share some feedback from going thru a similar process.
Picking the pivot point is critical, putting the pivot point at the bottom edge of the head is right on the edge of it's rotation point, it'll be prone to 'popping' up and down. Reverse gear is most notable. The rotation center is the output flange, getting tangent to that on the engine will arrest it's rotation.

When you had the other builds in did they bend the frame? On the test mule here the 3.5L even with it's generous tq didn't tweak the support frame, once I added the rotrex and combined with Nick's driving style... Like we just robbed a bank!.. the rear trunk/engine bay support beam that the rod mounts to... Bowed a good 3/8"

The problems we create adding more power

If you move the mount location, reinforce the crap out of it. Best would be some kind of K member bracing... But that gets into trunk modifications.

 

Remember my rear head is very much not in the stock location. stock looks like this
Image Unavailable, Please Login

that is here on my engine with the stock arm in the stock frame mounting location and about level as stock....its about 5" above the rear corner of the head, these are the 1st pics, I'm holding the arm in about the stock location.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

That is the problem, its would be a pretty stupid looking bracket on top to get from the engine to that stock location. If I lower it 5" I can add a boss to the head and it works out not bad., but the forces will be higher as the moment arm would be shorter but all the force directions and reactions would be like stock so i kind of like that idea. I also like just ditching the stock mounts and not needing the arm.....this is almost certainly the easier path.

 

Agreed, get rid of the iso damper mounts, they're no longer matched to weight or tuned frequency anyways.

Solid mounts... TR gearbox mount, I swear they share the same bracket mount holes..

https://www.eurospares.co.uk/parts/ferrari/testarossa-1985/transmission-pedals/gear-box-mountings-and-covers-31031

Yup, they do. Spacer pad is also crossed used on the 308 gearbox...