From: [email protected] (Robert A Brady)
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 07:51:49 -0500
Subject: A couple of questions.....
I replaced the head gasket in my '74 GTV this weekend. It was my first time inside this engine, since I bought the car last year. Now, for some questions:
1. The head/block had the usual head gasket roll pins installed, but the two rearmost were pushed into the block so far that they could not perform their intended function. These two also refused to be removed. ( I tried "hooking" them, using an easy-out, plyers, etc... but could not get them out) Does anyone have any suggestions for removing them?
2. Roll pin related question #2.... In the Alfa Bible, Pat Braden suggests inserting the roll pins so that they just protrude above the head gasket o-rings. When I did my '73 GTV's engine, I didn't know any better and let them protrude into the head. (no problems since!). On the '74, I noticed that if I intend to do this, I would have to open up the oil galleys by ~1/64" in the head, so that the roll pins could push freely into it. Does anyone have any thoughts in this matter?
3. Roll pin question #3..... does anyone know why the standard approach is to use roll pins, and not dowel pins? It seems to me that dowel pins are more precise, and would offer less restriction to oil flow.
4. How much should the two bolts mating the head and the cam chain cover, on the fron of the engine, be torqued? I found no references to this in any of my books.
5. Regarding head torquing strategies... what are your thoughts. Centerline recommends torquing cold before running the first time, then again after bringing it up to temperature, then again after a short ride, then again after a long ride..... the manual recommends torquing cold, then hot, then after a ride, retorque cold by first loosening the nuts by 1.5 turns. Does anyone else have suggestions? This is my first head gasket failure, and I'd like to keep it that way.
6. I removed the cams to replace the lock tab on the sprocket nut. When I went to torque the bearing caps, I noticed that two of the cap studs( on different cams and different caps) seemed to be "getting longer."
Additionally, on one, I could not torque it more than 10 ft-lbs. At first I suspected that the nuts or studs were stripped, but that is not the case. How are these studs held in place? Are they screwed into the head? I assume that I will have to replace these two. Any suggestions for removing and replacing them so that they won't pull out?
7. Finally, while I had the car apart, I re-timed the cams to get it through Pennsylvania emissions inspection (I was formerly in Texas, and they have none.) Anyway, before I moved back here, I had the intake cam advanced by 7.5 degrees, and the exhaust retarded by the same (per Braden's Bible suggestion). With this setup, I found a great improvement in performance, over stock timing. My question is, on a 2.0l, SPICA car, that is essentially stock, what is the optimal cam timing for the US 2.0l, FI cams? I'd like to avoid the trial and error process of finding this out myself.
8. Finally.... again... Does anyone have experience with using non stock fuel lines (from injection pump to injectors). The multitude of clamps associated with the steel lines makes head removal unnecessarily complicated. What do racers with injection use? I realize that the clamps are necessary, but if you used braided stainless lines, wouldn't they require less support? One issue with the braided lines may be response, i.e. they will stretch a little during each fuel pulse. Is this a concern? What does Wes Ingram recommend?
Sorry for the multitude of questions, but it was a long weekend.
- -bob brady
73' GTV (just "restored", some assembly required)
74' GTV (unfortunately my daily driver, the Pennsylvania salt is taking its
toll:( )
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected] (Simon Favre)
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 14:21:39 PST
Subject: Re: A couple of questions.....
Only a couple of questions? Sheesh!
The only reason for the roll pin being there is to keep the o-ring from twisting itself into a figure 8. In that regard, a roll pin is no different from a hollow dowel. I think the reason roll pins are used is their natural springiness which keeps them tight in the hole. Both are hollow, and should not provide near as much of a restriction to the oil flow as the cam bearings do.
The bolts that go in the bottom of the head are not critical, but you don't want to over-tighten them. They are 8mm x 1.25, if memory serves. The intake and exhaust studs are about the same. Just goop
them up real good to prevent leakage and get them "medium tight." How's that for a torque spec?
The cam cap studs do, indeed, screw into the head. If you can see no stripping of the threads, but the stud is "getting longer" as you say, the stud is pulling out of the head. You should get this fixed ASAP. The proper way should involve putting a Helicoil into the head. This can probably be done with the head on the car, just make sure not to get metal shavings in the oil passages. If you're not comfortable doing this yourself, get a pro. This is the damage that results from over tightening the cam caps.
I think I only answered some of your multitude of questions. ;=)
Hope it helps.
------------------------------
From: Jim Steck <[email protected]>
Date: 13 Feb 96 01:47:58 EST
Subject: roll pins
>1. The head/block had the usual head gasket roll pins installed, but the two
>rearmost were pushed into the block so far that they could not perform their
>intended function. These two also refused to be removed. ( I tried "hooking"
>them, using an easy-out, plyers, etc... but could not get them out) Does
>anyone have any suggestions for removing them?
Don't worry about removing them . . . just put new ones in on top, driving the
old ones in further.
>3. Roll pin question #3..... does anyone know why the standard approach is
>to use roll pins, and not dowel pins? It seems to me that dowel pins are
>more precise, and would offer less restriction to oil flow.
Roll pins are used because dowel pins require a precise fit (expensive) and roll
pins will conform to even slightly oversize holes.
Comment on oil flow restriction . . . our race engines (really all) get
restrictors purposely installed in the cam bearing passages to increase flow to
the main and rod bearings. Roll pins won't restrict the flow too much for even
9400 RPM.
- -Jim
From: Jack Chesley <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 09:45:58 -0500
Subject: mech fuel pump - ICD V3 #112(and AD too) -Reply
Andrew,
The rubberized fabric membranes don't get porous, they usually harden with age as
the elastisizers in the neoprene(?) are leached out by the gasoline. You probably have
a very fine crack either near the edge of the membrane where the housing clamps it or
in the middle where the piston goes through. This will make it take much longer to pull
the fuel through when the hose is empty(since it's trying to pump air) even though it still
works when the chamber is full of fluid. That's why you run your battery down. You
are due for a new pump. They're not too expensive (but don't lose the little push rods).
I bought a rebuild kit (for the older models that are assembled with screws). It has
several layers of rubberized fabric diaphragm, but it has 4 holes and all my pumps have
5, so I can't tell you how well it worked, as it's still sitting on a shelf.... someday I'll find
a use for it.
Generic electric pumps also work fine, but make sure it's rated for carbs (3-5 psi). I
installed an impact switch (the grey cylinder with a button on top that cuts the power to
the fuel pump in case of an accident) in my '65 spider, just in case.
- - jack (wheee, I just bought a 'new' 67 Super!! whatta birthday present!.. the only thing
better than a Giulia Super is _2_ Giulia Supers!!) chesley
- -----------------------------
>From: Andrew Rigamonti <[email protected]>
>Subject: Fuel pump - Duetto
>I tried this mail on the Alfa owner list and got little response, perhaps it will go down
>better here, sorry if you regard this as a spam.
>I have a 67 Duetto which has always had a slight fuel leak. If left in storage (2 months
>max) it cannot drag the fuel through before the battery flatterns and needs jumper
>assistance. Once the fuel is through it is as happy as larry ( fuel consumption may be
>a little high but I don't drive it for economy).
> This sorth of problem may relate to those postings who had to crank their engines
>over a few times before firing: an enmty hose must be refilled before the chambers
>get anything.
> Any way about my problem, I could see some deposits below the fuel pump (its the
>mechanical type) and when I opened the lower bolt (holding the spring in etc) fuel did
>drip out. It seemed that the diaphragm wasn't doing its job but I can't see any holes in
>it.
> So the question is do they get porus over time and leak through the membrane?
>I don't want to replace it to find that it was suppose to act this way and something
>else is leaking.
> Thanks
> Andrew Rigamonti UK
- ------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Steck <[email protected]>
Date: 17 Apr 96 23:37:51 EDT
Subject: gasket reply
>Here's a question to draw out the bizarre theories. I'm rebuilding a 1600
>engine, including all gaskets. My instinct is to use no gasket goop of any
>kind anywhere. Anybody believe otherwise?
YES . . . the head gasket already has a sealer on it already, and most of the
rubber seals don't need help, but . . . in time, any paper gasket will crush
and
the joint will become loose (and leak). I REPLACE all the paper gaskets with
'goop'. I want a metal-to-metal joint with the imperfections filled by a
sealer.
I have two systems that work equally well.
The FIP's (form-in-place gaskets) seal much better and longer than paper when
the surfaces are properly cleaned. They're easy to apply and cheap. Just
don't
overdo it or you'll end up with balls of the stuff floating around inside the
engine (eventually removed by the oil filter). A good silicone (sensor safe)
or
YamaBond (motorcycle case sealer) work equally well.
The other material is a tape-like gasket made by Gore-Tex that comes on a
roll.
One side is pressure sensitive . . . so you just peel the release paper as
you
stick it to one of the surfaces. It's available in several thicknesses. I
use
the .003 and .006 in versions. It's easier to remove than silicone on the
next
teardown, and doesn't ooze out of the joint. The disadvantage is price . . .
about $1 per foot . . . and it's harder to find.
If you try my method, carefully check the end clearance of the intermediate
sprocket by dry fitting the timing cover and making sure it still turns . . .
sometimes the flange bushing needs thinned down a bit.
Another couple places that I think NEED silicone are the base of the liners .
.
. don't rely on the o-rings unless the block is perfect . . . and the 'cigar
seals' for the rear main bearing. Put a little silicone in the holes before
inserting the seals. You also need a little Loctite between the crank and
flywheel . . . or the oil will seep out around the flyheel bolts.
It's okay to use paper for the cam cover and hold-down nuts . . . but glue
the
gasket to the cover only.
- -Jim Steck
AutoComponenti
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/4SFED
------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected] (Simon Favre )
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 22:18:02 -0700
Subject: Re: gasket thoughts
Marc Baldwin scribbled:
>Here's a question to draw out the bizarre theories. I'm rebuilding a
>1600 engine, including all gaskets. My instinct is to use no gasket
>goop of any kind anywhere. Anybody believe otherwise?
If you do this, your Alfa will most likely live up to its "leaker"
reputation. The OEM head gasket is supposed to be installed dry,
but virtually every other gasket will seal better with a good gasket
compound applied. The timing case, sump and cam cover gaskets are
notorious leakers. There's also a little rear cover plate on the
back of the block that is a major nuisance to re-seat if it starts
leaking. Note also that the timing cover must withstand all the
pressure your oil pump can muster, as well as the cooling system
pressure. There are O-rings on the oil passages that don't need to
be glued, but the gaskets should be.
So what gasket compound to use? There's where the "religious"
differences arise. For years I used Permatex 3H, A.K.A. "Aviation
Form-A-Gasket". This is a non-hardening gasket compound, and it cleans
up with carb cleaner. Lately, I have been using Ultra-Copper Silicone.
This stuff seals pretty near anything. Even mildly dented sealing
surfaces are no match for Ultra-Copper. I am told that Ultra-Grey
Silicone is even better. I haven't tried it yet. The British car buffs
swear by Hylomar gasket compound. I tried it, and it is nice for
assemblies that you intend to open up often, but it cannot seal
imperfect surfaces worth beans. On any really old Alfa motor, you'll
find a dinged surface somewhere. There are some areas where the 3H
Permatex is better, like sealing bolt threads, but otherwise, my
money is on the high temp Silicones.
------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Brian Shorey" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 10:41:58 EST
Subject: RE: gasket reply
>>Here's a question to draw out the bizarre theories. I'm rebuilding
>a 1600
>>engine, including all gaskets. My instinct is to use no gasket goop
>of any
>>kind anywhere. Anybody believe otherwise?
>YES . . . the head gasket already has a sealer on it already, and
>most of the rubber seals don't need help, but . . . in time, any
>paper gasket will crush and the joint will become loose (and leak).
>I REPLACE all the paper gaskets with 'goop'. I want a
>metal-to-metal joint with the imperfections filled by a sealer.
i heartily agree that paper gaskets left to themselves are not a good
idea. one other idea for consideration - when i built my 1750 at paul
glynns shop this past winter (under his tutelage, of course), he had
me spray both sides of all the paper gaskets with some kind of spray
on gasket/goop. if anybody cares i could find out what it was.
...
and now a quick comment - i've built, always under the close scrutiny
of paul glynn, more than one alfa motor over the years. although the
idea of simply taking a bunch of measurements and assembling/bolting
together a collection of parts is a simple one, i'm amazed at all the
little tricks there are, tricks which can only be learned by building
countless motors (and taking them apart again at the end of their
life), or by learning from someone who has done it themselves.
now, even more amazing, is the fact that we have a number of true
master alfa mechanics who not only monitor this list, but regularly
hand out free advice, advice which could be considered valuable trade
secrets. and from these people i don't ever detect a tone of "hey
this is really complicated, send the job to me", the tone is always
one in which advice is freely given in a sincere effort to assist the
end user in the task at hand.
wow! do all of us amateurs realize how lucky we are? i do.
thanks, everybody. i'll shut up now.
bs
------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
The marelli-plex is the correct distributor to use. I have found that
the modified advance curve helps slightly when autocrossing but I have
not seen it_s advantage on a street car. If you have it great but don_t
go out of your way to modify the curve for street use.
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected] (Rasor Associates )
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 18:58:34 -0800
Subject: o-ring & 8L cams & cam timing reply
DISTRIBUTOR O-RING
There most certainly is an o-ring which seals the distributor shaft. To
install one must lube the o-ring with grease and then put the o-ring
into the timing case. Then insert the distributor but keep pressure
downward. If
you pull up the o-ring will jump out of the hole and you need to start
over.
From: [email protected] (Les Singh)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 21:58:34 GMT
Subject: Rich running and Ignition
I run the Green GTV with standard ignition - no electronic gizmos. I tried
these ( Mobelec, Lumenition, a friend's home built "arc welder" killer
system) but the GTV takes exception and destroys them in no time at all.
Very sensitive and sensible this car! As a result the GTV is 100% reliable -
starts summer and winter and runs like a dream - EXCEPT - it has been
running rich since the Lumenition died.
After reading the piece on spark plugs and how exposing more mixture to the
spark at initiation helps ignition, I decided to try a very simple
experiment: I got a set of NGK B7ECS plugs and gapped them to .032" with the
assumption that this would achieve the desired result of a bigger spark,
better ignition etc. The Bosch Sports Coil that I use generates enough
secondary voltage that I haven't detected any misfiring yet.
Result - the exhaust is losing its sooty black colour and I don't think its
due to just simple replacement of worn plugs because the plugs in there were
good Lodge 2HLs. However, its a bit early to tell so i'll do a bit more
experimentation, perhaps going out to .038 - .040" and see what happens.
Maybe an Accel Supercoil would help - $130 in NZ.
Big gaps don't seem to bother the ignition system much though. I got
misfiring at around 5500 rpm once a long time ago and on checking the Lodges
found that the non-adjustable gaps had worn out to .105" - mamma mia! so
don't tell me that Lodge plugs don't last.
Les Singh
Green GTV - the best!
GTA Jr race car - pure adrenalin
Alfa 75 2.5 V6 - yes well - useful for carrying mountain bikes
------------------------------
From: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 96 10:53:20 EST
Subject: Re: alfa-digest V2 #54
>I just bought a set of spark plugs for my Spider from IAP, along with some
>other stuff, and they've sent me Lodge HL's instead of the 2HL's I usually
>use. What's the difference between them; should I get them to send me 2HL's
>instead?
> Julyan
Alfa specifies the HL for US spec 1750 and 2000 (both Spica and Bosch)
and the V6 1981-89. The 2HL is specified for 1300 and 1600, and the
2 cam 164 (I don't understand the change for the V6). The 2HL is the
colder plug, roughly equivalent to a Bosch WR5DC; the HL close to a
WR7DC.
For folks with modified cars, or carbureted Euro spec cars, I generally
suggest the HL for 10.0:1 compression ratio and under, and the 2HL for
cars with more compression than that.
cheers,
alfadoc
iap tech
oh yeah, since everybody else does this, I will too, but I promise, only
once
1988 milano 3.0 1982 fiat X1/9 1965 buick convt
1988 milano 2.5 (parts) 1967 fiat dino spider 2.0 1966 chevy pickup
1967 fiat 850 spider 1971 fiat dino coupe 2.4 1974 jensen healey
1981 lancia beta coupe 1967 fiat dino coupe (parts) 1988 ducati 750 paso
------------------------------
From: Rich Wagner <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 17:20:29 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Oil Experience
Trevor:
I've been using Amsoil for about ten years now, and can only rave about it.
What impresses me most about the synthetics, is that, when the engine is
shut down, they don't simply drain back into the oil pan. When I take my
engines apart, there is a thick coating of oil clinging to all of the parts.
That means, when the engine is started, parts aren't running dry until the
oil pressure comes up. When I drain the oil at change time, it isn't
watery. It maintains its viscosity--even after 12,000 miles of use.
Another important issue, for me, is how clean the synthetics run. I used to
be a Honda mechanic. Honda's oil is (or used to be) Castrol with a Honda
label on it. When we disassembled the engines running on this oil, there
was always a fair amount of tar left behind. As I understand it, most
mineral oils contain a fair amount of tar, except the so-called
"Pennsylvania Grade" oils, which are supposed to contain parifins.
Synthetics aren't really oils at all, but come closer to esthers. They have
a naturally high dispersant quality, and so are natural detergents.
Most of the oil guys I know, recommend running a new (unused, that is)
engine on mineral oil for about 3,000 miles. This helps the rings and other
parts seat themselves. After that, change to synthetic. This is what I've
done, and it seems to have worked well. On one car, I watched the gas
mileage continuously increase up until about 40,000 miles, where it
stabilized. Perhaps running a bit longer on the mineral oil would have sped
up this process.
My '85 VW Golf diesel was at 190,000 miles when I sold it. My '89
Mitsubishi Mirage has 104,000 miles on it, and is still getting over 40
miles per gallon.
Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: TimCunningham <[email protected]>
Date: 29 Apr 96 18:08:26 EDT
Subject: Oil for '74 2000
Trev,
I rebuilt my 2000 GTV engine a couple of years ago and broke it in on 20-50
Castrol petroleum oil. After a few thousand miles I switched to 15-50 Mobil 1
synthetic. You still need to change the filter just as often as you would with
petro oil (3000 miles). I've been happy with it, and I notice at time trials
that a number of people are putting the Mobil 1 in their older Alfas. I'm sure
there are other equally good synthetics too. Does it really reduce engine wear
over the long term? I don't know yet. As to the climate, I live in central
California, where it also doesn't get below 40F very often.
Tim
------------------------------- --------------------------
------------------------------
From: [email protected] (Simon Favre )
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 22:32:29 -0700
Subject: Re: Oils
Trevor Allen scribbled:
>This may sound like a stupid question, but what exactly do we mean
>by "older" and "newer" engines?? Are we talking about how many
>miles the engine has done or age in terms of design/manufacture??
>I think we're talking about the latter but i'm not certain.
I was mostly talking about well aged, or high mileage motors. There
may also be an issue of materials. Some modern engines are broken in
on synth oils and run fine forever on them. You said you put about 5K
KM on a freshly rebuilt 2L. I would tend to go 5-6K MILES. That's about
the point I'd switch to synthetic if I was going to. 5K miles will
pretty well break in the motor.
Some people have concerns about breaking in an old design motor with
synth oils. The 5K petro, then synth thereafter should do quite well.
If there is anything in the motor that needs breaking in on petro, 5K
miles should do it.
I ran AMS oil in my 62 Spider for a while. It leaked like a stuck pig.
I was throwing money away. I went back to dino juice. I later fixed
some of the leaks, but it still has a well oiled spot underneath. ;=)
------------------------------------------------------------
-From: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 20:05:58 -0500
Subject: Oil Filters and the B.A.T. cars
For those of you still looking for a smaller oil filter to replace the Fram
PH-7, go to your friendly Toyota dealer (I know, rice burners again!) and ask
for the 08922-02004 filter for a '92 Cressida (and other models to be sure).
It is a high tech 3" OD x 3 1/2 " long item that is far better than Fram
ever thought to make, and fits the PH-7 mount exactly. Hope this helps!
------------------------------
From: Trevor Allen <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 12:29:00 GMT+1100
Subject: oil pressure
Bob asked a question about abnormally high oil pressure readings during
warmup. My '74 GTV is the same, the gauge shows 110 when cold and takes some
time to drop back to 55, and never goes much below that. The engine has just
been rebuilt and showed the same characteristic before the rebuild, only now
the readings are about 5-10 higher than before. I've been told that the
gauge
readings on these car differ a lot (my brothers 74 GTV showed much lower
readings cold or hot), you just have to know what is normal for your car. So
I guess the only way to know is to have a calibrated pressure gauge hooked up
to the system just to be sure it's ok.
On another topic, regarding the shape of the alfa's that originated in the
60's, I certainly wasn't around then, but as far as I'm concerned the shape
is
timeless.
Trevor
green 2000 GTV
From: [email protected] (jim hayes)
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 11:23:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Rear main seal/ alfa-digest V2 #129
> From: richard welty <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 18:53:33 -0500
> Subject: Re: rear main seal replacement
>
> *The long rubber plugs are commonly called "cigarette seals" and these
> *seal the sides of the rear main cap. They are notorious for causing
> *major leakage. These can be replaced with the motor in the car, as long
> *as you can get the sump off.
>
> i'm going through my backlog, and i ran across this posting. i'd kind
> of like to hear about cigarette seal replacement; i'm not at all clear
> on how to do this procedure.
>
The rear seal needs to be installed after all the main caps are bolted in
and the crank checked for free spinning (no binding). There is a special A-R
tool that bolts to the rear sump studs that acts as a "funnel" and has a
plunger to allow full insertion. I doubt you could properly install these
seals without that tool or one similar, as considerable force is needed for
full insertion. I have sometimes inserted a small amount of gasket sealer
(~1/2 cc) before inserting the seal and with sufficient pounding with a
rubber mallet, some of the sealant will work its way up the sides and seal
fully.
Bigger problem: getting the little suckers out if you don't remove the cap.
I have reverted to a very thin awl and inserted it as far as possible at an
angle and then pulled hard.
Jim
------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 00:05:19 +1000
Subject: Re: alfa-digest V2 #135
>From: Trevor Allen <[email protected]>
>Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 13:00:23 GMT+1100
>Subject: 1750 vs. 2000
>
>Why is it that 1750's seem to be more 'revvy' than 2000's?? Sure,
>long stroke engines tend to be more 'torquier' and less willing to rev,
>but the 1750 and 2000 have the same stroke yes? So what is it, higher
>piston mass in the 2000? What other differences are there between the
>two engines, cams? flywheel mass?
>
I think the cams play a big part, as they also help the torque of the
engine. But if you have the older 10548 cams in your GTV, then you have no
complaints comapred to a 2L Alfetta driver.
- --
Nathan Wong Team Quadrifoglio
6th Outright/6th Handicap
[email protected] 1995 AROCA 6 Hour Relay Race
http://www.nectar.com.au/~alfacors
------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 07:56:35 +0000
Subject: Re: "Revviness" in 2L vs 1750 engines
TREVOR RAISED THE QUESTION OF "REVVINESS"
>From: Trevor Allen <[email protected]>
>Subject: 1750 vs. 2000
>Why is it that 1750's seem to be more 'revvy' than 2000's?? Sure,
>long stroke engines tend to be more 'torquier' and less willing to rev,
>but the 1750 and 2000 have the same stroke yes? So what is it, higher
>piston mass in the 2000? What other differences are there between the
>two engines, cams? flywheel mass?
Trevor:
I have played with both 1750 and 2000 engines, and believe that
"reviness" is a pretty subjective thing. All else being equal -
cams, flywheel mass, distributor advance curve - I contend that these
two engines (which differ only in their bore diameters) are equally
"revvy". The cams + cam timing supplied with DOT-compliant US 2
liters provide less overlap than US 1750's (67 degrees versus 49
degrees). I believe that this accounts for our perception that
1750's are inherently more "revvy".
I have had pretty good success in making a 2 liter more "revvy" by
replacing their original 10520 03200 00 cams with plain, old, US 1750
cams - 10502 03200 01. Note that these same cams were also used in
carbureted 1300 and 1600 105 engines. My data source is the cam
matrix at the back of the Alfa Ricambi - Shankle catalog.
If you REALLY want to get "revvy", lightened flywheels, higher overlap
cams (the euro 1750/2000 - 10548 03200 01- is the stuff of legend here
in the States), and faster distributors will have a big effect without breaking
the bank. Of course, if the bank is no problem, head porting, headers, ......
will take you even further along the path to" reviness".
Didn't Simon and Garfunkle sing "...looking for fun and feeling
revvy"?
Jay Mackro
------------------------------
From: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 00:18:52 -0500
Subject: 1750, 2000 again
There have been a few recent posts on the source of the perceived differences
between the 1750 and 2000 engines (- both very nominal values- there is a lot
less than 250 cc difference.) The premise is that nothing was changed except
the bore.
One factor which I think has not been mentioned- and I am writing strictly
from memory now- is the offset wrist-pin which I believe was introduced with
the 2000. This could have been for reasons of lateral load and wear, but I
believe it is generally understood to be doing subtle things to the
transmission of energy from the piston-head to the crankpin. When the piston
and crankpin are both at TDC the offset wristpin is already applying a
lateral load to the crankpin, pooshing it on its way. Noodle that one around
a bit. I have heard of them being deliberately put in the other way around;
you lose in one place to gain in another.
Another thing which may be worth considering is the fun and games which can
be played with the independent vernier adjustment of the two camshafts. Each
can be advanced or retarded with respect to either the other or the
crankshaft. I am fairly sure that I have seen charts of superimposed
different power curves of different models where the same cams, carbs, bores
and strokes were diddled to gain a bit in one place while losing a bit in
another, to gain different driving characteristics for different cars.
Most of the contrasts that I have read or heard have been similar in
interesting ways; the 2000 is praised in relatively objective quantitative
terms, and the 1750 is praised in relatively subjective qualitative terms.
This one has measurably, as well as perceptibly, more pound-feet (or
kilogram-meters) of torque right here, while that one is 'sweeter'. This
pleases the engineer, that resonates with the poet. People who would relate
Italian engine-building to Italian art, and who can wax ecstatic on the
Italian driver's intimate connection to driving as a sensual experience over
the road, rather than just a macho experience in a one-on-one drag, may be
able to relate to that.
John
From: Trevor Allen <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 13:23:25 GMT+1100
Subject: 1750 vs. 2000
Thanks to those who responded to the question about the difference in
"reviness"
between the alfa 1750's and 2000's. Here were the suggested reasons why:
1) Emmission restrictions on the 2000
2) Camshaft differences
3) Ignition curve differences
4) Offset wrist-pin in the 2000
I think we can rule out 1) because the early 2000 cars here in oz (105
series) have
the same restrictions as the 1750 (ie. virtually none), yet the differences
in
'revviness' remain.
Possibility 4) is an interesting one. It was mentioned by a few people, but
it
isn't clear why this difference might affect a car's 'revvability'. The
offset
wrist-pin is not uncommom in engines is it? Don't the Alfasuds have offset
wrist-pins? Those are hardly non-revvy engines.
It seems the main reason could well be 2), since there is a real difference
in cam
timing between the 2000 and 1750. 3) might also play a role.
One differences not mentioned on the list was the higher piston mass in the
2000, a
possible contributor? Who knows......
Trevor
2000 GTV
------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 96 09:00:45 EST
Subject: 2 liter starters
>The new geared Alfa starter is a direct replacement for the old 2.0 liter unit
>(9 teeth on the starter) . . . and it only weighs 8 lbs. Downside . . . it
>sounds like a Chrysler. I traded an early starter to a purist because he
>>didn't
>think the new one sounded like an Alfa.
>
>- -Jim
>AutoComponenti
you are absolutely right, provided you are substituting the new, smaller
starter for the one used from 1975-1981. 2 liter alfas from 1975 on use
a 131 tooth flywheel ring gear. 1972-74 cars have a 130 tooth flywheel,
and a very different starter, whose drive gear placement is about .050"
outboard of the newer starter. a 1975 on starter will work in a 72-74 car
only so long as it takes for it to chew the teeth off of the flywheel.
yes, you can install the 131 tooth ring gear on the earlier flywheel,
but why? rather just have a local rebuilder make the original unit fit for
service, and don't get worked up about the weight.
cheers
alfadoc
iap tech
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected] (Steve Milstein)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 17:34:08 -0400
Subject: How to remove bolts from engine blocks
This is in reply to Chris Weyr,
> the poor soul whose AC mounting bolt sheared off, leaving the
> remainder of the bolt in the engine block. Two days ago, I started
> working on this problem. I took out the radiator, and all the hoses
> that were in the way. Center punched the bolt, and started drilling,
> or rather attempting to drill. This thing is so hard, that I can't put
> a hole through it!!! And of course, pushing like a maniac on a right
> angle drill made me slip and I am now off center on the bolt. HELP!
> What can I do?
A few years ago I encountered this problem frequently on Army HMMWV's which
had been designed with 40-amp alternators and were later retrofitted with 60
and 100 amp alternators when equipped with radio sets. These regularly
broke off their mounting bolts until a modified alternator bracket came out
in 1994. What my machinist would do is this:
1. Drill into the bolt with a hand drill. He used a regular 3/8" chuck
electric hand drill. Important is that you use a titanium bit. The
high-speed steel bits that most people have around the house are fine for
drilling into sheetmetal or wood, but not for drilling into #5 bolts or
harder. You _must_ have a titanium bit, the more expensive the better.
2. It is best to first make a starting point with a prick punch, then drill
a pilot hole with a narrow bit, then drill a wider one. The final size of
the hole in your bolt should be determined by the diameter of the bolt
removal tool. This is known as an "Easy-Out" although they are just one
brand. In drilling the hole, easy does it, and it does not have to be
perfectly straight, but you do want to avoid hitting the threads in the
engine block. Don't push on the bit. Let the bit chew its way through the
metal, and pull it out frequently to blow out shavings. Run the bit slowly,
using a variable speed drill. You can use a cutting oil, but I don't think
it is necessary. Drill as deep as you can with the bit, you want to get as
much of the easy-out into the bolt as possible.
3. Basically, an easy out is an tapering auger with a counter-clockwise
twist. You thread this into the hole in the bolt, if you have the
auger-type, or tap it in with a hammer if you have the type that is a
tapered square prism with sharp edges on the counter-clockwise edges (think
of the Washington Monument, about 2" long and pushed into a hole in a bolt
to be twisted counterclockwise).
4. After getting the easy-out into the bolt, snugly, remove the broken bolt
by twisting on the easy-out. They usually have square heads and can be
turned with a taphandle or a square socket on a 1/2" drive breaker bar. You
shouldn't have to exert more torque than you normally would removing a bolt.
You can use WD-40 or some other kerosene-type lubricant too.
5. One trick: if you're using WD-40, turn it out 1/2 rotation then back in
1/4 rotation. Relubricate, then repeat. This gets the lubricant spread
around all the threads, rather than trying to just twist it out in one long
dry twist. If there is a lot of corrosion, try this and take your time, it
takes a while for the lubricant to penetrate.
6. Another trick: if it still won't turn, and there doesn't seem to be
much corrosion, try cooling the block and the bolt with dry ice or liquid
nitrogen. Just tape the dry ice in place over the bolt and hole and leave
it until it disappears or drip nitrogen on the area, then you should be able
to get it out. Metal shrinks when cold and this ought to contract the
threads on the bolt and hole enough to let you turn it out.
7. If this doesn't work, take it to a machinist. They will get it out, but
you won't want to watch.
8. Re-tap the holes before putting your next bolt in and be careful about
the hardness of the replacement bolt. You can damage engine blocks by using
the wrong type. If you still have the old bolt-head, there should be a
marking on it, a square and some numbers.
>
> Next thing: since I had everything out of the way, I decided to
> install my mechanical belt tensioner. I tapped the hole to put a plug
> in. By the way: a tip for anybody who wants to do this: Alfa says to
> drill out the hole to 1/4" and then up to 17/64" and then tap at a
> certain size (I forget which), but I hated the idea of drilling in the
> engine block, so I did some research, and it turns out that there is
> an unusual metric tap that can be used directly without any drilling:
> it's an M7x1.00. Oddly, the taps are easy to come by, but bolts are
> another matter. Set screws apparently do not exist (at least in my
> neck of the woods), so I sawed off a regular bolt, and slit the head
> to use a screwdriver on it. This has worked GREAT! BUT the next step
> was to remove the oil-feed stud, and the sucker will NOT come off I
> have hit it as mentioned in the instructions, and it will not come
> loose. Any suggestions? PLEEEEZE!
1. Since you have the intact fastener here, try slathering it with WD-40 or
some other lubricant. I use a brand known as "Blaster" that I think is a
little better. Let the lubricant penetrate. Then do the out-and-in a few
times to lube it up and gradually remove it.
2. Use a breaker bar to apply more torque. When doing this, definitely use
the exact size socket, and use a six-point socket, not a 12 point socket.
If that doesn't work, try using an impact driver, which you hit with a
hammer and applies impact torque to fasteners. If you strip it, use an
easy-out.
3. As a practice, whenever I put any bolts into an engine block, or spark
plugs, I use anti-seize lubricant, to avoid problems. Don't blame yourself
for what the last guy didn't do, though.
4. You may hear suggestions to use heat to remove stuck fasteners. I think
that is OK if you are dealing with real corroded fasteners, like plugs in
exhaust manifold or suspension bolts, but I wouldn't do it to an aluminum
engine block. I don't know this for sure, but I have an idea that if you
heat the block assymetrically, it can warp. Maybe someone can correct me on
this.
I am not a machinist myself, but I have watched some who worked for me.
By the way, today I received a new ANSA tail-pipe for my 73 Spider Veloce
from Centerline Alfa. They told me that is was the first they had had in
for 6 months, that the ANSA company was taken over in Italy and they forgot
to produce for the US, but that they have due-in mufflers now and are ready
to take orders.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Killick <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 15:11:26 +0800
Subject: Timing chain stuff
Mark asks:
>How common is it for a lower chain to skip teeth?
>How much warning do you get? (how bad should you let the noises get!)
>Are there any tests for lower chain condition? (relative movement of
crank vs cams??)
I changed the lower chain when I rebuilt my 1750 motor a few years ago.
Cilebertis were surprised at this, saying they hardly wore and never broke.
Make of that what you will. The two sprockets are such a snug fit that
feeding them into the loop is like some manipulation puzzle. Get it exactly
right and no problemo, otherwise it can take 1/2 hour.
>I'm intending to recondition the bottom end of the motor sometime in the
next year, but how much of a hurry should I be in to do something about it?
Hmm. I don't know what they mean by spun chain. It really should be
impossible to wear out such a short chain in such an oil-rich environment,
let alone wear the teeth off the sprockets. Even the top chain is pretty
reliable, even when shagged. Have you pulled the cam cover to check the top
chain tension? Sometimes the tensioners fail to work resulting in excess
slack and chain-to-timing case contact, hence rude noises. You will need to
lever the chain to pull all of the slack into the top run before you can
assess it.
You could try using a torch and maybe a piece of mirror to see the condition
of the bottom end. Chains are very reliable, but don't send me the bill if
you don't replace it and it goes bang 8).
Cheers
Mat
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Matthew Killick | email: [email protected] |
| Research Scientist, Sedimentology | fax: +61 9 383 9179 |
| CSIRO Exploration and Mining | phone: +61 9 387 0744 |
| Private Bag, P.O. Wembley | a/h: +61 9 382 1307 |
| WA 6014 Australia | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Steck <[email protected]>
Date: 12 Apr 96 23:54:16 EDT
Subject: timing chain rattles
>How common is it for a lower chain to skip teeth?
Very uncommon . . . however, some of the newer spiders have been know to break
the crank sprocket . . . causing the same damage
>How much warning do you get? (how bad should you let the noises get!)
>Are there any tests for lower chain condition? (relative movement of
>crank vs cams??)
Remove the cam cover and take a look at the lower chain. If you use a focused
light (like a MagLite) you can easily see the lower chain from above. Rock the
engine back and forth . . . if you don't like what you see . . . it's time to
fix it.
Once it happens, much of the engine may need replaced . . . all the valves and
guides, maybe the head, all the pistons and maybe the rods. It depends on the
engine speed.
Are you sure you're hearing the lower chain . . . there is nothing close enough
for it to hit. The upper chain, when loose, will slap against the head or
timing cover. The other noise you might hear could be caused by a loose lower
chain allowing the cam timing to jump around . . . slamming the valves closed.
A badly worn tappet or cam lobe or broken valve spring will also cause extra
valve train noise.
- -Jim Steck
------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ken Geiger <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 12:47:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Alfa 105/115 timing gear failure
While doing some lightening work on some Alfa 105/115 timing gears I came
across a gear, the larger of the two on the intermediate shaft, that was
split at its hub near the key way. The location made the failure fairly
well hidden between the two gears. This gear was one of the cast iron types
that I have found on some 1750 and 2l engines. It is marked with a raised
casting mark identifying the foundry. Other large gears do not have these
casting marks, and while likely a casting, may well be of cast steel. I may
do some metallography to get a possitive ID.
In any case this is one area of inspection that I will be doing more
carefully in the future whether the engine is race or a more stock
application.
Yours in Alfas
Ken Geiger
Toronto
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected] (Dean Andrew Frye)
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 96 10:17:55 +1100
Subject: Motor Advice
Hi all,
I have just bought (1 month ago) a nice '72 coupe 2L which hadn't been
serviced for a long time. When I got hold of it, I changed the oil, put
a new rotor on it (to cure a hesitation at high revs) and set out on a
2500km trip interstate. The car went well but a faint rattle is apparent.
I have pulled of the cam cover and the timing chain has been rubbing on
the underside. I loosened the tensioner bolt but didn't want to turn the
engine over with the bolt undone, but then unless the chain does a loop,
surely you are only tensioning one section of the loop. Anyway, the noise
is still there (perhaps the bottom chain - how do I check this?) - have
I followed the correct procedure?
Also, I have heard other people talking about water coming in from under the
dash on the passenger side (ie on to the passengers feet) in 105's. Before
I start pulling things apart - is likely to be a 'common' problem that
is easy to fix.
Sorry if these questions have been done before but I have been off the list
for months.
Cheers,
Dean Frye
------------------------------------------------------------
>2. Looking through my AROC of may 88 (?) I saw Gary Valant's
>twin-spark conversion atop a 2l. Seems like a lot of work .. no hard
>data reported. Anyone done or heard of a similar swap?
It's really pretty simple, but a lot of parts are required. In addition to a
complete head (almost nothing interchanges), you need manifolds and pistons
(because the angle between the valves is narrower). The cylinder spacing and
head stud spacing is the same but the standard studs are a little too short.
Gary's (and John Norman's) solution is to counterbore the head, and use nuts
that looks like a shouldered mag wheel nuts. BTW, John 'found' an extra 25
horsepower . . . primarily from the improved port shape.
The twin-spark had an additional cam-driven distributor on the head. Instead of
using that, Gary elected to make a twin-plug distributor with readily available
parts. Another solution would be to use a twin-plug ignition package from
Electromotive and throw away the distributor.
When Steve Schwitters did that (replaced the distributor with a direct-fire
ignition) at the runoffs a couple years ago, the tech inspectors informed him
that it was illegal to run his car without a distributor. They agreed that it
didn't have to work; the direct-fire ignition was legal; but the rules didn't
allow him to remove to factory-supplied distributor . . . so he taped one to his
rollbar and ran the race that way.
>3. in the same issue they were talking about a "rumor" of a 16v
>head. Did this ever happen?
Yes, unfortunately it never made it into production. There was even an
experimental 20-valve head!
- -Jim Steck
AutoComponenti
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: "PWEBB" <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 96 12:01:54 CST
Subject: Alfa Twin Spark Heads
I am currenly in the process of putting a Twin Spark in my Duetto.
You are correct in that there are alot of problems and fabrication
associated with this conversion. Here are just a few:
1) The engine is too tall to fit in a spider. Gary Valant fitted one
into his GTV, though I believe there were both 105 and 115 GTV
models. If my assumtion of the unit-body chassis being the same on
all 105 cars is correct, you may encounter this in older 105.51's.
I am modifying a fibergalss hood from Alfa Ricambi with a small
bump to accomodate this problem
2) You should not use the "countersunk" head bolt method. It does
weaken the head and once you bore the stud holes, you leave a
nasty opening at the cam cover that needs to be filled.
Its best to use the stock block for this and a variety of other
reasons.
3) The manifold surfaces are almost verticle on the TS head.
Therefore you need to make intake and headers to fit this.
4) Though the surfaces are verticle, the ports are not. To obtain
optimun flow you need to angle the manifold to the ports. With
this, you run into clearance problems in a stock engine
compartment.
5) Piston/valve clearance becomes an issue. Valant has his own flavor
of Nissan V6 derived valves he is using and has a Venolia piston
that mates the clearances. The power this generates will be seen
when I dyno this bad-boy in a few weeks.
6) Number 5 considered, this brings me the the largest obstacle:price.
None of the parts listed, plus the machine work, plus the cam work
are cheap. Valant opted for a custom grind on stock cams. All
told, this is a $15000 proposition at least. If you are doing the
work yourself, all the above listed parts and sub-con machine work
will come to a whopping $8900. Not including the core engine to
start with. This is also not considering other optimum performance
increases such as titanium valves and keepers etc...
Here are Valants specs for my engine. Dyno stats to be published
later.
Cams:
Stock cam with custom grid and advance mechanism welded fixed.
Intake: 13.19 mm (.480) lift, 270' duration.
Exhaust: 12.78 mm (.465) lift, 264' duration.
Valves:
Custom made by Manley, derived from Nissan 6 cyl.
Standard tulip shaped.
Intake: 46 mm.
Exhaust: 40 mm
Pistons/Liners:
Custom made forged piston by Venolia for Valant.
Speced with above valves. .020 over. 12:1 compression.
Head:
Stock Twin Spark with ports opened. Has not been flowed so
the advantage is not known. Countersunk head nut openings.
(bad idea !!)
Block:
Standard 2.0 block cross drilled for oiling. Bored for .020
piston enlargement. Conservative overbore for street use and
longevity.
Ignition:
Modified Marelli-plex with adapter to fit Nissan distributor
cap and 2-tier rotor. Uses two modules fired from a single
pickup. Fixed advance curve. Fitted with rev-limiter for
obvious reasons.
(should use the correct block with Alfa "crankfire" MSD system
stock for those cars)
Fuel Delivery:
Weber 45DCOE with stock Venturi and custom Valant jetting. This
will be optimized on the Dyno.
Exhaust:
Valant custom-made 1-5/8" header. Diameter to mate to 45DCOE.
Could go with 48DCOE (or 50) and use with 1-3/4" header, but not
for street use.
Other:
Aluminum flywheel (about 7.5lb), custom front pulley to slow
water pump and alternator, stock clutch-pack, sump "scraper" to
reduce oil splash. On Valants twin-spark, he pulls the water
directly from the head. On mine, he has plumbed it from the
opening at the rear of the head. Electric fan (of course).
I assume from the engineering involved from the TS head, that there
are two advantages derived where you might "find" horsepower.
One is that the already larger ports that can be further enlarged, but
according to Mike Sperry, VERY judiciously.
The other that the spark plugs are offset from the dome of the
hemispherial head and allows for larger valves. (a-la GTA).
Some seasoned Alfisti have commented this conversion not really worth
the price. By Mike Sperry's reputation, you can generate a hair less
power for alot less cost from his engines. A worthwhile proposition
if you are considering a street car. Mike has been a good source of
advise and a terrific sounding board for my frustrations with this
project.
Your asking yourself, "why is this guy still doing this". I can't get
my money back and I'm too far in to quit now. The only way to get any
value is to finish the project and make adjustments for short-comings
at the dyno test.
BTW: This project started 7/25/95 and the engine is still not
running.
I live in the Dallas area and have selected Clem Performance Engines
to do the dyno. They do sprint cars and formula Fords and have alot
of 4 cyl experience. They come recomended by Southwest Motor Sports
for whom they have done some Alfa work.
Can anyone else endorse them or recommend another shop in the area to
dyno this economically (I'm just about broke from giving all my money
to Valant).
-Peter
------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dana Loomis <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 10:55:16 EDT
Subject: Re: Octane levels
Mark, there is no need to worry about using these "new" unleaded fuels in
your 74 GTV. We asked the same questions a good 15 years ago here in the
USA, but our cars are running fine, and I know of no confirmed case where
the reformulated fuels have had detrimental effects on performance or
longevity. The valves, head, etc, in European-spec 105 Alfas are the same
as in the US-market cars which were were as sutable for either leaded or
unleaded fuel and should not have any problem. These Alfa motors don't have
particularly high compression in stock configuration, so the octane rating
is usually not an issue. My GTV runs quite happily on the lowest octane
unleaded fuel available in the US (87 by the(RON+MON)/2 method that is used
here).
The only significant problem we have here is the limited octane range
available: the highest is 93 octane "Premium" (again by the (RON+MON)/2
method, I think about 98 RON), which is enough for most stock motors built
after 1980, but not good enough for some older, higher-compression motors or
modified ones. The only other grades available are 87 and 89 (RON+MON)/2,
"Regular" and "Regular-Plus," which aren't quite adequate for some motors.
For example, I have to use US Premium fuel in my Alfa 75 3.0, which in
Europe ran fine on what is sold there as unleaded regular; it has a RON
rating of 95 and higher benzene content that the American stuff. The
equivalent octane rating by the US would be 91, but it's not available.
Luckily, fuel prices here are so low compared to most other places that the
extra cost of "Premium" fuel doent' matter much.
Cheers -- Dana Loomis
Durham NC USA
------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected] (Rasor Associates )
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 10:55:48 -0800
Subject: Reply to Orsini & Livesay
Bruno Orsini asked about lead additives and an erratic gas gauge needle
Lead additive is not a requirement for the Alfa 2L motor. I have built
at least 10 engines that have been running on unleaded premium gas for
over 5 years with no problems. My personal 72 GTV has 120,000 miles on
it now.
A recent inspection of the valves has shown no problems with the gas I
have been using (any premium I can find). This engine produces 130 HP
at the rear wheels. A recent inspection of the FI (Ingram HP system)
has also shown no significant degrading with the use of unleaded fuel.
I wouldn_t waste my money on the additive.
From: Jim Steck <[email protected]>
Date: 25 Mar 96 23:07:26 EST
Subject: VVT, twin spark heads
>1. I asked earlier about the VVT setups. Thanks to those who told me
>when they were avail. in US. What about performance? how does
>a VVT torque curve compare to a "fixed" 2000 setup? Anyone? Jim?
The VVT (electronic version) initial cam timing favors low end torque, and then
when speed increases, it retards the timing to something more favorable to high
speed running. The switch is done at the crossover point. That is . . . if you
tested the engine at both timings (fixed) and overlayed the torque curves, there
would be an RPM where the two curves cross. This is the theoretical speed where
the VVT changes the timing. I don't know how much of an advantage Alfa gets from this . . . maybe someone with one of the new cars can test this the next time the club has a 'dyno' day. Anyone from Oregon listening?
From: Jim Steck <[email protected]>
Date: 26 Feb 96 12:52:43 EST
Subject: water in the oil
Franklin Sewell wrote:
>>I have owned my '88 Spider Veloce for about 6 months and have always had a >steady oil leak through the head gasket, however the dipstick had always been clean >and there was no apparent mixing of oil into the coolant. A few weeks ago my car >began to seriously overheat. When I checked the dipstick, I found a malty or milky >white substance on the bottom of the dipstick and assumed that the head gasket had >allowed coolant into the oil. > My mechanic, an Alfa specialist, agreed with my assumption and replaced the head >gasket. This however did not cure the overheating problem and we learned that the >water pump was bad, so this was also replaced and I had my radiator boiled. > My car has been running fine for a few days now, but today when I checked the >oil level, I found that the malty substance is still on my dipstick. >Any insights into the cause of my problem would be greatly appreciated. It's possible for changes in the weather to cause some condensation in the engine. If the weather suddenly got warm and humid you might get enough to mix with the oil and cause the 'malt'. Do you drive the car long enough that the oil gets fully warmed (so the condensation will evaporate) . . . or just take short trips? One of my friends had a 302 Ford with a 165 degree thermostat (it never warmed up) that actually developed rust on the inside of the oil filler cap. Assuming that's not the problem, the only other paths for water to leak into the oil are cracks in one of the castings (block or head), the gasket between the block and timing cover (water passage from the pump) or the seals at the base of the liners (much more likely). A leak test to find problems in the block would go something like this:
1) Drain the oil (completely) and leave the plug out. Make sure the drain is the lowest point. Use jack stands if necessary.
2) Put a clean pan under the drain.
3) Disconnect the radiator and heater hoses.
4) Seal all coolant passages from the engine
put short lengths of hose on with plugs in the end.
5) Fill the lower part of the engine with water
Do not fill up to the head gasket, just around the liners! If the new
head
gasket leaks you'll fill the cylinders.
6) Pressurize the engine with 70 psi air pressure
7) Watch for water leaking out of the oil drain (1 hour or more)
Don't cheat on the air pressure or test period (a longer period would be better)
. . . the leak may be small, and you'll need to collect a significant amount of
water in the pan before it will run out.
Good Luck!
- -Jim
-----------------------------