Even though cv's allow steep angles, that doesn't mean you should, conservative driveline angles are always better and more efficient.
True, but since I'm not horsepower limited, I may have better times on the Steam CEVS EVOC Monaco challenge by having the motor a few inches lower, even though it results in less efficient driveline angle.
That doesn't do me any good though, if the CV wears out before I can complete the course. I'm thinking "low enough to get the intake to fit with a few inches to spare", and not "as low as possible while maintaining oil pan clearance to road".
Moving the motor forward wouldn't be good for handling. But if it allowed me to keep the stock trans tunnel, and stock cop rubber flooring, it might be worth it. And it might even uncomplicate the engine compartment (more room for headers between the rear of the heads and the firewall / master cylinder).
It will be interesting to see, given that I can lower the motor significantly, how far forward it would need to go in order to keep the stock trans tunnel (or at least sufficiently stock that the cop rubber flooring kept the same profile).
Just doing some internet searching and found these pics of motors with the crank pulley mounted behind and lower than the steering rack. I was originally thinking of something like this for Marin County. But maybe I can get the crank pulley over the steering rack, and still get everything to clear the hood, and get the motor forward enough that the trans doesn't require a transmission tunnel much larger than stock.
Lifter company got the lifters and said they were stuck, and found the cause: a contaminant they think could be the black coating they apply to the lifter cup. Their tolerance is 0.0005 (and the reason why they make more power because they bleed off less than other lifters -other companies use a tolerance of 0.002 and they bleed off the oil much faster). They cleaned the lifters and cycled them in a machine.
They said the oil Muscle Motors was using was thicker that they thought it would be and may have contributed to the issue. They asked for oil sample and it was good and clean.
MM partially disassembled the engine and checked the bearings (they are good and don't look like anything went through them). They checked the in-line filter for the dry sump pump and found aluminum debris in the filter. This wasn't the same type of debris found in the lifter. The dry sump pump had a clearance problem on the ends of the shafts, and the filter caught the debris and didn't send it to the motor. MM sent the dry sump pump back to the manufacturer, and waiting for it back.
I'm pleased with the updates I'm getting from Scott, the Muscle Motor guy I spent time with on the dyno. I wish I'd asked for his e-mail earlier.
Sound like progress! It also sounds like Muscle Motors is working on trying to get it all working. I can't help but wonder if the oil pump was calibrated for a thinner oil as well? Much like the lifters, if the pump were designed for a lighter oil it would seem the tolerances would be tighter. Then when a thick oil is introduced it may cause a clearance issue on the ends of the impellers.
At least they figured all of this out n the dyno.
Is Muscle Motors the same place you sent me on the "monaco madness scavenger hunt" a couple years ago? That was a long day.....
I can't help but wonder if the oil pump was calibrated for a thinner oil as well? Much like the lifters, if the pump were designed for a lighter oil it would seem the tolerances would be tighter. Then when a thick oil is introduced it may cause a clearance issue on the ends of the impellers.
Good point. I'll ask them about it, probably when I go up for "dyno test, round 2".