After posting 2 pics had to wait 5 hours before next post, rules for newbies!
Steering rack is a pretty straight line all the way across to the steering arm however the ends drop about 3/4 of an inch from rack to arm.
If the rack were to be lowered and moved forward on its existing angle, probably about 2.5 inches the whole rack to steering arm would be more or less horizontal
Have taken more photos if needed but may be my last post
Moving the rack minimally affects Ackerman: that is largely a function of the steering knuckles.
To attain proper bump steer, the angle of the tie rods should be equal to the angle of the lower control arms, at mid-laden ride height.
Hard to tell precisely, but that appears to be roughly in proper alignment for minimal bump steer
When rack is moved forward and down then steering arm where joining the rack will move slightly forward and slightly down, levelling it out.
You could use a Heim joint on the outer tie rod end, and use a spacer to move it downwards, to more closely approximate the angularity, wrt the A arm.
Don’t think we can use heim joints for steering components here in Oz.
Then, things get stickier: you’ll need different knuckles, and/or flame bend the steering arms to correct the angularity.
Before anyone howls, forgings can be safely flame-bent.
Think I need to check out availability of the shorter jag 2.4 and 240 engines.
In Orstraalia, you may find some. Properly built, I’ve heard 2.4s are good right up to 7500!
Cheers Paul.
Peter, are you able to post a pic of the pan, this will by my ‘last resort’ option.
Here’s an overall pic.
From the base of the block to the base of the 1”-wide central scavenge gutter is 6.75” compared to 7.75” on an E sump. It is angled up on each side and therefore tilting the engine is helpful, although the pump being on the left side means it becomes the low point.
The front section you were asking about is a hair over 5” compared to 6.25” on E and XJ sumps.
The external pipework visible is not bolted up yet and is more obvious on this engine than the neater standard dry sump pipework I have as spares. This is because I am using an alloy D cooler plumbed into the scavenge return rather than a modern higher- pressure rated cooler in the feed line. The D would survive normal use but I could imagine someone revving it high with cold thick oil and maybe bursting a seam.
So Peter, the oil pump is mounted on the left side of the block (the side we can’t see in the photo), and driven by a shaft that runs transverse across the front of the engine, is that correct, or is the pimp not yet mounted?
I may not stop laughing till June.
Beyond informing, I seek to entertain. Autocorrect fills in the gaps.
Yes the three stage Pace is bolted to a machined platform on the left side of the sump and driven by a toothed belt from the crank pulley. Neither are fitted to the engine yet. Belt tension is adjusted by shumming the pimp…
Some really good photos of a dry sump, here.
Same system as mine except for the standard RHD tank Brian Wilkinson supplied with his kits. I have that sump, pulleys, pipework and bracketry spare.
Just looked at the low drag, not as much of a saving on the sump size as I would have thought
