Milwaukee Midget

[lsrjunkie]

MM, I have a couple more questions. Is it bigger than a bread box?

Are the wet sleeves located by the cylinder head, or are the pressed into the block?

Based only on what I can surmise from your picture, I think going with a larger diameter bolt/stud would be ideal. I also think that machining a recess into the lower "girdle" for some type of washer and then using a nut to hold it all together would also be better than relying on the threads of the girdle itself. Although if you design a steel girdle of the same thickness that should allow for plenty of thread engagement.

I'm not a big fan of torque to yield hardware in any application. I have replaced many head gaskets in turbocharged diesel applications because of the tendency of the bolts to continue to stretch after being properly torqued. In those instances replacement of the bolts with an upgraded fastener, which is torqued to value x, seems to be the solution. That being said, you may not have the higher cylinder pressures that are typically seen in those applications.

I'm also curious if a few extra dowel pins between the head and deck, maybe around the existing bolt holes, would help keep everything from walking around under the extreme stresses that the little kettle will be surely put through.

[Crackerman]

Also, a very popular upgrade to hondahs is a darton sleeve. Stabilizes deck and cylinders and can handle incredible power, without the top of the cylinder splitting or burping pressure into the coolant due to the open deck design.

[Milwaukee Midget]

MM, I have a couple more questions. Is it bigger than a bread box?

Depends on your loaf.  

I just got off the phone with ARP.  They make a stud kit to replace the bolts. 

The stock bolts are 16 1/4 long, the studs are 16.5. 

Both ends of the ARP pieces are 9 mm threads, with a thread length of 1.25, so I've got some measuring up to do when the block gets back from C&S.  Threads are 1.0 pitch for the nuts, 1.25 for the ladder.  I know I said fine thread earlier, but again, this metric stuff is new to me, and on a 16 1/4 inch bolt, there's an optical illusion that makes things tough to gauge!  

ARP puts a torque spec for the kit at 50 ft/lbs, which is more than the A-series over a stretchier piece, threaded into a questionable casting.

I took a long lunch and dropped everything off with Mel this morning - he is unsure if what I'm seeing is a crack, but we'll have a definitive judgment after everything is properly cleaned up and checked.

[Rex Schimmer]

Chris,
Pitch the "oil ladder" in the bin and replace it with a one inch steel plate that covers the entire bottom of your motor. Have drain back galleys water jet cut in the plate to allow oil to flow to the pan, make the plate so that it bolts on to the block by all of the ladder studs and the pan bolts. Have the crank oil distribution line be external and fabbed  out of  proper AN fittings and stainless steel tubing and make the mating oil holes in the "plate" be proper O ring seals to the block. Have the plate surface ground so that it is flat and parallel within .0005 to .001 inches, have the tapped holes for the long tie bolts be threaded with a roll thread tap. Yes you will have to do a lot of measuring and make a fairly complex drawing but when you are done you have just made the bottom of the engine almost indestructible and no problem about oil leaks or aluminum threads pulling out.

Rex

[lsrjunkie]

Now that's the way to do it! I like the way you think Rex. 

[Milwaukee Midget]

Of course, there's always the nuclear option . . .

Chris,
Pitch the "oil ladder" in the bin and replace it with a one inch steel plate that covers the entire bottom of your motor. Have drain back galleys water jet cut in the plate to allow oil to flow to the pan, make the plate so that it bolts on to the block by all of the ladder studs and the pan bolts. Have the crank oil distribution line be external and fabbed  out of  proper AN fittings and stainless steel tubing and make the mating oil holes in the "plate" be proper O ring seals to the block. Have the plate surface ground so that it is flat and parallel within .0005 to .001 inches, have the tapped holes for the long tie bolts be threaded with a roll thread tap. Yes you will have to do a lot of measuring and make a fairly complex drawing but when you are done you have just made the bottom of the engine almost indestructible and no problem about oil leaks or aluminum threads pulling out.

Rex

I'll be honest - I like this idea.  It would almost demand a dry sump at that point, but given this engine's propensity for shifting parts and leaking head gaskets, a solid 1" thick steel substrate to build this engine on would provide welcome peace of mind - provided the rest of the engine didn't expand at a rate that the stability of the steel would create a new set of problems.   

[Dr Goggles]

Chris,
Pitch the "oil ladder" in the bin and replace it with a one inch steel plate that covers the entire bottom of your motor. Have drain back galleys water jet cut in the plate to allow oil to flow to the pan, make the plate so that it bolts on to the block by all of the ladder studs and the pan bolts. Have the crank oil distribution line be external and fabbed  out of  proper AN fittings and stainless steel tubing and make the mating oil holes in the "plate" be proper O ring seals to the block. Have the plate surface ground so that it is flat and parallel within .0005 to .001 inches, have the tapped holes for the long tie bolts be threaded with a roll thread tap. Yes you will have to do a lot of measuring and make a fairly complex drawing but when you are done you have just made the bottom of the engine almost indestructible and no problem about oil leaks or aluminum threads pulling out.

Rex

I think that's what I said, with a little more economy.......

love ya work Rex.

I think you should fabricate a custom alternator bracket.

I'd start with two pieces of quite heavy plate, maybe inch. Have one cnc'd to fit over the head and the other a snug fit to bear on the lower skirt and use it as the sump attachment, then I'd connect them with at least 14 high tensile bolts of maybe 58dia. Then you can hang the alt off it somewhere.........

[Milwaukee Midget]

Chris,
Pitch the "oil ladder" in the bin and replace it with a one inch steel plate that covers the entire bottom of your motor. Have drain back galleys water jet cut in the plate to allow oil to flow to the pan, make the plate so that it bolts on to the block by all of the ladder studs and the pan bolts. Have the crank oil distribution line be external and fabbed  out of  proper AN fittings and stainless steel tubing and make the mating oil holes in the "plate" be proper O ring seals to the block. Have the plate surface ground so that it is flat and parallel within .0005 to .001 inches, have the tapped holes for the long tie bolts be threaded with a roll thread tap. Yes you will have to do a lot of measuring and make a fairly complex drawing but when you are done you have just made the bottom of the engine almost indestructible and no problem about oil leaks or aluminum threads pulling out.

Rex

I think that's what I said, with a little more economy.......

love ya work Rex.

I think you should fabricate a custom alternator bracket.

I'd start with two pieces of quite heavy plate, maybe inch. Have one cnc'd to fit over the head and the other a snug fit to bear on the lower skirt and use it as the sump attachment, then I'd connect them with at least 14 high tensile bolts of maybe 58dia. Then you can hang the alt off it somewhere.........

Doc - we're building a sandwich, not a parfait . . .   

[Interested Observer]

Because I didn’t believe him when Chris said the bolts had 9mm threads, since 9mm is neither a preferred nor standard ISO metric thread, I went over to ARP and got a drawing of what they put in their K series kit.  Son of a gun, they’re 9 mm.
Whereas the standard connector is a headed bolt, ARP is using a stud with washer and nut on the top.  The stud is 16.6” OAL, with 1.03” of rolled threads on each end.  The bottom thread is MJ9x1.25 and the top MJ9x1.0.  The body is a uniform 0.333” (8.46mm) diameter.  The 9mm washer is 0.812” OD and the M9x1.0 twelve point nut is 0.375” high with 0.615” OD flange.  Stud material is their AISI 8740 steel which, per their catalog, has a yield strength of 180 ksi and ultimate of 200 ksi.
Put this all together with ARP’s stated 50 lb-ft make-up torque and an assumed 0.09 friction coefficient (which is reasonably realistic) and we produce a load of 11,900 pounds in the stud at 136,700 psi longitudinal stress, which is right at ARP’s recommended 75% of yield.

Before getting carried away with beefing up the oiling ladder it may be good to realize that it is really only a glorified nut plate which also feeds some oil to the bearings.  It is the girdle’s job to rigidify things.  The ladder is too narrow and too thin to add any inherent stiffness.  Why do we think all this reinforcement is needed?  More revs but shorter stroke--is it a problem?  If it were more displacement and a turbo maybe it would be a concern.  I’m with Fordboy--relax--until a potential problem is identified.

An interesting exercise might be to find a piece of aluminum of about the same hardness and thickness as the ladder, tap it to M8x1.25 or M10x1.25 (standard sizes), get a high grade bolt of that size with comparable engagement, crank it up and see what happens.  Might show that there’s nothing to worry about.

While at ARP, I asked about the possibility of longer studs, thinking studs are a lot simpler than a headed fastener.  As would be expected, they would want to quote to a given quantity, but for one or two sets, the impression I got was that it would be quite pricy.

The “flaw” in the ladder is most likely just a casting join-line where the material from each end came together, was somewhat cooled by the surface and was reluctant to meld completely.  Light grinding would probably show it to be only a surface discontinuity.

[Milwaukee Midget]

You know, I think I owe the good doctor an apology.

I gave your input short shrift because I couldn't quite wrap my head around it.  My bad.

You and Rex are on the same page.

If only this oiling ladder were as stiff and inflexible as my brain sometimes is.

James, I need to read and think a little deeper, I'm always grateful for your input, and I'm sorry I didn't pick up on your idea sooner.

Chris

[Milwaukee Midget]

Apparently, I have the uprated piece.  This from -

http://www.mgf.ultimatemg.com/group2/engines/development_history_of_the_k.htm

"Made of 356 alloy rather than LM25 as in the original, the new oil ladder's alloy material has marginally better mechanical properties when compared to the original's LM25 - although, arguably, the practical difference between the two is minimal. Perhaps more significant, is way the way that two ladders are designed. In the image above, the two ladders are pictured in the same orientation - what you see is effectively the same surfaces as you'd see if you removed the engine's sump and viewed the ladder in situ from below. As can be seen, the new ladder (top) is boxed over, whereas the older ladder (bottom) has its strengthening webbing with its face abutting the base of the crank bearing ladder. Moreover, consider the width of the diagonal webbing - it is significantly thicker than that seen on the original oil ladder. Therefore, it would appear to suggest that the new ladder is designed to be far stiffer than the original design. That the new oil ladder also weighs 20% more than the original (figure provided by Roger Parker) lends further weight (excuse the pun) to the argument that the new ladder is indeed designed with torsional stiffness in mind.

According to the Land Rover service bulletin that covers the new MLS gasket, the new oil rail MUST be fitted at the same time as the replacement gasket - so it seems likely that the EU IV compliant K-series, had the engine made it to this stage, would have come similarly configured. You'll notice mention of Land Rover. This is significant as these two components are now available to buy - so in the event of a head gasket failure on your K-series engined car, you can fit these components as a direct replacement to the existing items in your engine."

[Milwaukee Midget]

Continued information gathering and observation -

While I'm taking a shine to the idea of a steel plate across the bottom, it won't be as simple as drilling and tapping it for the oil pan.



Seems the pan is integral to the lower case design.  Additionally, it provides attachment points for the forthcoming adapter plate.



Likely could be worked around if that's the best direction, but again, expansion rates are my concern.

And, of course, I'm R-E-L-A-X-E-D, and not getting the cart before the horse . . .

[roygoodwin]

" ... expansion rates are my concern."  Think of all the aluminum cylinder heads mounted on top of cast iron blocks and doweled. 

[4-barrel Mike]

This is based on what Roush used in Trans-Am in the mid to late '80s with maybe 800 hp.  Looking (hoping) for ~1000 hp. 

No one has suggested a problem with different expansion rates, then or now.

Mike

[Milwaukee Midget]

" ... expansion rates are my concern."  Think of all the aluminum cylinder heads mounted on top of cast iron blocks and doweled.  

Good point and true, and in this case, the heat that would get to the steel plate would be considerably less than what would telegraph from an aluminum head to the top of an iron block.

Aluminum expands at about twice the rate of steel, and if these were two abutted 12 inch solid billets of both metals, you could expect the difference between the two at 220 degrees to be about .020.  Carved and cast pieces, bolted around the perimeter and through the center?  Who knows.

This is based on what Roush used in Trans-Am in the mid to late '80s with maybe 800 hp.  Looking (hoping) for ~1000 hp.  

No one has suggested a problem with different expansion rates, then or now.

Mike

Mike, I won't argue with Jack's solutions, but are those studs sticking through the girdle 16 inches long, passing through a 2 piece block/crank case and holding the head in place?

You Ford guys have got it easy!  

And then, maybe I'm overthinking it.  Were targeting 125 hp, with a shorter stroke, lighter components and a longer R/S ratio.

But probably capable of 10,000 rpm.