E6-285 2VH problems and solutions

[allfritz123]

it is the tip turbine style!  I was working on it today - only to find out I don't have a 12 point 7/16 on a short swivel to get at the 12 point bolts under the charge air box.   The exhaust side came off really easy and I thought that was going to be the hard side!   I sure wished I could mount the other system and swap engines.  The 1985 engine has a front mount intercooler!  I think I need a few more inches under this hood (which I don't have) in order to make the swap and put that rad in place

[BOBWhite]

Do you think you could get it with a crows foot? I've never taken apart a tip turbine before but I wish the best of luck to you. I know some of the higher horse tip turbine engine had coolant going through them as well, so that would be even more stuff to take apart. 

[mrsmackpaul]

It's been a few years now since I have had the heads off a E6 and recall any difficulty in getting the heads off

Manifolds came off easy as best as I.can recall

The air to air intercooler has to come out to get all the bolts out, I am pretty sure it had bolts inside, maybe completely wrong now, it has been a while now but Im pretty sure there was bolts inside to hold the manifold to the head

Gunna be embarrassing if I have that wrong lol

 

Paul 

[JoeH]

I think you're right Paul. The American tip turbine engine is a headache to tear down, tight clearances under the radiator support arms that go to the firewall. There is a lot going on with those manifolds.

[fjh]

7 hours ago, BOBWhite said:

Do you think you could get it with a crows foot? I've never taken apart a tip turbine before but I wish the best of luck to you. I know some of the higher horse tip turbine engine had coolant going through them as well, so that would be even more stuff to take apart. 

That came with 300 or more HP if I recall ! 285 was usually air to air only!

[JoeH]

Crows foot won't do 12 point bolt heads.

[Joey Mack]

  I have 2 sets of these, bought them over 20 years ago from 'Wal-Mart' of all places..  I still use them and I have heated and bent some of them for B.S. jobs like the one in front of you..  Good Luck, Jojo

[BOBWhite]

14 hours ago, JoeH said:

Crows foot won't do 12 point bolt heads.

Even a closed ended one? 

[allfritz123]

The bolts under the box are the pain.  I have to move out the entire round oil/water cooler if I want to use any flat wrench.  It looks kind of nifty in the picture!  I can assure you these bolts are tucked under and only accessible as shown in their nice schematic.  Looking at the picture, you would think there is lots of room for a socket and extension.  Not the case.   Yes the ones in the inside required removing water and air coolers rads.

[allfritz123]

3 hours ago, BOBWhite said:

Even a closed ended one? 

I have one of those expensive wrenches (Snap-on)  for the Mack rear end peanut section (about 5/8" I believe).  If I had one with a 7/16" 12 point and not too long of an extension it might work.   The 5/8" I have I had to order from Snap-on and it was super expensive.  If I just have a 12 point 7/16" with a short knuckle built into it I will be able to work it.   I will have to look around for that.   It is so tight in there that you can't use a regular socket and an extension knuckle to extend out!  The other ones I removed appear to have some locktite on them too!  The ones inside the box they used a 3/8" 12 point.  That would of maybe given enough room if they would have used that bolt size under the housing instead of 7/16" heads. I think thread size is 3/8". 

Edited November 13, 2023 by allfritz123

[JoeH]

Its a good thing this is such a durable engine, I've done this process numerous times. Its not fun.

I've never seen a closed end cross foot, all the ones we have are open end and the square port is right by the open end, no handle length.

[JoeH]

Just be glad you aren't doing this on a DM cab, the rear head is halfway under the firewall, and the firewall comes right up passed the back of the tires. Very cramped!

[Licensed to kill]

9 hours ago, BOBWhite said:

Even a closed ended one? 

Sacrifice a wrench ( actually just the box end, can keep the open end and use as a shorty for future problem areas) and an old socket (or cut the end off an extension) and ten minutes with a zip cut and welder and I would have one of those custom made length to fit. BTW, I don't know if this is relevant to this particular topic but I have (had?) a bad habit of trying to NOT take off more things than necessary to get to whAt NEEDS to come off. My brother, (40 year HD mechanic) once told me, (I think I was bitching about what it took to get the Thermostat housing off my C-15 to change thermostats) that it was easier if I removed something that was in the way (I think it may have been the alternator). Told me it is often easier and faster just to remove superfluous things to gain easier access than trying to save time/effort by "going around". Since, if something is difficult (but not impossible) too get at because something else is in the way, I just remove the obstruction. It does tend to be faster and, of course easier. I often have a bad habit of working harder trying to avoid work. Kinda like most criminals I suppose. 

[BOBWhite]

Ok now I see why you'd need a swivel or universal joint type extension. We've gotten a couple "flexible extensions" before but they seem to be more of a gimmick and twist when you put to much torque on them.

The worst bolt removal that I can think of at the moment is the top bolt of the later GM transfer cases. Once you figure out a system of ratchets and swivel extensions its not so bad but figuring it out for the first time without being able to see it is the worst!

 

[mechohaulic]

3 hours ago, JoeH said:

Just be glad you aren't doing this on a DM cab, the rear head is halfway under the firewall, and the firewall comes right up passed the back of the tires. Very cramped!

been there done that. one of the many moments a person finds themself pondering the question :: Why am I doing this ; who could ever come up with this design anyway. external front mounted intercooler- now there's a smart engineer. I can say did work on a tip turbine engine yrs back which wasn't tooo bad. course it was 1/25th scale replica I was building for a customer . had to order the engine from A I M : late Jim Etter . basic model had 237, challenge was making new intake hoses and mounts. at least I didn't need special wrenches. for the real unit as stated above the torch made the 7/16 twelve point. think I still have it. 3/8-7/16combo wrench heated / bent and ground down 

[allfritz123]

Great ideas LTK!  I removed the oil/water cooler so I can get at the bolts.  Sometimes a person looks for the lazy solution!   The reality is, just sacrifice a couple of gaskets and get that out of the way.   Then I have no problem getting a 12 point wrench on it!  It seemed like a big obstacle but really much simpler to get it out of the way with 6 bolts.

I found the problem after removing the rear head.  The shells rolled on number 6 - that was the tick!!!    I can't believe that I wouldn't have seen oil pressure problems - must be a great pump to keep pressure so good even with a rotating shifting shell!

I am about 15 to 20 thousands under 3 inch.  I assume the crank will have to be replaced. I haven't looked at what standard is and how far down I am. It definitely is not smooth anymore!  The rod will have to be replaced too!   

[JoeH]

Part of the reason these trucks can run such a wide powerband is the oil pressure. The high volume/pressure keeps the bearings coated under the immense working loads. Glad you found your problem! I saw a video of a guy cleaning up a crank journal, a lot of the "roughness" might be copper etc from the bearing that fused to the crank. The guy in the video was able to scrape most of it off with a razor blade, hit it with some 320 grit then 600 grit, and it wound up still being within spec.

Edited November 14, 2023 by JoeH

[JoeH]

Also,  check your bearing size. Is it standard? Or over/under of however they call it.

[Joey Mack]

Yep. Hopefully the crank is stamped with, Std. Or the cut size.. I have seen cranks with different sizes journals on one crank..

[Licensed to kill]

On the topic of bearing size, the first engine I ever assembled was back in the early 80's. I redid a SBC for my '57 chevy at a friends place. When it came time to assemble the engine, he was not home so I did it myself. Looked at the back of the bearings and they were not marked, no stamp on the crank so I bought STD bearings. While Chris HAD plastigauge in his tool box, I did not know how to use it so I assembled the engine and when he got home a couple days later, we put the engine in the car. We fired it up, set the timing and idle and Chris told me to button up the headers but, as a young, dumb kid I decided to drive it the 20 miles home with the headers open. Got pulled over for loud exhaust (of course) but the guy let me off as I told him I was just heading home to bolt up the exhaust, then, the "gen" light came on. I pulled into a gas station and popped the hood to find the harmonic balancer laying on the cross member. Called Chris to come help, he came out (got pulled over at the same intersection I did for running the stop sign), helped put the balancer back on and I drove it back to his place. Next day I went and bolted up the exhaust, put the bolt in the crank to hold the balancer (had not done that) and while the engine warmed up, we went in to have a coffee. While sitting there, Chris said "That engine is knocking". I said "That's just the compression knock" He said "no, there is another knock. Did you put the right bearings in?". I said I put in STD because I could not find any indication otherwise. We went out to his garage and pulled the old bearings out of the trash and confirmed that they were not marked (something Chris said he had never seen before). So, I dropped the oil and pulled the pan and Chris gave me a micrometer to climb under and check a rod journal. I pulled a cap to find some copper showing, miced the journal to find that it was .030 under DOH!!. Went up town and bought a set of .030 rod bearings and changed them under the car. Chris suggested checking a mains so I pulled a cap to look but the bearing had no copper showing so that was good. Put the pan back on, added oil and fired it up. Went in to wait for it to warm up and after it ran a bit, Chris said "that thing is still knocking". So, dumped the oil, pulled the pan and pulled a main cap and miced the journal....yup, also .030 under. Rolled in a set of .030 mains and all was good. A long winded way of arriving at the moral of the story but, unless the bearings are marked I ALWAYS mic the journals. I don't even trust a stamped crank as it could have been turned a second time and not restamped. Also, I now NEVER run a new engine without mufflers as open exhaust makes it pretty much impossible to hear what is going on. 

[Joey Mack]

I check my journals too, I use plastigauge and calipers as needed..  

[mechohaulic]

didn't think today's world knew what plastigauge was . at least that's a positive . 

[Licensed to kill]

4 hours ago, mechohaulic said:

didn't think today's world knew what plastigauge was . at least that's a positive . 

I was shocked to find that plastigauge was rather difficult to find when I rebuilt the flathead in my '35 ford a few years ago. Most auto supply places had no idea what I was talking about. 

[Joey Mack]

I have to give my local O'Reilly's   ''Parts Professional''  a lesson and show him how to find it on the computer, each time I buy it..  just sayin'....  Jojo

[allfritz123]

My initial micrometer measurement shows me about .020 off on the journal from standard.  I think I have some taper as when I removed the shell it had climbed each other on an angle and I see some difference one side to the other about .020 to .015.    As suggested above, some of shell was crushed onto the journal sureface.  I could flake it off though.  I am just amazed at how clear the manual is from Mack.  It even tells me how many different shell sizes there are to choose from.  I was quite excited to see that they could range from .010 to .060 undersize (after initial std .002).  I didn't realize you could grind off that much and still use your crank again!   I thought I would have to replace because of the damage! 

My plan is to micrometer the rest and use some plastigage to see how wore out the other journals are.

Can anyone tell me if the camshaft lobes are different on a 2 valve hole (2VH) versus a 4 valve hole (4VH) 672 engine?  Are there double the push rod lifters or is it all taken care of at the very top end with a fork?     My other engine is a 1985 and has the injectors on the same side as my fuel pump RHS.  My original engine 1981 has injectors on the top LHS of the cylinder heads.  Injector lines cross the head.     Would they have the same dish in the piston when running a 4 valve head?  Also is the only difference at the top of the head?  I can't find any pictures of what the valve train looks like on a 4VH.  I only have the 2VH manual.   I am still trying to figure out if I should rebuild or use the other engine.  I am not sure if I could swap the cooling box over and turbo and remove the newer air to air system. 

I am not concerned about power as the 285 has more than enough for us.   I understand the other system could give 300 but I can't fit the front of rad cooler into our existing truck as the hood nose doesn't come out far enough!  The 1985 engine doesn't have a Dynatard or jake brake at all.  It looks to me that if a jake were added to that newer engine (1985),  They  would have added an additional 2 inch (approx.) thick module sitting on top of the cylinders.  That is how our E7s look anyway with Jakes.