Auxiliary shaft modification

[Andrew S]

Hi all,
Whilst changing the timing belt I've decided to modify the aux shaft by removing the redundant fuel pump lobe, thus removing the need to 'time' the aux pulley. Has anyone here actually done this? If so- is the procedure just as described in Guy Crofts book or are there any better methods?

Andrew.

[DJ]

I've done this and followed the general procedure outlined in the Croft book. However, a much simpler method is to simply grind off the lobe. If I were doing it again, that's the way I'd do it.

[Andrew S]

Instead of cutting it off? Wouldn't you still have to drill, tap and plug the oil hole?

Andrew.

[Will]

I think DJ really meant grind the ECCENTRICITY out of the lobe, leaving it as a round section and with the oil plug, etc. intact. Hope this helps.

[Andrew S]

Aah, I understand now. Hmm, that seems like an easier idea. Thanks guys.

Andrew.

[DJ]

I think DJ really meant grind the ECCENTRICITY out of the lobe, leaving it as a round section and with the oil plug, etc. intact. Hope this helps.

Well, as the word "lobe" means "a curved or rounded projection", that would be the same as the eccentric. :rolleyes:

But yeah, that's what I meant.

And if it's still acting eccentrically after grinding, just take a big sledge and beat the snot out of it until it stops. :D

[1,6 HF]

Well, as the word "lobe" means "a curved or rounded projection", that would be the same as the eccentric. :rolleyes:

But yeah, that's what I meant.

And if it's still acting eccentrically after grinding, just take a big sledge and beat the snot out of it until it stops. :D

lobotomies all around...

[Andrew S]

And if it's still acting eccentrically after grinding, just take a big sledge and beat the snot out of it until it stops. :D

You got kids, DJ...? LOL.

Andrew.

[Allen Lofland]

I dont mean to go against DJ's advice but beating the snout out , But that is exactly what you will be doing to the bearing surface if you dont have your machine shop stick that thing into a proper laith and grind it down smootly keep its balance. As this bearing is the closest to the oil pump passage you dont want to have something out of round wobbling around in there. But the idea of getting rid of this Block Buster is a good one.
Cheap machne shop job, cut and plug is my preferred route.

[DJ]

I dont mean to go against DJ's advice but beating the snout out , But that is exactly what you will be doing to the bearing surface if you dont have your machine shop stick that thing into a proper laith and grind it down smootly keep its balance. As this bearing is the closest to the oil pump passage you dont want to have something out of round wobbling around in there. But the idea of getting rid of this Block Buster is a good one.
Cheap machne shop job, cut and plug is my preferred route.

Well, that would assume that this shaft is balanced in the first place. If this was the case, whether you machined or ground off the lobe (eccentric) OR cut off the end and plug per the Croft guidance, you'd still then need to balance the shaft to correct for the removal of the lobe, no?

I don't recall the Croft guidance (or anyone else who's ever done this) ever mentioning a need to balance the aux shaft after doing this but, I could be wrong. It's a good thought but, personally, I don't think this is anything at all to worry about. Especially since any small amount of out-of-roundness that you may have will be very close in to the shaft center and well inside the diameter of the bearing surfaces.

[Frezer]

Isn't this a huge amount of work, while timing it once every three years when replacing the belt is only peanuts?

[DJ]

It's really not so much work. Pretty simple really.

It may be more work than really need if you assume that you'll never lose a timing belt but it's good peace of mind once it's done.

If you lose a belt you can easily blow a big hole in the side of your block if you haven't done this to the aux shaft.

[len_newstrum]

If you lose a belt you can easily blow a big hole in the side of your block if you haven't done this to the aux shaft.My understanding is that this is only a problem with the 2 liter engines (because of their longer stroke making interference possible). If true, then the 1.8 liter engines don't have a potential problem. Can anybody verify that this is true?

[Darren]

Idid this mod when building up the engine in the Monte - very easy to do - just make sure you clean out the swarf before you put the grub screw in! You can either cut the lobe off or grind it - other than that, take a bit of care drilling before tapping and that's it really - oh and make sure the grub srew doesn't cut off the oil supply to the bearing and you're sorted - one less thing to line up or worry about when changing the cam belt.

Go for it!!!

Hope this helps!

[1,6 HF]

I dont mean to go against DJ's advice but beating the snout out , But that is exactly what you will be doing to the bearing surface if you dont have your machine shop stick that thing into a proper laith and grind it down smootly keep its balance. As this bearing is the closest to the oil pump passage you dont want to have something out of round wobbling around in there. ...

Am I missing something here? Isn't the existing lobe already "something out of round wobbling around"? Wouldn't reducing the lobe--even imperfectly--still leave you with less "out-of-round" than the original lobe itself?

[Andrew S]

Am I missing something here? Isn't the existing lobe already "something out of round wobbling around"? Wouldn't reducing the lobe--even imperfectly--still leave you with less "out-of-round" than the original lobe itself?

My thoughts exactly...

Well, it's done. Cut it off, grinded it smooth, tapped it and plugged it all exactly as per GC book. Took all of 15 minutes and I've never done any tapping since metalwork class at school. It will make timing the engine a little easier with one less cog to worry about.

Andrew.

[Jim Keller]

Well, I've cut, tapped and plugged and ground off, I prefer grinding off, simply because it's a lot less work.

I hear what your saying Allen, but I never tried to perfect the balance on any of them, just tried to keep things even, and so far, haven't heard of any problems from any of them.

Well Andrew, since you went the cut/plug route, you did make sure to use a very short plug and NOT plug the oil passage right?, that's easy to do, and did you peen the edges or "LockTite" the plug to make sure it doesn't back out?

[lanciatomcat]

Hi there
As I have had a blown engine thrrough the Auxiliary shaft going haywire I do recommend it to all.
Look under 'Blown Engine' in my pictures.
Regards
Tom

[Andrew S]

Well Andrew, since you went the cut/plug route, you did make sure to use a very short plug and NOT plug the oil passage right?, that's easy to do, and did you peen the edges or "LockTite" the plug to make sure it doesn't back out?

Jim, yes and yes. I read the GC info on it warning about not blocking the oil passage and using Loctite to help secure it. It felt pretty tight to me anyway and would probably have been fine without it.

Andrew.

[Andrew S]

This timimg belt change operation actually began over a week ago now. Having decided, given the uncertain nature of my recently aquired HPE's history, to change the belt asap I had no option but to give the job to the local garage as I'm just snowed under with other commitments at the moment. As my garage is full of partially stripped Monte and also another car about to be sprayed if I'd done it myself it would've been outside on the driveway and as that is in the middle of some concreting work I really didn't want to do it there. So local garage it had to be, or don't drive the car until I had time and space... I didn't want to wait so decision made. Not a good one, as it happens.
The mechanic unfortunately didn't time up the aux shaft correctly and the fuel pump lobe hit what it can hit under those circumstances- conrod number 2. It apparently snapped the shaft clean in two, breaking it inbetween the two bearings. I haven't actually seen the shaft yet, and the end of it is still currently residing in the sump. Under the circumstances, I wish I'd just elected to wait until I had more time to do it myself. In the mechanic's defence, he followed some timing information taken from a reputable and widely used mechanics' site on the net which stated the 'correct' position of the aux pulley. It was wrong...
So, when he told me about it and said he was struggling to find a replacement shaft I then decided to use the spare I have but modified so that bad luck couldn't strike twice. Which is where this thread started- I've had so limited time to myself this last week that I just wanted to establish that Guy Croft's method for modifying the pulley was still as good as any before taking the plunge and then later write this post explaining the whole story with hopefully more information other than 'it's snapped'. In fact, I still don't have any more info as I don't have the car back yet and I haven't spoken further to the mechanic due to me being stuck at home, ill with a particularly bad dose of flu. I should get it back tomorrow with any luck. What concerns me the most is the chance of any subsequential damage; conrod, crank, inner bearing housing etc. A quick query on the matter to GC himself put my mind at ease, him saying it was 'remote'. So, I'll let you all know when I get it back. Frustrating, to say the least.

Len, with reference to your query, I believe it affects both 2.0 and 1.8, but not 1.3, 1.4 or 1.6 engines.

Andrew.

[Jim Keller]

Andrew, don't feel bad, we all hire mechanics for one reason or another at various times for our Betas, nothing to defend there

So far as the aux shaft problem, Len is correct, it is ONLY the 2.0L this affects, it is due to the longer stroke of the crank to raise the cc size, Other than the crank having a longer stroke, (larger rotating circumference), and the block casting being half an inch taller on a 2.0L block to compensate for the additional travel of the pistons, (hence the small bump in the hood on 2.0L cars), the 1800 and 2.0 are pretty much the same, same pistons, rods, oil pump, oil pan, water pump, gaskets, fly wheel, clutch pack etc, they will all cross. The 1800 and smaller engines do not have the stroke of the 2.0 so the con rod does not get all the way over to contact the mechanical fuel pump lobe on the aux shaft.

[Andrew S]

Andrew, don't feel bad, we all hire mechanics for one reason or another at various times for our Betas, nothing to defend there

I know... in fact some people hire mechanics to do absolutely everything which is fine too. I suppose I'm just gutted that a job I've done quite a few times myself over the years I chose not to do this one time and this happens...


So far as the aux shaft problem, Len is correct, it is ONLY the 2.0L this affects

Hmm, I've heard otherwise in the past... GC himself says it affects the 1.8 and 2.0. The jury's out...

Andrew.

[Darren]

Sorry to hear of your woes mate - that really is bad luck! Are you going to strip that engine now and check all the relative bits or keep your fingers crossed? I would have thought that a strip down would be necessary from the bits of metal floating about inside your engine now.

I can recommend heading to the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel in Barrow in Furness this weekend. It's the Consortium's End of Term Bash and they'll be a load of us there willing to help you drown your sorrows, cheers you up or just talk bollox and cars!!

Drop me a line if you need any details.

Good luck with it!

[Andrew S]

Darren, one of Life's Great Injustices is that the (very, very relatively) stress-free life of a pro-musician involves zero social life... because when the rest of normal humans play I work! Thanks for the invite, I would dearly love to but I'm 200 miles away from where you'll be, entertaining a bunch of numptys who probably couldn't care less what the guitar-man is playing but... they pay my mortgage so I've gotta go... I get to go to very few car-related events because no-one organises 'em on Mondays! Oh well, I was playing in Barrow only a few weeks ago too.

As for stripping it down and checking it over; the mechanic who took the job on will have to remove the sump to get the end of the shaft out anyway so he'll get a good look at it all then hopefully. GC reckons it's 'remote' that there was any other damage caused so fingers crossed!

Andrew.

[Andrew S]

Got my HPE back and all appears ok. Only drove it 1 mile home from the garage but no noise/vibration or anything that shouldn't be there so I think he got away with it... He said it was a clean break on the shaft but it's got fresh oil in it now as the sump was drained when removed to get the end of the shaft out.

Oh well... pheeeeewwwww and all that...!

Andrew.

[Jim Keller]

Hmm, I've heard otherwise in the past... GC himself says it affects the 1.8 and 2.0. The jury's out...

Andrew.

Then you have heard wrong, (my jury went home 10 years ago), and although respect him as I do, if Guy's saying that, I have to insist he is mistaken, (and everyone including myself can be wrong sometimes, no ones perfect! LOL), the 1800 con rod clears the fuel pump lobe, I am positive of that, done several overhauls of both engines, the problem is really all the fact the 2.0 crank shaft has a larger circle of rotation than the 1.8, just enough to tap the fuel pump lobe when aligned improperly, (which makes it sound like it has a bad con rod bearing, AKA: Knocks like hell), and when reved on hard accel, will break the #2 con rod and toss it out the side of the block, I've had 2 - 2000 blocks with holes in them from mis-aligned aux shaft pullys, both customer cars, none of my own......thankfully

[John Allen]

both customer cars, none of my own......thankfully

Hopefully you weren't the mechanic on those prior to the crankcase ventilation!

[len_newstrum]

I contacted Ray Mortensen (Performance Apex) regarding the aux. shaft cam lobe interference problem. With 36 years doing Fiat/Lancia he knows more about them than the Lancia designers! Here is his response:

Hi Len,

Car looks nice!

Yes, the 1800 engine can have the same problem, but it is a bit different.

It can "lock up" the engine if it becomes mistimed. Doesn't happen very often, but we've seen it.

It generally does not do the same type of damage (shaft through the side of the block) as what can happen with the 2 liter.

It gives you quite a scare though as you think the engine has seized and it can take a little finessing to get it free again.

The down side of losing a belt on the 1800 is that is can bend valves (unless it is a late model 1800 with the cut out in the pistons).

You can cut and plug the shaft on the 1800 to solve the problem.

Not mandatory as with the 2000, but if you wish to avoid issues it does not take that long.

We generally charge around $35 to modify the shaft (out of the car) if anyone needs it done.

On any car it is best just to change the belt and not push the envelope!

We are still plugging away here.

We are trying to switch from working on the cars to just working on the components. Engines, Trans, etc. though the process is taking longer than we hoped.

Good to hear from you.

Hope this answers the question.

Ciao,
Ray and Lorrie


I think that is the definitive answer.


BTW. On his web-page (Performance Apex) is a link to "Paul's Zagato" where there is a ton of before/after pictures. I sure wish that my engine compartment looked like that.

[Darren]

Hi Andrew,

Glad all appears to be well with the hpe - finges crossed its now sorted. Sorry to hear you won't be around this weekend, would have been good to meet up but understand work pressures. Keep your Consortium membership up and you'll get warning on when we're coming to your neck of the woods - and you get a great read in the meantime! :o))

Cheers!

[Jim Keller]

I'll accept that Len <grin>

No, the customer cars came to me that way to be repaired, I didn't break them! LOL