Mounting the engine without subframe spacers, and without tilt.

[noid]

I've have been trying to brain storm how to mount an m60/m62 without using subframe spacers while at the same time avoiding drive train tilt.

As far as I understand the problem is that the engine hits the steering rack, can someone confirm this? Are there any other interference problems creating tilt?

Looking at this picture with sub-frame spacers I can see if they were taken off the upper oil pan (11137513374) would hit the steering rack


Has anyone successfully notched the upper oil pan?

If you look closely there is a bevel/lip right where the steering rack is:



It seems as if this bevel can be notched as seen here:



I guess the main question im trying to get an answer for is if the oil pan to steering rack clearance is the ONLY issue preventing a straight drive line?

[Charley]

Looking at this picture with sub-frame spacers I can see if they were taken off the upper oil pan (11137513374) would hit the steering rack

Taking off the spacers wouldn't change anything to the rack/oil pan clearance...

[noid]

I guess I forgot to mention, that a change of motor mounts would also be needed. Or am I still missing something?

[LJ851]

Taking off the spacers wouldn't change anything to the rack/oil pan clearance...

^ Yep. Engine and Steering rack are both bolted to the subframe, so moving it about will not change their distance from each other.

[Jean]

^ exactly. It's not for spacing the oil pan away from the rack. It's mostly for a) helping the drivetrain angle b) to provide more room at the top for those who want to use the upper "vanity" cover. No need to notch the oil pan or the subframe in this case.

[noid]

I understand that, but which way is the drive train angle off? Does the engine need to go up or does it need to go down further? If it needs to go down further relative to the subframe, then what im saying is if you remove the spacers and dont use 300mm.de mounts and make your own mounts you could lower the engine by notching the oil pan, because lowering it without notching would make the oil pan hit the steering rack.

[LJ851]

I understand that, but which way is the drive train angle off? Does the engine need to go up or does it need to go down further? If it needs to go down further relative to the subframe, then what im saying is if you remove the spacers and dont use 300mm.de mounts and make your own mounts you could lower the engine by notching the oil pan, because lowering it without notching would make the oil pan hit the steering rack.

If lowering the subframe (which lowers the engine) improves the driveline angle, then you would need to lower the engine to improve driveline angle.

If you lower the engine in relation to the subframe (and steering rack) it looks like you would need to notch the oil pan to clear the steering rack.

[noid]

Exactly!

Another revelation I had is that the 2003-2005 range rovers have a m62 with a slightly different oil pans (these oil pans should be able to bolt to all m60/m62's) and it makes me wonder what the clearance is like in the same spot for their oil pans.

Here is the BMW one:


and here is the land rover one:


They look very similar but do look to have some differences. I wish i could find pictures of the underside of the pan to investigate. Anyone have a 03-05 rover (upper pan) they could measure/take pictures of?

[Jean]

Needs to go down, not up to have ideal/straight line. I see what you are saying, instead of using spacers you would rather modify the oil pan instead basically.

The rover ones are M62TU, I think m62tu was used up to 2005 in them. Look on ebay for some used Rover pans maybe? I bet the X5 pan is different as well from the e34/e32/e38/e39 stuff possibly as well.

I know the lower pan on e34 is same as on e39/e38..but the upper pan I am not sure about right now....I would start with comparing these on realoem between the vehicles and also ebay

[bmwmech1]

Bruce did this mod to his pan so he didn't have to run the spacers... There are some pics of it floating around. It's a viable solution, albeit a little more work. And BTW Jean, the M60 and M62 upper pans are the same. I have an M60 upper pan on my M62 block and an M62 lower pan on that M60 upper pan and everything is identical... it all bolts together.

Man, my motor IS a Frankenstein, lol!

Garey

[noid]

Could we try to find those pictures to post it up in here? Is his name bruce or is it also his username on here? I for one would love to see how it was done!

The oil pan is the same part number for all years e39/e34/e38/e31 including TU motors. The X5 pan is very different, and looks to be tall exactly where we dont want it to be tall.

I cant seem to find any upper range rover pans for sale (with pictures) or any google image pictures of one non on ebay either.

[noid]

Found them:




Very cool, wasnt he using a e36 rack in his e30? Bruce said "At the front edge of the cut, the height of the pan was reduced about 7/8". The new pan "floor" still maintains a bit of downward slope for drain-back to the sump." I wonder how much effect the e36 rack in relation to an e30 rack had on how much needed to be removed.

[nrubenstein]

I'd rather have a slightly out of alignment drivetrain than I would the screwed up suspension geometry you get with subframe spacers. If you must run them, then figure out a way to raise the control arm mounts back to the proper position (or higher).

[bmwmech1]

I'd rather have a slightly out of alignment drivetrain than I would the screwed up suspension geometry you get with subframe spacers. If you must run them, then figure out a way to raise the control arm mounts back to the proper position (or higher).

This has been debated to some length, several times with no clear results... I understand the geometry differences and on a track car, they would be of greater concern than a street car. There are several street car swaps done that have used the spacers and no one has stated any kind of crazy changes in bump steer. In all honesty, I'd rather make the necessary changes to the front sub frame mounting height and have a non-screwed up drive train angle for a street car. Considering the entire drive train is fixed on these cars, excessive wear on the drive shaft and joints/supports is a big enough concern to me to find a solution, even if it means a compromise in bump steer geometry. Since I'm running an E36 rack, I have the spacers on the bottom, thereby gaining back 12mm of the 20mm thickness of the spacer. That's a net of an 8mm lower rack mounting height than stock and an aligned drive train... I'd say that's a win-win for a street car. I'd search out a different solution for a track car though.

I wonder how come this argument never pops up in the car lowering threads, since lowering the car has effectively the same negative affect on bump steer. Nobody ever says that you'll get screwed up geometry when you lower you car and do nothing to compensate for it. And most guys are dropping their cars way more than the 20mm thickness of the sub frame spacers...

Garey

[noid]

Guys the point of this thread is to point out a solution where neither spacers, nor excessive drive train angle occurs.

There really is little to debate.

So far this solution feels like the "proper" way of doing things, for a factory fresh-esque swap.