Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey guys, my water pump split the other day and drained most of the coolant, i noticed quite quickly that there was a problem, but with a very tight inlet cam and some other tests done, its confirmed, my head is warped >_<

What i'm looking at is using a engine crane to lift the body over the engine( no i don't have a hoist), leave the motor and box together mounted on the subframe, replace the head, reasemble and refit.

I'd like to know if you guy recon its the best way to tackle the situation.

only thing i was thinking is lifting the car that high, would the rear bumper hit the ground....maybe??

any help from people that have removed the engine out the bottom without a hoist would be appreciated also.

you might not get it high enough to clear the engine and that, easiest way is just to pull the engine and gearbox out as one that way you can still push the car around and steer it easy without having to fight an engine crane aswell

You could try and put the car up on ramps with the back wheels and stands at the front. Wheel a trolly under the engine and gearbox and lift the trolly up to the engine and gearbox, then lower it down to the floor. Then use your crane to lift the front of the car up high enough so you can roll the trolly out. The ramps under the rear wheels will ensure you dont scrape the back end of the car on the ground. Using a block and tackle to the roof to lift the car is another approach ive seen.

Its a lot of hard work if you havent done it before, so its a good idea to get someone involved thats has done it to make sure you dont un-necessarily remove things that dont need to be removed. You'd be surprised just how complete the whole assembly does come out.

You could take the head off with the engine still in the car..

But you have an engine crane obviously.. why try lift the car up? just take the bonnet off and pull the engine out the normal way.

I have thought about it both ways, done some searches on SAU too, i was originally thinking i would remove the head in the car, but after some reading it seemed some people thought it was easier to just remove the whole engine.......

Initially i was going to remove all head bolts and pipes etc and try are remove the head with the turbos and plenum intact, obviously using an engine crane or block and tackle, reassemble all gear to the new head, with jun cams,:thumbsup: and refit.

I have removed this motor before and plenty of others amongst buiding a few rb30's, so i'm no stranger to the whole engine thing, just the 32 GTR engine / engine bay is kinda tight, just trying to see thoughts on the easiest way.

Dropping the whole subframe from a GTR is the hard way of doing the engine.

Leave the box in and only pull the engine.

Heads in situ are not not hard.

Leave the turbos in place and undo the two four bolt flanges, manifolds stay bolted to the head

Strip the front and remove timing belt etc obviously.

Remove alternator and starter motor so you can get the intake side off easier.

With the intake side off the rest is simple.

I don't ever recall pulling an engine to do a head, I know it's common practice but unnessisary.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...