Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey all this is my first time posting on SAU..

Had my pressure plate and clutch explode out the side of the gearbox housing after dumping the clutch @ 5000RPM,

this shredded all the bolts off the gearbox and snapped the slave cylinder off.:blink:

Now heres the problem,

there is some damage on the crank which im not sure if it will affect the new box i put it

and 1 of the mounting points has broken off. Was wondering if 7 out of 8 bolts would be enough to hold it

the gearbox i was running was an RB30

6 bolt flywheel and standard clutch <--- was done by previous owner possible cause

now have a rb20det box and GTR 9bolt flywheel and HD clutch that i wanna put in

Can someone tell me if i should replace the block:::: pics below

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/377644-help-with-exploded-gearbox/
Share on other sites

Ask yourself this.......

If 8 wasnt enough to hold it in the first place, do you really trust 7?

And if there is damaged to the crank I would suggest replacing the crank. Are you talking about the bolts that bolt the flywheel to the crank or the bolts that hold the pressure plate to the flywheel btw? I dont remember how many there are for each....

Have any photos?

Edited by 89CAL

Ask yourself this.......

If 8 wasnt enough to hold it in the first place, do you really trust 7?

And if there is damaged to the crank I would suggest replacing the crank. Are you talking about the bolts that bolt the flywheel to the crank or the bolts that hold the pressure plate to the flywheel btw? I dont remember how many there are for each....

Have any photos?

img0051eb.jpg

img0047am.jpg

img0004uv.jpg

img0003ljv.jpg

Edited by Craigr32

Crank doesnt look so bad...... need a new spigot bush. But I'd get a second oppinion on wether you should run it again.

So the mounting point that has broken off is on the flywheel yes? New flywheel shouldnt be to hard to find?

Crank doesnt look so bad...... need a new spigot bush. But I'd get a second oppinion on wether you should run it again.

So the mounting point that has broken off is on the flywheel yes? New flywheel shouldnt be to hard to find?

yeah i think the shaft from the gearbox will slot into the crank ok but will get my mate to check it,e

The mounting point is where the gearbox itself bolts upto the Block...

Does the block look twisted at all? might be because its on axel stands but i doubt it

and yes the sprigot bush flew out amongest the carnage Lol how do i go about putting a new one in tap in with rubber mallet?

Crank doesnt look so bad...... need a new spigot bush. But I'd get a second oppinion on wether you should run it again.

So the mounting point that has broken off is on the flywheel yes? New flywheel shouldnt be to hard to find?

nah its one that bolts the bellhousing up, looks like a long way to the next bolt if you don't have that one, I would consider welding something on to bolt up to, but yeah new spigot bush and clean up any burs with a file and flywheel should bolt up alright,

you shore it was a standard clutch and not a standard clutch revamp?

f**kin hell, lucky it didnt come through the floor and take out your feet. As said above, that spiggot bush is knackered, you would get away with that crank damage. But have any of the flywheel bolt threads been stretched?

f**kin hell, lucky it didnt come through the floor and take out your feet. As said above, that spiggot bush is knackered, you would get away with that crank damage. But have any of the flywheel bolt threads been stretched?

Scared the shit out of me when it happend lol, the only bolts that were in tact are the ones that hold the flywheel to the Crank (Flywheel also cracked)

Now heres the problem,

there is some damage on the crank which im not sure if it will affect the new box i put it

and 1 of the mounting points has broken off. Was wondering if 7 out of 8 bolts would be enough to hold it

What are the 'mounting bolts' you are referring to? Almost certainly 7 is not ok, there is 8 for a reason and running less even if strong enough will no doubt unbalance the system.

Where the crank is damaged this will also unbalance the system, how badly? No idea. I would be speaking to a clutch expert eg Jim Berry and ask for his professional opinion on this.

Remember 'barely damaged' and 'small' scratches might look fine but when they are spinning at 8000rpm with huge torques and forces going through them they can make a massive difference. Everything also needs to be in balance. Definitely speak to a pro about this, Jim Berry is always all to happy to help over the phone, especially if you can email him the pictures as well.

Remember if this happens again you might not be so lucky and might loose your feet, imagine what it would be like to have no feet? Don't skimp on safety!

Edited by Rolls

Remember if this happens again you might not be so lucky and might loose your feet, imagine what it would be like to have no feet? Don't skimp on safety!

This right here. I've seen a tailshaft come up through a floor pan and nearly cost a man his legs. It's not pretty

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...