'Minty' The 240 Wagon

GingerNinja;111827 wrote Engine swaps aren't boring. All the details and new shiny bits are why we come here to read about other people's builds.

Cheers @GingerNinja , I'll try and keep it coming!

Minor update:

Recently I made the oil drain for the turbo into the sump. Holsets are normally quite hardy, but being a journal bearing turbo they do require alot of oil. And they do on occasion blow oil seals which will result in the need for a cheap but inconvenient rebuild. It is speculated that the reason they blow seals in non-oem situations is due to running too small of an oil drain. Holset operating manuals suggest that:

"Oil return pipes are permitted to decline at an overall angle of not less than 30 degrees below horizontal. All turbocharger applications require a pipe of internal diameter greater than 19 mm which has integrated connectors. To ensure oil drains into the engine under all operating conditions, the return connection into the engine sump must not be submerged and the outlet flange of the turbocharger must be 50 mm above the maximum oil level of the engine sump pan."

Now keeping in mind that the drain hole of the CHRA is 22mm on the HX52, it seems like a decent idea to run a complete drain with equivalent internal diameter. So -16 it is.



In addition to running a larger than average drain, I'll also regulate oil pressure to the turbo to 40psi using a turbosmart oil pressure regulator (bottom left of the below image). And I plan on logging pressure with a sensor in the reg. I picked up some decent tools to do the hardlines (fuel, some oil, possibly manifold pressure) so hopefully they work out well.



Lastly, I found the timing belt guide!!



I was wondering why it had holes in it as it does, and the only reason I could think of is to let air escape from between the crank gear and the belt. If that is why, then goddamn Toyota I'd love to see a write-up on the testing or failures that brought that about. Interesting stuff!

@Vee_Que I have to admit I do remember that, but these came up 2nd hand from a bloke in the chemical industry without much use, so I thought I'd pick them up as I'm sure I'll need them later in life. They were hardly used, and they're Swagelok (aka ducks nuts $1000+ to buy the set of 3 new!) My inner tool snob couldn't resist. And...a big drill bit! 30mm.

@jamesinc I didn't think of that. That's likely too. I'm sure some Japanese bloke in Toyota knows for sure. It can't be for weight, although it is pretty close to the front main seal, so perhaps in the event of a leak it allows oil to escape? Makes more sense than air.

It's an interesting comparison, and not really straight forward to answer. Forgetting gearboxes and ecus and just focusing on engines, the attraction of a 2JZ is that although the initial cost may be greater, the amount of power you can safely make before having to do serious bottom end work is alot higher. So at 350hp, an RB25 would definately be better hp/$ spent, but double that power figure and a 2JZ will do it on stock internals, but anything RB will want $5k worth of internal work. So there is a sort of intersection in the two engines $/hp graphs at about 400hp, and the RB engines never come close after that. And if that was what I was hunting, I'd have kept the B230.
A better comparison is the 1JZ to the RB25, same capacity and price, but a 1JZ will reliably see 500hp on stock internals. The RB26 engines are much more expensive than either the 1 or 2jz engines off the bat. I'd use a 1JZ if I had to do it again tomorrow. 2JZ engines are not really cost effective at any power level when you put LS engines into the equation though. Hopefully that answers your question @Slowbrick ?

About 30 years ago, some dudes at Toyota turbocharged an inline 6 called the 7M. This was a larger I6 and they knew their W5x gearboxes weren't up for the torque it would produce. They called up their mates at Aisin who put together the R154. Based on the R150/150F gearbox that was in the hilux of the day, but with higher ratios and stronger gears.
This gearbox was pretty strong, and so when the 1JZ was developed it was refined and reused behind this engine. This iteration was really strong, and the only drawbacks were slightly shit shifting, and a 3rd gear thrust washer that could fail at high power levels (500+hp). Unfortunately their strength did not go unnoticed, and a bunch of places made adaptors to suit rotary engines and the aussie v8s. And people decided that 1JZ engines were pretty good to drift with. Demand increased, prices rose, fast forward to today and $3k per gearbox.
But luckily, in 2005 Toyota decided to produce a 2wd hilux with a 4 litre v6. Faced with a similar problem to last time, I'm assuming they made another call to Aisin (now Aisin Warner) who dusted off their plans for the R154 and produced what is referred to as the R155. With triple cone synchros (less agricultural shifting) and a deleted 3rd gear thrust washer. Along with wider gears to boot. Great! Or so I thought. It turns out that the demographic that bought the 2wd hilux in a 4 litre petrol v6, didn't want to shift gears themselves, and as a result only a handful of them were sold as manuals. Not so great!
Interestingly Aisin Warner, being the large company that it is, also supplied GM with a hugely similar gearbox (albeit different ratios) for their H3 Hummer, a bunch of other US delivered cars, and most importantly... the Chevrolet Colorado. Put 2 and 2 together... Holden Colorado. With the 3.6 Alloytech, to be exact.
Anyway, long story short, the GM RPO MA5 gearbox aka AR5 aka R155 bolts to a 1JZ to R154 bell housing, that bolts to a 2JZ. Triple cone synchros, big gears, shifts like butter, costs $300 all day every day. Downsides are shifter position, lower 1st gear and a GM 26 spline input shaft. I thought the input shaft spline would be 5mm too long, but I should be able to just use a 5mm narrower pilot bearing (ID15mm OD32mm at 10mm thick) to account for this.

So anyway gearbox is sorted:



And pro tip - V8 supercars use a GM 26 spline, and swap out friction discs after qualifying. So if you ever need cheap discs with plenty of meat left on them for your Tilton triple plate, hit up your local team!*



*cerametalic discs will not make for a streetable car.

Ratios are:

1: 3.75
2: 2.26
3: 1.37
4: 1.00
5: 0.73
R: 3.67

As a result, I'd like a diff ratio in the mid threes. You can see that 1st to 2nd is a fair jump, and 2nd to 3rd aswell. It will be trial and error to get a diff ratio short enough for these shifts to be bearable but long enough for 1st gear to be useful - and big turbo cars seem to like abit of load in 1st (a long gear) to get the thing spinning. Let's just hope that moderate anti-lag, timing retard during shifts and boost by gear protocols mitigate said issues - regardless, anything will be better than my M46!

From here I just need to get the clutch/button flywheel balanced, sort out the hydraulic throw out bearing and make a remote shifter.

@VolvoHordz the shifter will be too far forward for this application so I plan on relocating it. I want mine even further back than stock because I'm a long doggo, so it will be in the order of 150mm.
I'll give you the exact length of the box when I work on it next!
With the r155 it's possible that some of the 4 variations of r154 remote shifter may work, or even the entire r154 rear housing works on some variants - but not mine unfortunately as output shaft is offset some. I did think of drawing up an adaptor for the b230, interesting to see how yours goes!

Because I want to have the car at roughly stock height but with stiffer suspension I will be able to sit the engine quite low in the bay and space the crossmember. Hopefully this means I won't have to cut too much out of the tunnel.

@Vee_Que the engine fits fine :)

@VolvoHordz

Today in cool stuff to geek out over:



And most of all:



Interestingly the guy who made the videos (Peter Bjork) owns 3 pretty cool cars that I've followed for a few years - a TT lambo, one of the faster supras around and most importantly a 2JZ 245.

But back on topic. To more (imho seriously cool) stuff to geek out over. Bought a heap of MIL connectors a while back. Mainly ITT CANNON, with some Matrix, Deutsch, Amphenol, Bendix and Souriau for wiring up the engine harness. As well as a Daniels AF8 crimp tool (TH163 turret). I'll leave it to my kids or something, whatever.
Anyways, none of this is really important, but the cool part is that in the course of this I needed a hermetic (glass potted contacts) connector for the surge tank so that fuel wouldn't wick up the contacts and cause problems down the line. I ended up settling on a bulkhead fitting with #16 contacts as they should be up to the 20 amps per pump that the staged Walbro 460's could draw. The seller mentioned that it was ex NASA inventory, but I didn't realise how old it was until I was sent it:



The shell is legit titanium, gold plated contacts, and (perhaps a bad omen) the dates on it correlate well to it being inventory for the Challenger! How nuts is the old school foil lined wax paper packaging, and the printed note! Puts the lead in my pencil.

ALSO as an aside, bit of a snafu on my part RE the clutch. Ignore the bit where I said it was GM 26 spline. It's not, I shouldn't believe stuff I read online. 26mm 23 spline. Emailed Tilton, they do a 1" 23 spline disc in cerametallic. Could use 2 plates in the triple plate basket, rather than the 3 metallic discs. Just not super sure on if the 1" and 26mm difference will be an issue. Fair chance it's identical, moderate chance it's taken up by slop on the spline, good chance it won't work. In which case I'd make a brooch out of a clutch centering tool and send it. But not ideal. Struggles.

Slowbrick;116493 wroteThat warning sticker is so cool! I feel like I need to buy one!

Hit up Ebay for the connectors, the stickers do it for me!

Vee_Que;116498 wroteexedy may have something?

It would be nice to get something local like that where I could take the box there and check if the spline would fit. Unfortunately Exedy do their own multiplate style and I don't think the friction discs would be cross compatible. Tilton have been really helpful though. I think I'm going to find a car that has a 23 by 1" spline, get a friction disc from one and use that to see if it will fit on my gearbox. Maybe.

So today I took a day off study.

Engine out. Heater hose did the old empty the whole block thing.



Bolted in the Soarer front end.



To give you a sense of how utterly ridiculously well everything fits, here is a front view of the 240 chassis rail and the Soarer subframe.



The swaybar mounts line up perfectly with the chassis rail and the steering linkage would bolt in if the splines were the same.

I'm still working out the heights as it's the only issue of note so far. Pretty 4x4 and to get it to be normal 240 height it sits in bump with all the resulting camber. But can't be much worse than a lowered Soarer? Seen below with 17" steelies.



The bad news is that the firewall will be moved back a decent amount for then engine to bolt into stock Soarer mounts, but the good result from that is that I'll likely not need to relocate the shifter then...silver linings hey. Or I could use Supra mounts that would sit it forward enough to clear the firewall...but then I'd need a front sump pan and so on. I'm thinking abit of engine in cabin action might not be so bad with this cast iron lump. Anyone know what goes on just above the trans tunel behind the firewall? Heater box? Can I squish it abit?

After a great deal of measuring, and some consultation of the bible:



I have decided that as I only want stock ride height I do not need to section the chassis rail in order to keep geometry half decent. Because I'm effectively bolting in an existing suspension there are alot of variables that are (for better or worse) fixed. And those that are uncontrolled. And those that do not need to be controlled. So basically:



During the course of all of this measurement it has become apparent that the firewall will not need to be sectioned, although the head will press hard up against it. Provided this is how it sits, the shifter will be roughly 1cm forward of stock position. Result! And the engine sits very low in this subframe - a few cm lower than the B230 did. It looks (very preliminarily) as though the tunnel may fit the box. Perhaps I'm optimistic.

From here there are 5 obstacles.
- Making an angled bracket adapting the lower control arm mounting points to the soarers equivalent.



- Drilling holes in the frame rail for the rear most subframe bolts, and welding in crush tubes.



- Cutting and shutting the steering shaft to suit the upper volvo spline.
- Adapting Soarer coilovers with Volvo strut tops...that are perhaps a little longer than stock.
- Drill for swaybar mount bolts.

Before I do this I will mock the engine up in the bay.

Skookum.

Thanks for the kind words @iivxrzvcxii, hopefully the thread is of some help/interest. All good engine plans start with 'maybe an exhaust', but usually end up pretty wild!

@AshDVS it's pretty broad but I really like Carroll Smith's writing style so it makes for good reading, I'll email for one or two down the track.
Yep, the internet giveth but it also taketh away.
Can't go wrong getting back into a 240 though!

Excerpt from aforementioned text for general appreciation and minor relevance to the next few posts in this thread.