| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Greg Fletcher |
|
||||||||||||||
| 2.2 Crank and parts for 907 | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: 03-18-2005 10:34 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
Dan Eiland Member
|
I have read that Lotus used several versions of the 2.2 crank over the years, are some better than others for a 2.2 conversion on our 907 JH engines. I was offered a 2.2 crank from a Sunbeam Lotus engine along with the pistons and rods, but I wasn't sure if it would even work on our JH engines. What else would need to be changed to complete a 2.2 conversion?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: 03-20-2005 02:45 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
Judson Manning Member 
|
Dan, The Sunbean-Lotus uses an early version of the 910 engine. Something in the back of my mind suggest that this particular varient may actually be denoted 908 or 909, I can't remember... Anyway, the cranks from any 907/908/909/910/912 are all basically interchangable with minimal modifications. If you don't feel comfortable making the swap, could you put me in touch with your source? Judson Manning (rjudman@bellsouth.net) Attachment: Piston.jpg (Downloaded 135 times)
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: 03-21-2005 06:36 pm |
|
3rd Post |
|
Judson Manning Member
|
Correction: The Sunbeam Talbot engine was the 911 variant. http://www.lotuseliteparts.bravepages.com/LotusSunbeamengines.html
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: 05-01-2005 07:26 pm |
|
4th Post |
|
Esprit2 Member
|
Dan Eiland wrote: I have read that Lotus used several versions of the 2.2 crank over the years, are some better than others for a 2.2 conversion on our 907 JH engines. I was offered a 2.2 crank from a Sunbeam Lotus engine along with the pistons and rods, but I wasn't sure if it would even work on our JH engines. What else would need to be changed to complete a 2.2 conversion? Dan, Sorry about the late response, but I'm new to the forum and I'm just catching up. Cranks for the Elite, Eclat and standard Excel were not cross-drilled. Cranks for the Esprit, Turbo, Excel SE & SA were cross-crilled on main journals 1, 2, 4, & 5 and were installed with different main bearing shells (bottoms plain, no groove or hole). If you're building a hot-rod motor, use the cross-drilled crank (or have yours cross-drilled) and the later bearing set. I'm not sure if the 911 Sunbeam engine had a cross-drilled crank or not, but I don't think so. Later cranks (Esprit SE onward with Renault transaxle) used a ball bearing for the spigot bearing (pilot bearing), so the pocket in the back of the crank is much larger... 35mm ID. That's the only standard replacement crank available from Lotus now. For older engines, they provide a steel insert to step the bore down to the ID required for the old bearing. BTW, the ball bearing is the way to go. I've converted my engines to it, and all the local Lotus club members' cars I work on get the conversion as well. The 911 rods and pistons will work in the 907. Hi compression engines should have the head studs replaced with the later hi-spec Lotus parts. Pricey but worth it. The original parts were prone to stretching and subsequent head gasket blowing. Use the later Esprit Turbo head gasket by Goetze. It's an olive-drab composite part, not a steel faced gasket like the original. Tim Engel
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: 05-02-2005 02:27 pm |
|
5th Post |
|
Judson Manning Member
|
Tim, I got one of those cranks with the 1986 HCI engine I bought a few years ago. That rear pilot bearing is HUGE! Fortunately, the ID is the correct size for the JH 4sp transmission input shaft....hmmmm....someone must have been thinking.... Anyway, when I had my Supra transmission rebuilt, I liked that pilot bearing so much, I got my machinist to turn down the W58 input shaft to the JH specs. That now gives me the option of having a JH 4sp/5sp as a 'back-up'. Now all I've got to do is maodify the Excel bellhousing from hydraulic to cable clutch.... Judson
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: 05-02-2005 09:18 pm |
|
6th Post |
|
Esprit2 Member
|
Judson Manning wrote: Tim, The Esprit SE onward with the Renault transaxle had a 17mm spigot. The 1986 HCI with Citroen transaxle had a 15mm spigot. If your crank has an SKF 6202 bearing (35mm OD, 15mm ID, 11mm wide) then the PO had done a ball bearing upgrade on his own. If it has an SKF 6003 (35mm OD, 17mm ID, 10mm wide), then it's a later crank to mate with a Renault gearbox. No matter, just details. Either way, the ball bearing is the way to go. What was the original Supra W58 spigot journal OD ? In the Excel it was 15mm, but I don't know if that was a special for Lotus or stock Supra W58. Later, Tim Engel Last edited on 05-02-2005 09:21 pm by Esprit2 |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: 08-24-2006 11:11 pm |
|
7th Post |
|
Joel Member
|
I think I'm about ready to start working on the bottom end of my extra engine. Can someone tell me what bearings I should get? I keep hearing about the Chrysler bearings that fit. .. I don't see any sense in buying the Crank and bearing set from JHPS (Sorry Greg) if I'm going to use different bearings. Anyone have a good source for a 2.2 crank? You can PM me if you like. My plan is to work slowly and start from the bottom up. . . .
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: 08-25-2006 04:00 am |
|
8th Post |
|
Judson Manning Member
|
Joel, The JHPS crank & bearing package is as good a deal as you can find. The Chrysler 318 bearings are NOT a direct fit, and requires a complete line-bore and custom fittment. We are using these in racing applications for a variety of reasons. For a street engine, they are total over-kill. BTW we are still using JHPS supplied ACL rod bearings. <thanks Greg for my delivery last week> Other sources for the 2.2 crank exist, but all derive from wrecked Esprits and Excels. Not exactly the most commonly wrecked cars out there!
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: 08-25-2006 04:13 am |
|
9th Post |
|
Joel Member
|
thanks for then note. i'm just looking for a fun street engine with occassional track days. i'll probably go w/ the JHPS crank. ..
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: 08-25-2006 06:44 am |
|
10th Post |
|
Dan Eiland Member
|
I currently have the DMS 2.2 Crank kit with the Vandervel(?) bearings. Non cross drilled crank. If I have my crank cross drilled then where would I find the correct bearings? Where would I find information about the cross drilling for the machine shop? I'm putting the doors, hood, trunk lid and windshield-frame back on my car so I can take it to my body and paint guy. Once it is out of my garage I plan to start on the 5 speed conversion and 2.2 engine conversion. I still need to collect the sealants and lubricants for the re-assembly of the engine and get my notes better organized so far as what order to do this in and what specs to use and not use. The gasket sets I have are very old. I'm concerned as to whether I should use them. I am thinking of purchasing all new gaskets including following Tim's advice about the later Esprit Turbo head gasket by Goetze. Thanks, Dan Eiland
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: 08-26-2006 10:59 pm |
|
11th Post |
|
Joel Member
|
I'm taking stock of what i have to see what I need. My crank has stamped on it - 7195981 an 'F' and what looks like 'T3'. The Cams have A907E and 0351Y (I think) and one has 00c23236 and the other MC29E36. The crank looks to be cross drilled. So maybe I have the 2.2. I searched the forums and didn't see any info on identifying cranks and cams. Any help would be appreciated.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: 08-30-2006 07:18 pm |
|
12th Post |
|
Joel Member
|
No one with an idea of where to get this data? or at least the specs so I can figure it out myself. . .
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: 09-01-2006 12:46 am |
|
13th Post |
|
edward_davis Member 
|
For the crank, you should be able to measure the stroke length and compare it to the stats for the 2.0 and 2.2. Let's see... The 2.0 has a stroke of ~2.72 inches (~69.2 mm), from the workshop manual. The 2.2 has a stroke of 3.0 inches, based on the tech articles from the JHPS site. That should be easy enough to see with a tape measure. Doesn't seem like a quarter inch would make that much of a difference, but it seems to. I'm not sure what crank I have in my JH. I'm pretty sure that it's the original (the PO told me, I think, that the bottom end had never been opened on her in 130,000 mi, but I'm not sure I believe that.) I'm going to get a bit of thin dowel and measure the stroke through the spark plug holes to be sure. Since I've only ever driven two JH's, and the other one (the one I didn't buy) had low compression and was waaay out of tune, I don't really have a subjective way to judge my car's relative power output. I do know that the compression was around 125 psi when I tested it, but that won't tell me about the stroke. So, the dowel will tell me: if #1 and #2 are three inches different in depth at TDC, I have the 2.2. If they're 2.72, I have the 2.0. Easy enough. I am curious about the cams, though. Can you tell the stock cams from the 107 and 104? Also, if the 104 is basically a higher-lift version of the stock cam, can I get there by having my stock cams reground? Would that be cheaper or as effective as getting the cams from Delta or the club store? How much of a low-end torque difference would 107 vs 104 make if I went for the HC pistons? I know there's been a lot of talk about cams on this board, but I'm just fascinated by the prospect of hopping up my 907. That engine is the reason I bought this car - the only way I'll ever get to own/drive something that exotic on my budget. I mean, 140 bhp from ~122 cubes is cool, and the prospect of 200+ bhp from ~134 cubes is insane! Especially with 30 year old technology.... Thanks, folks, for feeding my engine obsession. Edward Davis
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: 09-01-2006 12:55 am |
|
14th Post |
|
Joel Member
|
Thanks for the comment. I got the same info from another source too so I'll be checking that out this weekend. Your cam questions are good too. . . .
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: 09-01-2006 02:47 am |
|
15th Post |
|
Jensen Healey Super Moderator 
|
The 107 cam has 777777 stamped around one end and is very pointy compared to the stock cam. You can search this site for the actual differences in lift and measure your cams. Installing a new cam is not easy and would cost more in labor and parts than the cams thamselves. The chances of having a 2.2 crank are extremely small. Good luck. Yes, you can build a monster like Jensini or Yellow Dog but you had better think about brakes and suspension! Kurt
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: 09-01-2006 05:18 pm |
|
16th Post |
|
Greg Fletcher Administrator 
|
Kurt makes a good point that you do need to consider some extra time and money when switching cams. I installed a set of 107's on my otherwise stock engine in my project car and the their was some fiddly time in reshimming to larger sized shims. In my case, it was no problem and everything went very smoothly, but if you have some large shims in the head before you start you may need larger, custom, shims or a valve job by a good quality shop (such as West Coast Cylinder Head in Reseda, CA) that will take the time to be sure the valve stems are the correct length in relation to your desired shim range and camshafts. On the performance cams- everything is in the profile and there are a lot of profiles out there. Sure you can get any place to grind a cam, but almost none of them will know what a Lotus is, let alone what the best profile for your 907 engine is.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: 09-15-2006 02:26 am |
|
17th Post |
|
Sylva Member
|
Just joined the JHPS, but I have run a Sunbeam Lotus Engine for some years. Be very carefull using a Sunbeam 911 crank in a 907 block. My track car ran all Sunbeam running gear, engine, gear box and axil, these came form a Lotus SUnbeam I had owned since 1984. Last year I repaced the 911 block and crank with a new 910 S4 block and crank. When we offered these up to the gear box we found that the spigot bearing did not mate to the end of the gea box input shaft. Measurments showed that the face on the crank that carried the fly wheel was 4mm nearer to the block face on the 910 cranck than it is on e 911. and that the spiggot bearing is another 6 mm deeper into the crank. We had to extend the gear box shaft and thicken the fly wheel to make it fit. In simple words the 911 crank is 1/4 of an inch shorter than an S4 Esprit 910 crank. I don't know if all 912 amd 910 cranks are the same, but no one had heared of this problem, swapping between pure lotus cars, certainly a 912 engine went straight in to my friends S3 Esprit just with a change of sppigot bearing.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Current time is 12:15 am | |
| > Jensen Healey & Jensen GT Tech > Engine & Transmission > 2.2 Crank and parts for 907 | Top |
