Engine to frame clearance issue

[Steve Bryant]

The new engine is a tight fit in the chassis frame at the front. The lip of the sump is hard up against  the inner flange of the chassis rails on both sides such that the engine will not sit down on its pedestal mounts leaving a gap of about 1/8 to 3/16" between the bottom of the pedestal and the rail top.  With this situation I can't remove the sump as it is too tightly wedged.

This prompts me to ask our experienced and seasoned Seven owners the following questions:

1 Are there any spacers or pads of any kind under the pedestal feet?  i was under the impression there are not supposed  to be any with the engine bolted directly to the frame.

2 The rear engine bolts  I got from one of our cherished suppliers are too long by about one inch. I'm wondering if they are not correct or is there a component missing under the frame rail that would account for the extra length ?

3 Where the sump is touching the inner flanges of the channel rails, the front suspension forging is riveted to the rails. This forging has a relief in its side as if made to clear the sump. Were any of the chassis frames ever cut away to match the profile of this forging as shown by the dotted yellow lines ? If so then if I ground the flange lip back to match this profile I would have the clearance i need. Have other members had to do this to get the engine to fit without interference ?

Thanks,
Stephen

[Tony Press]

It is an early engine - what is the Chassis ?

[Austin in the Shed]

Is it a chassis you have just built up,or had an engine in before.Have you tried a different crankcase to see if it has the. Same problem sitting in the chassis?
Just wondering if the chassis is out of true.
I personally would never bolt an engine down solid and prefer to slide some oil proof rubber under the feet but this doesn't get to the base of the problem you have and then you could have issues with clearance elsewhere.

[Howard Wright]

Hi Steve

Have the lugs on the case been ground back?  The lug should be 13/16” deep or thereabouts.

Cheers

Howard

["Slack Alice" Simon]

The chassis on my '34 car is relieved to the same profile as the nosepiece casting.

Like your yellow line, but more so.

On both inner and outer edges, presumably to stop them being "handed". for ease of production.

[Mike Costigan]

  233129-1518125850-8589674.jpg (Size: 80.97 KB / Downloads: 602)

[Parazine]

The bolts are probably for a rubber mounted engine. I note that some of the vintage sumps I have in my collection have a less pronounced lip and some post vintage ones are bent and modified at the front, make of that what you will 

[flywheel1935]

Surely, it's better to mod the sump pan, than take chunks out of the chassis, or is that too simple !!!!

[JonE]

well, are there ANY chassis which don't have that area relieved as per Mike's photo? It would seem easy enough to grind that bit out if not.

Is there an advantage to brass studs for the sump?

[Hedd_Jones]

Chassis dates left to right. Late 1929. May 1930. March 1931 (SWB). Gives some idea when the cutouts appeared as well as some other features.



The chassis on my GE Cup, has the bottom flange bent to allow clearance for the crankcase where the oil fill is on a mag engine. I'm told it is not that unusual.