yep, about 0.6" is what i remember. the timing pointer doesn't matter -
its the mounting flange for the water pump that does.
it fits fine - you just need to adjust the spacing of your crank pulley
(and maybe alternator depending on how it's mounted).
I noticed this when I installed a newly built engine that i'd used the '64
style cover on. my old engine had the later cover. initially i had an
electric pump, but switched back to the mechanical to get the belt to the
alternator. i've since modified the mounting style to allow use of the
electric pump but have not yet re fitted it.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Ron Fraser <rfraser@bluefrog.com> wrote:
> I just measured a couple of timing covers.
>
> 5.0L E5AE timing cover - Thickness = 2.1"
>
> 64 289, C5AE timing cover - major thickness = 2.712 - the cast timing
> pointer makes the total thickness = 3.092"
>
> That makes about 1" difference. The difference with a 289 timing cover
> without a cast pointer should be around .6"
>
> Yes the timing cover can be removed with the engine in place. The radiator
> must be removed to gain access.
>
> I believe the 5.0L timing cover will fit OK but I have never checked that
> or
> looked to see.
>
> Ron Fraser
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tigers [mailto:tigers-bounces@autox.team.net] On Behalf Of Owain
> Lloyd
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 5:18 AM
> To: Tom Parker
> Cc: LIST TIGER
> Subject: Re: [Tigers] tiger radiator
>
>
> If you ever need less than 1/2 inch more clearance to the rad and you have
> the original early timing cover, its worth remembering that the later
> timing covers are thinner. you'll need to use different bolts to attach
> it. i've never tried changing one with the engine still in the car but it
> should be doable with a quality damper puller and the rad removed.
_______________________________________________
tigers@autox.team.net
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Unsubscribe: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/tigers/mharc@autox.team.net
|