The 340 Prop failure thread

B14, B172, B19/200, D16 engine, ignition, cooling, fuel & exhaust system, gearbox, variomatic, final drive... | Tuning: engine swaps, welded diff, clutch upgrades...
NO parts requests here, please use our V3M BUY & SELL corner

How did yours fail?

Splines damaged
2
20%
Rubber fractured
8
80%
Rubber cusion slipping
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 10

User avatar
mac
Posts: 1402
Joined: 19 Apr 2006 11:02 am
Location: Needham Market U.K.

Re: The 340 Prop failure thread

Post by mac » 06 Jan 2013 12:05 am

I remember "Hy-Tac" from the old days - there were two versions - one in a tin like "normal" grease and also a spray version in an aerosol. I seem to recall the spray type was a orangey brown colour. It first came to light with the 66 service info and was carried over for the 300.

I also recall, on the 66 a little wedge kit used to cure rattles from the prop (it didn't work).

Mac.
87 3door DL 1.4 58k - 88 3door DL 146k - 88 5door Redline 1.7 52k - 12 XC70 SELux AWD D5 22k
1950 pair of legs that don't work very well.

User avatar
filthyjohn
*** V3M DONOR ***
Posts: 2693
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 09:07 pm
Location: Sunderland, Ringpiece Of England

Re: The 340 Prop failure thread

Post by filthyjohn » 06 Jan 2013 08:17 am

Image



Followed by this:


Image
'87 Nissan Sunny
'95 945 LPT
'90 340 3dr
'87 360 GLT
'87 765 TIC
'75 Manta A
'70 Rover P5 V8
'67 MGB GT
'62 amazon 2dr

User avatar
Speedy88
Posts: 4057
Joined: 04 May 2009 11:52 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: The 340 Prop failure thread

Post by Speedy88 » 06 Jan 2013 08:57 am

RE: The problem with weighty aftermarket props. Jonovlov was talking to me the other week about modifying an RX8 or MX5 prop (they are carbon fibre and about the right length) to fit. They're light, strong and can cope with power. Possible solution? I'll have access to one over the next few days so I might do some measurements.
'88 340 Williams (Sold)
'85 360 GLS - Drift project (Sold)
'77 Colt Sigma
'96 940 Drift project

User avatar
filthyjohn
*** V3M DONOR ***
Posts: 2693
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 09:07 pm
Location: Sunderland, Ringpiece Of England

Re: The 340 Prop failure thread

Post by filthyjohn » 06 Jan 2013 09:01 am

MX5 props made of carbon?? Pics or it ain't true!Excellent if it is though. A couple of companies make custom carbon props, might be worth looking into since reco-prop seem to charge the earth.
'87 Nissan Sunny
'95 945 LPT
'90 340 3dr
'87 360 GLT
'87 765 TIC
'75 Manta A
'70 Rover P5 V8
'67 MGB GT
'62 amazon 2dr

User avatar
filthyjohn
*** V3M DONOR ***
Posts: 2693
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 09:07 pm
Location: Sunderland, Ringpiece Of England

Re: The 340 Prop failure thread

Post by filthyjohn » 06 Jan 2013 09:05 am

RX8 does though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_RX-8

"The manual gearbox model uses a carbon fiber composite driveshaft to reduce the rotational mass (moment of inertia) connected to the engine..."
'87 Nissan Sunny
'95 945 LPT
'90 340 3dr
'87 360 GLT
'87 765 TIC
'75 Manta A
'70 Rover P5 V8
'67 MGB GT
'62 amazon 2dr

User avatar
Speedy88
Posts: 4057
Joined: 04 May 2009 11:52 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: The 340 Prop failure thread

Post by Speedy88 » 06 Jan 2013 09:08 am

Ahh, thats a shame as it was an MX5 I was looking at todayt. I might look at the MX5 ones as well as they weigh basically nothing. Think they're alloy. I'll try and find an RX8 in a scrapyard :D
'88 340 Williams (Sold)
'85 360 GLS - Drift project (Sold)
'77 Colt Sigma
'96 940 Drift project

User avatar
Chris_C
*** V3M DONOR ***
Posts: 9571
Joined: 18 Jun 2004 11:53 pm
Location: Southampton and Isle of Wight, UK
Contact:

Re: The 340 Prop failure thread

Post by Chris_C » 06 Jan 2013 09:29 am

pettaw wrote:Any custom prop manufacturer would have to understand that the prop spins at engine RPM, and therefore has to be properly balanced and light enough so that its not putting too high an inertial mass onto the input shaft of the gearbox.
Thats the problem Andy, that's not the only problem here. 95% of the time, yes, the prop will be spinning faster than the equivalent in a front mounted gearbox car. However, there is one case where that isn't true, that being the case of switching in overdrive (assuming the car in question has one, but seeing the standard comparison I make to Fake is a Dolomite Sprint it jumped out).

In that case, the "normal" prop is doing more rpm's than the 300 prop, at much higher torque loadings (as the torque multiplier, the gearbox, has already happened). However, it's not going to have to fight the synchros at any point in it's life, so the inertia doesn't matter, infact pales into insignificance when you are going along the motorway as its directly coupled to the wheels which have 1ton of car doing 70 on top of them.

Volvo solved the problem with the 360, I'm convinced we are looking at a situation of "torque tube or go home", it solves the low inertia and the alignment all in one sexy package rather than having to be reliant on engine and gearbox mounts being both statically and dynamically stable.
'89(G) 340 GLE B172k
'03 S60 D5 SE, '91 (J) MX5, 1954 Cyclemaster
Ex:
'89(F) 340 GL F7R (ex B172k) - Fake -> SBKV 300 Runner Up 08, 12; '91(H) 340 GL B14.4E - Kar; '88(F) 360 GLT B200E - Jet -> BKV 300 Runner Up 09; '89(G) 360 GLT B200E - Beast

Dean
Posts: 112
Joined: 14 Nov 2012 06:19 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: The 340 Prop failure thread

Post by Dean » 06 Jan 2013 09:32 pm

-
Last edited by Dean on 21 Nov 2015 11:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
foggyjames
*** V3M DONOR ***
Posts: 9329
Joined: 29 Jan 2004 04:20 am
Location: Lincoln, UK
Contact:

Re: The 340 Prop failure thread

Post by foggyjames » 08 Jan 2013 02:12 am

Presumably a replacement design of prop with the shaft made of something which exerts a similarly small moment (either large diameter in ally (i.e. standard) or CF, or small diameter in steel (a la 360)), and the rubber "wobble joints" replaced with something more robust but not massively heavy (small CVs? compact steel UJs?), plus more robust splines.

Stupid thought, but what about an expanding prop with a slide joint, so you don't have to put in in bent? On the other hand, If you used something as small diameter as a 360 prop, there would be almost no bending...or if you used something with compact UJs (how much torque can ones the size of a steering shaft UJ take?), they would bend down out of the way, allowing a solid spline section to be slotted in square.

Although the torque tube arrangement is surely superior (mainly because it's found attached to a superior engine sm56 sm56 sm56), it's a lot of work, and there is a finite supply of donor cars...and there *is* an argument which says they're better off staying where they are ;) There must be a middle ground between a TT swap and putting in a heifer of a conventional large-diameter tubular steel prop with large UJs, etc. Chris and Mac undoubtedly make excellent points re: synchro wear. Excellent thinking, gentlemen!

cheers

James
VOC 300-series Register Keeper
'89 740 Turbo Intercooler
'88 360 Turbo Intercooler
'85 360 GLT
'81 343 GLS R-Sport
'79 343 DL
'70 164
...and some modern FWD nonsense to get me to work...

classicswede
*** V3M DONOR ***
Posts: 5454
Joined: 25 Apr 2005 06:52 pm
Location: Anglesey North Wales
Contact:

Re: The 340 Prop failure thread

Post by classicswede » 08 Jan 2013 12:42 pm

Some great ideas and point coming from this thread.

The torque tube asper the 360 is probably the best solution but with a improved clamping method in an ideal world would be the best way to go. The trouble with that is a lot of parts would need to be manufactured to produce a new unit. There are only so many 360's that could donate parts. As a 1 off then it is a option for you are comited to the project.

Whatever you replace the prop with the weight needs to be kept as close to the centre of rotation. As Mac and others have pointed out you would be adding a lot of stress to the synchros. Using the 240 rubber couplings is something I had considered before but they are too big in diamter.

The Vibration from the Reco Prop is curious, How much is down to the length and how much is down to soggy engine mounts I don't know. The other thing to consider with the reco prop is that is has no give for back and forward movement and that is likely to cause vibration and aditional stress on the clamped joints.

I've got some ideas on what can be made to make a simple system that should work and be a lot stronger than the original setup.
Dai

Please email me directly on dai@classicswede.co.uk

http://www.classicswede.com

phone/text 07824887160

Web shop http://www.classicswede.co.uk/

Image

User avatar
Chris_C
*** V3M DONOR ***
Posts: 9571
Joined: 18 Jun 2004 11:53 pm
Location: Southampton and Isle of Wight, UK
Contact:

Re: The 340 Prop failure thread

Post by Chris_C » 08 Jan 2013 12:52 pm

classicswede wrote:The trouble with that is a lot of parts would need to be manufactured to produce a new unit. There are only so many 360's that could donate parts. As a 1 off then it is a option for you are comited to the project.
Only three custom parts need to be made from measurements taken and initial drawings made. However, the parts are not something simple that I can machine, nor any of my "fred in an shed" mates, it's going to be a proper engineering shop unless I can make my home made spark eroder work a bit better. I'm currently expecting ~£600 in the cost of these three parts alone. I agree, it's probably not the way forward for everyone and as Foggy says, at this point, it makes more sense to put that money into building a good N/A redblock. My issue as ever is not only am I building for the F7R, but also the B18FT sat on the drive.

I look forward to seeing your ideas Dai
'89(G) 340 GLE B172k
'03 S60 D5 SE, '91 (J) MX5, 1954 Cyclemaster
Ex:
'89(F) 340 GL F7R (ex B172k) - Fake -> SBKV 300 Runner Up 08, 12; '91(H) 340 GL B14.4E - Kar; '88(F) 360 GLT B200E - Jet -> BKV 300 Runner Up 09; '89(G) 360 GLT B200E - Beast

User avatar
340GLT
*** V3M DONOR ***
Posts: 3657
Joined: 31 Mar 2005 09:01 pm
Location: Shropshire & Swansea, UK
Contact:

Re: The 340 Prop failure thread

Post by 340GLT » 08 Jan 2013 05:34 pm

When i looked into using the torque tube it was less than 3 parts to make.
I reckon it could be done for less than £600.
a Cut and shut bellhousing, half 360 half 340 1.7, a vauxhall centre plate for the clutch, 360 clutch fork and bearing, 360 clutch cable, and a modifed rear gearbox mount.
Its more than doable, if i would of kept my F7R and not gone the mad T5 route i am now im sure the car would still be on the road with this setup.
Adam
F559 LFE - 340R 2.0 16v
C208 CTR - 340 1.8 16v
D300 LBO - 360 GLT 3 Door Turbo project!! (and restoration)
F706 RBX - 350R in process!!!

Post Reply