Talk Morgan Forums Morgan Sports Cars Maintenance & Servicing Series 1 Roadster - Sump

Post photobucket reboot from April 2010:

I thought that I would do a nice technical post for my 1000th post.
Is it really number 1000?
Yes it is -

The Sump..........
It looks like this:



The slope towards the offside is obvious and the strengthening hatching on the underside looks like a large Waffle.

The V6 Duratec was not designed to fit the Getrag gearbox, which is evident by some anomalies in the fixings. The first photo shows the offside edge of the sump, where it meets the bellhousing. On the Mondeo, the second open hole in this photo is used to fix the engine to the gearbox, but in the Morgan, an extra hole is drilled and a 10mm bolt is used, which is probably over-engineered, as it's only holding the two parts together.



This is how it looks from the bellhousing side, and you can see the mismatched shape. Also visible is the rear of the large waffle strengthener, and drain plug.



This is the same side of a Ford sump - and there's no third hole.

From the other side it looks like this, and the location of the missing third hole lacks re-inforcement. This is fixable, but more of that later - not today.......




On the nearside,this is the lower mount on the edge of the sump. The left hand hole is used on the Ford, but on the Morgan it can't be used. and neither can the bellhousing hole, so neither is used!!



From the other (bellhousing) side looking forward:



And here's the inside, with the baffle plate removed:
Note the centre oil pick up.



This is with the baffle plate fitted:



The front pan is shaped to drain oil to the rear, and to the offside - left side in this photo.



For now, that's all, because I'm still researching the situation. There are several different castings for Ford V6 Duratec sumps, and I'm hoping to get to the bottom of it.....
There's another dodgy DaveW pun to end on, for now.

Post Photobucket reboot from April 2010: Continued.........

Busy day today, so not much done to the Morgan. I did manage to take that Series1 specific nut & bolt out. It's unusual in having a 13mm bolt head and a 17mm nyloc nut.





This shows the sump flange with the bolt out, and you can see that the casting has been thickened up for the extra hole. You can also see that the bolt has chased some threads in the alloy. I'm guessing that the hole was drilled after the engine & gearbox were mated (from the rear). The hole is slightly undersize for that size bolt.



Here I'm using metal foil from a wine bottle to make a template for when I drill the extra hole in a spare sump. This foil is just right for keeping shape, so it can be moulded round the holes to transfer the location.



Well, I've prepped the spare sump for emergency use, and drilled the extra hole using the template.



Round the back it needs strengthening, and I've taken the easy route with JB Weld. This is so that when the nut is tightened, the filler will not compress, and stop the flange cracking.



Finished off........compare this with the photo in the first post.



Now the question of the sump bolt. There are two sizes, 21mm & 28mm - and I really can't see what difference it makes.......3051079 is the 28mm version, which comes in this large box. Look carefully at the integral neoprene washer and you'll see a small raised lip. This is what makes the seal, so providing it's undamaged, the bolt will be OK to re-use.



Next the gasket. Two were listed for the ST220, and I went for the post 2003. The part number for this is 4763355, BUT there's a big but............



I hope it's obvious in this photo. The gasket is a composite alloy/neoprene (and is over £40.........). The thickness is at least 2mm and if this were fitted to my Mog it would be visible as a sandwich plate. No gasket is visible. I therefore conclude that in order to increase clearance, a paper gasket is used on the Morgan.
FRANK - next time you visit the dealer, can you ask them about the sump gasket please. I bet it's paper, which means that we can make our own.



More to follow>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Post Photobucket reboot from April 2010: Continued.....

And now to the outside........

You should all know what the standard sump looks like.
Lets call it a 'full waffle' design.





The front is smooth....



My replacement Mondeo sump looks like this...........
Lets call this a 'quarter waffle' design:
This casting lacks the thick waffle plate, so has more clearance already. It also has two indents in the leading edge which are where the cast pillars are situated inside for the baffle plate. This sump carries the reference "99" F731-6675-BA F1. Apart from the obvious difference, it's the same as the standard sump.



My investigations showed that there are several different castings, so I sourced one which I will describe as 'quarter waffle and ribs': This carries the reference "98" F53E-6675-DB F2. There is a slight difference on the lower left corner - just a small mod to the flange - which is visible.



I've blown the sumps over with aluminium paint so the detail shows. The second sump is poorly cast with loads of small nodules. I've filed these off and polished the inside, as rough surfaces disrupt the oil draining back under the baffle plate. I may take this one to Mulfab to be shortened.

From all this, I conclude that the easiest option is to have a spare sump for emergency use. These can be found on e-bay, and I'll be happy to point you in the right direction if you send me a PM.
Next, have a sump shortened by Mulfab. For me that's easier if I get a spare sump shortened. I'd rather keep the original intact, unless it gets holed.
If I go down that route, I'll add the outcome onto this post.
I hope that helps all you lowriders.
Oh by the way, the internal baffle setscrews are 5/16" or 8mm.
The sump plug is 15mm. My standard sump has the reference: F960A 5L8E-6675-BB F4. The common part in all three is the '6675'.

More to follow>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Post Photobucket reboot from April 2010: Continued.........

Following my visit to Mulfab on Saturday I did a bit more investigation on the web. I've established that the Mondeo sump has a thinner flange, used with a composite spacer gasket. The Morgan sump has a thicker flange with a cast in groove which takes a simple rubber seal. My conclusion to all this is that the Morgan Sump is an Escape sump. However, the composite spacer gasket is available on e-bay USA as an Escape gasket, but for years 2001 to 2003. It's therefore reasonable to assume that the sump changed at 2004. Here's a clue..........
I found this entry:
2004 FORD ESCAPE XLT 3.0 DURATEC 24V DOHC V6 OIL PAN



The groove and seal is clearly visible here.



OE part numbers are quoted as: 5L8Z-6675-AA, 7L8Z-6675-A and ZZC2-10-400
Also fits Mazda Tribute and Mercury Mariner.......

Dorman make a replacement steel oil pan for $63, but it's as deep as the alloy sump, athough it would be easier to modify. Obviously the Ford Escape also suffers from sump damage or this part would not be available!!!

2017 Note: It turns out that the Dorrman sump is a cast alloy item.

Roadster sumps are a big issue, and yet so far I've only had one major knock, and got away with it. The Mulfab skimmed sump is a very worthwhile modification, and the mountings can be spaced up to around 6mm to gain more clearance.

Bumping this post from 2010. It's all still relevant for the 3.0L Roadster, and newer owners may not have found this post.

So after 13 years, I decided to add a sump "snowplough". By this I mean a curved plate ahead of the sump, to deflect any road debris away from the front edge. Very occasionally I've found a brick in the road, or something dead, and the casting is fragile, so a bit of extra protection won't go amiss.

I decided to use 2mm Aluminium, despite advising myself and others not to use 2mm. because it's so difficult to bend without a metal bender. But it needed 2mm for a degree of strength. Having made a cardboard template, and got the shape and size right, I then tried to add a clean bend. It didn't work. In the end I used the garage door as a vice, and slowly added a curve. It was laborious.

But when done it looked like this



On my 2005 Roadster, the crosshead stay bars are fastened (each side) with two nuts and bolts vertically through the chassis, and one horizontally. The two vertical fasteners are ideally placed to secure the plough. However, later cars use a single vertical nut & bolt to secure a different stay bar with a slotted end, which is not as convenient.

To get the right depth, I changed the original bolts for longer, and then mounted the plate over the existing nuts.









Ground clearance, with my raised engine mountings, is 3&5/8", or 93mm. It's not much.

Do not confuse this simple plate with a steel plate sumpguard. That was not my intention. This addition is simply to provide another layer of protection against minor road debris, some of which is impossible to miss, especially in the dark.

That should work, and if you do hit something unyielding, make a wonderful noise!!

Like a bell..........

Peter (dear member of the sacred inner circle...)

The latter part of your comment is true..but the first is not. I am going to piggyback a bit on this thread..to illustrate the problems here with format.

The joy of automobile forum is that it harnesses many minds to analyze an often common problem, discuss solutions and finally, many people to go out and try them and report. However, the format HERE has been altered by 1-2 individuals. Individuals discuss nothing before and, go out and try a single-mind-in-a-vacuum solutions and present it for sumptuous approval. Those of us amateurs who see its failures are courteous and say nothing and those that don't applaud. In that way, the mistakes curse the community forever.

The earlier Roadsters (which I am a fan of) have a grave problem at the sump. Here is how other forums would have handled it

1. It would have been recognized that the problem has a number of elements.

a. Low clearance. Though other Morgans..Plus 8s until 1996ish and VERY bad until 1991) but steel sumps dent rather than shatter like cast aluminum. As well, the later 3.9 sump leave more ground clearance while ADDING capacity. I keep an extra sumps for all my Plus 8s. When one dents, I swap in the second sump, bang out the dented one with a heavy hammer and a 2x2 and put that one in my stores in waiting.

b. An aluminum sump.

2. That protective plates lower the clearance further

3. That leaving no clearance between a metal protective plate and what its supposed to protect does NOT mitigate the force of an impact to the sump. This can be tested by merely taking the plate before installation, putting on the designer's hand, and whacking the plate with a hammer force sufficient to raise a Roadster off the ground. Now examine the hand and post pictures of it to the forum so we all know what will happen to the sump. Yet leaving more clearance that will REALLY help the sump will also lower the ground clearance where each millimetre is precious!

There is also a possible problem of increased engine bay heat. The two directions that could help here is increasing ground clearance..a la Mulberry or finding a steel sump. If a skid plate is wanted, try something along the lines Alpha Romeo used.

So the solutions given here move this model backwards. It was less likely they could have happened if the format was different here and people wanted to bless this forum rather than use it as an audience.

Peter (dear member of the sacred inner circle... )

The latter part of your comment is true..but IMHO, the first is not. I am going to piggyback a bit on this thread..to illustrate the forum problems I mentioned earlier.

The joy of automobile forum is that it harnesses many minds. Amateur minds are not, per se, stupid minds and have the advantage of being able to think more easily out of the box. The good forum analyzes an often common problem, dissects it into its elements, discusses solutions and finally, has many people to go out and try and report. However, the normal format HERE has been altered. Some prolific individuals discuss nothing with the forum before going out and trying a single-mind-in-a-vacuum solution and present it for desired sumptuous approval. Those of us amateurs who see its failures are courteous and say nothing. Those that do NOT see its failings applaud. In that way, these mistakes curse the community forever.

The earlier Roadsters (which I am a fan of) have a grave problem at the sump (and a few other places). Here is how other forums would have handled this one

1. It would have been recognized that the problem has a number of elements.

a. Low ground clearance. Though other Morgans..Plus 8s until 1996ish and VERY bad until 1991 had less clearance.

b. A cast aluminum sump. The aforementioned Plus 8s had steel sumps. Steel sumps dent rather than shatter like cast aluminum. I keep an extra sumps for all my Plus 8s. When one dents, I swap in the second sump (30 minutes), bang out the dented one at leisure with a heavy hammer and a 2x2 and put that one in my stores waiting for its turn again.

2. That protective plates makes for even less ground clearance.

3. That leaving no clearance between a metal protective plate and what its supposed to protect does NOT mitigate the force of an impact to the sump. This can be tested by merely taking the plate before installation, putting on the designer's hand, and whacking the plate with a hammer force sufficient to raise a Roadster off the ground. Now examine the hand and post pictures of it to the forum so we all know what will happen to the sump. Yet leaving more clearance between plate and sump will also lower the ground clearance where each millimetre is precious!
There is also a possible problem of increased engine bay heat. All we know on that one is the air flow will be changed..but how?

The only two directions that could help here is increasing ground clearance..a la Mulberry or finding a steel sump. I have been looking since 2005.

So, IMHO, and the feedback I get, is that the solutions given here move this model backwards... It was less likely they could have happened if the format was different here and people wanted to bless this forum rather than use it only as a fan club or a selling platform. That being said, I highly like people who make any an effort to find solutions. That is one of the joys of owning a Morgan

Lorne

I don’t think Dave’s design reduces ground clearance. His use of the term “snowplough” and the pictures show that his solution is a deflector - not a guard - and does not reduce ground clearance.