DOHC TC oil pan question

[89TC-16V]

Does the 89 Masi Headed motor have a standard 2.2L non-common block oil pan or does it have the commonblock pan.

[TwinCamFan]

Hmm, little bit confused by the question, do you have the common block motor or not? Mine, unfortunatly was an early build car hence no CB <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> If you have the CB motor it will be a CB pan but not that deep 2.5 pan you may be thinking of...

Alan

[89TC-16V]

its not a confusing question, maybe its the wording, i don't know if the 89 motor in my TC is a commonblock motor or not, so i dont know if its a commonblock oil pan or a standard one. i have a good dent in mine and am going junkyarding tomorrow and would grab the correct pan to replace it if i know which it has

[Hemi Dude]

The simple way to 'discover' which engine block you have is;

"Look to see if you have a manual fuel pump COVER plate just right of your waterpump adaptor, there on the forward side of the block." If you DO it is the early block, if you DO NOT it is the common block. They were built with both types depending on the 'build date.'

[TwinCamFan]

Extreme, maybe if your question had read 'how do I tell if I have a common block motor' I'd have understood what you needed to know. Still as long as you have been on TD.com and never seen that info before... <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

Alan

[89TC-16V]

Well, i never had to ID a commonblock motor before, never had one, had TIs from 84-87 and a 92 TIII motor which is a commonblock but a lot of diff parts on it that this motor. couldnt tell you the diff between a commonblock and a standard one for my life, and ive never heard it discussed when it came to these cars. i figured it wasn't a commonblock, but i guess ill have to find the build date and have my friend look at it, he'd know

[Willhelm Reichert]

See attached pics of precommon block with fuel pump block off plate, Common block and Mexican C block casting with less shift in the casting process. The C block is a common block that is just a little better for high horsepower.

[Willhelm Reichert]

Pic of common block with C. All common blocks look like this except for the C.

[89TC-16V]

Thank you, that is what i needed, now i can ID mine maybe tomorrow

[89TC-16V]

I have a block-off plate, so its a pre-commonblock

[Willhelm Reichert]

Yep. I'm getting the impression that you are kind of hard on cars.

[TwinCamFan]

Hey Looney, whats in the oil drain back holes of the commonblock? Is that Hardblock or something? Is that for a hybrid build? <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Willhelm Reichert]

Sharp eyes. Those are the holes to plug to use a Neon, Stratus head on a common block. Sixteen valve engine with a $250 twin cam head.

[Red Alf]

Mr. Willhelm, as  my 1898 TC SOHC is with a common block, I start to search for more data. Do you have more info on the "conversion"  with the Neon twin cam? maybe a web page? or Email?

Thanks 

[Hemi Dude]

An 1898 TC would DEFINITELY have an early block, an uncommon block.

[Reaper1]

15 hours ago, Red Alf said:

Mr. Willhelm, as  my 1898 TC SOHC is with a common block, I start to search for more data. Do you have more info on the "conversion"  with the Neon twin cam? maybe a web page? or Email?

Thanks 

If you are wanting to use a 2.4 16V head, anymore it is just better all around to use the entire 2.4 engine and swap it in, unless you absolutely want to use a stock block.

[Red Alf]

I agree, this also is a good option, but I read that the Neon block is very light, and considered as disposal, also I read that the common block is good for 500 HP and very solid. I don't plan for now to make a race car, but is good to be prepared.

[marty mopar]

89 oil pans:

 

4448707  PAN, Oil Partial w/Liners Painted
4425988  w/EDD 16 Valve Up to Job 2999
4425991  w/EDD 16 Valve After Job 2999

[Reaper1]

On 10/29/2020 at 3:57 PM, Red Alf said:

I agree, this also is a good option, but I read that the Neon block is very light, and considered as disposal, also I read that the common block is good for 500 HP and very solid. I don't plan for now to make a race car, but is good to be prepared.

The 2.0/2.4 block is stronger than the 2.2/2.5 Common Block. Its only issue is the main cap girdle. For whatever reason, Chrysler decided to hollow out the caps over the bearings. This is easily rectified with a "strap kit", which requires machining the girdle flat in those areas and installing hardened steel "straps" over the girdle, which then makes it good for 1000+hp. Some folks had issues with the oil pump gears, but that was usually really high power and rpm applications.

 

The Common Block doesn't have a known "limit" that I am aware of. I have never heard of one that has failed due to pure power production. I have seen instances of them splitting a cylinder about halfway down due to a core shift, and some will claim that the non-CB will break between the rear expansion plugs at some point. The most power I have heard being made out of an unfilled CB is in the 640chp range...in a street driven car that is abused very hard.

 

Either way, any of the block options available will easily handle the power you are hinting at.

[Red Alf]

Thanks Reaper1, your statements make me comfortable. The Neon's head 16 valves was just a short moment of insanity.

Now what I try to learn is about the BOV and the vacuum quick release valve, and I will like your opinion. Someone suggest to remove the BOV from inside the air cleaner, and add a small filter on one side of the BOV, then replace the quick release valve with a combination of check valve and a couple of reduced orifices. The purpose is to make the BOV less prone to leaks, and improve the air in the air cleaner box, next just eliminate the air box and install a KN filter.

Seem to me that make some sense, but I like to ask anyway.

[Reaper1]

The factory BOV *can* leak and have problems, but usually only if you are running more that stock boost levels.

 

The only reasons to take the BOV out of the airbox is sound or if you are modifying the intercooler pipes. If you take the BOV out of the airbox, some like to put a filter on it because it can suck in air during vacuum transitions. Personally, if you are going to the lengths of moving the BOV, just get a nice aftermarket one and don't look back.

 

So, the real question is, what are your goals? What are you trying to do? Stock parts actually work pretty darn well up to the limit of the stock fuel system. If you aren't looking to upgrade injectors, I wouldn't worry about getting rid of the stock airbox and all that. Unless you get the filter over by where the battery is (verified with testing), an open element filter will just suck in hot air and actually *hurt* performance in some situations (especially in hot weather). For this reason, the stock set-up is pretty good. This isn't to say there aren't gains to be had, but they aren't massive at near-stock levels.

[Red Alf]

OK, you have a point, My Goals: I will like to drive the car as long as possible.

 The technology used 31 years ago, is not necessary the best, the original parts are not easy to find, a few years ago, with a quick visit at the junkyard you can have what you need, today try to asks for a Le Baron, or Daytona 1989 and you will have a strange look.

 So, I believe that some update is necessary.

What I don’t like:

1)      The radiator. Yes is a special one, but I will like to see a wide one (LeBaron 1989), to old more water, with a different fan, maybe 2 fans.

2)      The intercooler. In my opinion (I can be wrong) the location is the worst, I will like to relocate in one area with better fresh air flowing and less pressure drop form input to output.

3)      Oil filter. If the TC is a “high performance” with turbo, what I will like to see is one oil cooler with a large oil filter.

4)      BOV, quick vacuum valve and all the relate vacuum. How long will last?

5)      The SMEC. I believe that was detuned for multiple reasons, not just the transmission, but what happened 31 years ago in Italy stay in Italy (I left 1978). Anyway I already replace the SMEC with one from Rick Diogo; the TC runs much better.

6)      The muffler & relates. Too restrictive, some day must go.

Maybe you can suggests to buy another car, but I like to drive a TC.

[Reaper1]

On 11/7/2020 at 1:49 PM, Red Alf said:

OK, you have a point, My Goals: I will like to drive the car as long as possible.

 The technology used 31 years ago, is not necessary the best, the original parts are not easy to find, a few years ago, with a quick visit at the junkyard you can have what you need, today try to asks for a Le Baron, or Daytona 1989 and you will have a strange look.

 So, I believe that some update is necessary.

What I don’t like:

1)      The radiator. Yes is a special one, but I will like to see a wide one (LeBaron 1989), to old more water, with a different fan, maybe 2 fans.

2)      The intercooler. In my opinion (I can be wrong) the location is the worst, I will like to relocate in one area with better fresh air flowing and less pressure drop form input to output.

3)      Oil filter. If the TC is a “high performance” with turbo, what I will like to see is one oil cooler with a large oil filter.

4)      BOV, quick vacuum valve and all the relate vacuum. How long will last?

5)      The SMEC. I believe that was detuned for multiple reasons, not just the transmission, but what happened 31 years ago in Italy stay in Italy (I left 1978). Anyway I already replace the SMEC with one from Rick Diogo; the TC runs much better.

6)      The muffler & relates. Too restrictive, some day must go.

Maybe you can suggests to buy another car, but I like to drive a TC.

I understand about trying to find parts anymore. I just went to the yard this weekend and there were *2*  K-era cars. Luckily they both had what I needed between them, but it's a sad state.

 

1) Yes, the radiator is "special", but only from the standpoint that it's a TII unit. Do NOT trash it! You can have a new core put in it. The end tanks are brass. While it is heavy and aluminum is a better material choice, the stock one is not "bad" and in good condition is more than capable of keeping the engine cool. The stock fan is a decent unit, but it is bulky. I have found that the 1990 V6 fan is a brilliant replacement. The shroud needs some trimming to fit, but it basically "bolts in", gives more room, and moves a TON of air.

2) While not the "worst" location, the side-mounted intercooler isn't the best for sure. Luckily the TC uses some decent air ducting making it slightly more effective than the other TM's (IMHO, no testing to back that up). For stock-levels it does a decent job. Moving it in front of the core support will help it. A bigger/better intercooler might help the performance some. Whether it will be enough to be worth the effort and money is a tough call. It depends on the power output.

3) I agree than an oil cooler is a MUST with *any* turbo car. I find it a shame that these cars didn't get them. There is an old MOPAR sandwich adapter that is a water/oil unit. These were standard on European export turbo cars, but for some reason (costs?) were only an aftermarket option here. I personally run a large B&M in the front of the car and a PH16 sized oil filter.

4) BOV stuff is hard to say since it is old plastic and rubber. Again, stock-ish performance and it will last a long time and unless it is totally junk, you probably wouldn't notice that much difference.

5) The SMEC was "detuned" on the SOHC TC's due to it being paired with the automatic. The same was done with the Shelby Lancer. It was done because the transmissions were not rated for the amount of torque the TII makes in its "full tune" for the amount of time that Chrysler wanted to warranty them for. It's not that it can't. And of course there is the performance aspect of the SOHC versus the DOHC...having 40hp more versus only 28hp more is a much better selling point. I am not sure how much RDI's TII computer adds, but I am sure it brings it up near 200hp, which is about the limit of the stock fuel system. It probably has a lot more mid range power, too. Just be sure to use good fuel and stabilizer in the fuel.

6) Performance will certainly be better with a higher flowing exhaust. 3" sounds better than 2.5" IMHO. I suggest keeping a catalytic converter for 2 reasons. 1, it's the law and we should care about the environment, and 2 it will help cut back on highway drone. Also, make sure the exhaust tip extends past the muffler. This will also help with drone. Most people will say a straight-though muffler is the only way to go...and for all out performance I agree. But, for a nice driver, you want a little more sound, but not *all* the time (especially with the top down). Even a "Super Turbo" type muffler will be better than stock and not be too restrictive.

 

I wanted to drive a TC as a daily as well. Unfortunately after getting *2* right hand headlights messed up I gave up on that. And more recently I bopped the nose of my red one in traffic .

[Red Alf]

Raper1, your answer is technically perfect. You get precisely on my concerns.

So.... replace what go bad one thing at time, and you point at what is convenient.

Also you are "politically correct" on benelth of Chrysler, nothin wrong with that; I am not so polite, as I know the political/industrial/ automotive/ marketing/propaganda/ moment in Italy, but is not the concern of this forum.

I am very sorry for your car, if you need one right hand headlight, I can give you one free, the inside reflector is oxidate, but the metal and the glass are intact.

About the front nose, my spare one is red, with a crack by the drive side, I keep  because can be repair, let me know at polyatt@gmail.com

[Hemi Dude]

Interesting reading of the above messages. As an owner of a high mileage early TC, and also being an early production model myself, I'll add my 2 cents worth here.

Owning a TC by Maserati is of course different for most everyone. It is interesting to read what newer people to this site are planning for their cars.

These cars were not intended to be race cars, yet Mr Iacocca did put engines into them that encouraged driving them hard and fast. That was 30+ years ago. Anyone who takes one of these cars out and runs them hard are asking for disaster. I have a friend who has, shall we say BLOWN 2 of his TCs and he wasn't even racing them, just cruising at 85 MPH with an 8 valve engine and the 3 speed automatic. Running nearly 4,000 RPM for an extended period with an old engine is not good for it, he found out. The old rod bearings have a tendency to flake the babbitt after many years of use and miles... and it starts running hotter as well at those speeds. Radiators become partially clogged, cooling becomes more difficult and sometimes disaster strikes.

As originally built, I think these cars were very well put together with similar engines as the Dodge Daytona. I have had a DOHC TC as well, it was faster, but before I ever drove it hard, I rebuilt the engine. I was happy to sell it to someone who wanted it more than I.  My original TC, 200766, is just fine in near stock condition. With a 5 speed replacing the 3 speed automatic it is more fun to drive and can handle high speeds a lot better. I have replaced the rod bearings in the engine long ago and believe me, it needed new bearings. There is a little sound you hear as you start a cold engine. It tells you whether your engine is due for bearing failure or bearing replacement if you would just take a listen as you twist the key and she fires up to the start flare RPM. 

All sorts of performance options are great for new cars with new engines capable of taking the additional loads. You may want to think hard and long as to whether your TC is capable of these added loads. Remember, old men can't even run any more as they could when they were young. We can only dream of what we use to be able to do. We all get OLD, so does your TC. Take care of that old engine or it may die on you.  Just a little advise from an old guy.

[Red Alf]

Thanks  Hemi, I add the road bearings at the list, and use a stethoscope to listen for noise, as I get old my ear fails, and is not a joke, is tragic.

"Me to" I owned a Daytona, but I wasn't too happy with the transmission, one component on the reverse broke twice, was like a brass Y.

Yes was a nice car to drive, love the voice that indicate the door open; but in my 50 years of driving (anything) I haven't find any better regular street car to drive that the TC.

[Nile]

Since I'm as guilty as any of us as far as flogging a TC (all of it legal, of course), Hemi's comments got me thinking, and I agree. The TC is a wonderful car, having just about every convenience one could want.  The driving dynamics and comfort are equal to most modern cars and there is simply no other convertible available in the TC's price range that offers what the TC does. While I thoroughly enjoy beating the hemi Challengers in autocrosses, including a Hellcat (rookie driver, so it doesn't count), one of my friends just got a Civic R, and it is just one example of the amazing group of performance machinery out there now.  Even the used market has some incredible vehicles at decent prices, altho they are not convertibles.

 

All that being said, there is one area that prevents the TC from being a bruiser rather than a cruiser - weight.   So I've got two, highly unfair, trick questions for you.  1).  Which of the cars pictured weighs the least?  2).  Which is quickest 0-60?

 

I'll do a separate post with the answers.

 

 

 

[Nile]

Answer #1. -  The lightest car, by 15 lbs under the S2000, verified by official scales, is the 'cuda at 2820.  The TC weighs hundreds of pounds more.

Answer #2. - While the S200 has the highest top end due to its aerodynamics, 6 speed tranny and 9,000 rpm red line; and the 'cuda wins the 1/4 mile due to its 3.91 gears and power, the 0-60 sprint is won by my wife's Infiniti - 328hp, AWD, 7 speed and traction control - it simply erupts off the line.

 

[Hemi Dude]

Being a MOPAR guy since long before the Barracuda, I’d like to ask what powertrain is in the Cuda?

[Nile]

It's a 340 with some mild engine mods to get more revs (balanced, ported, hotter cam, recurved distributor, larger carb).  Obviously, a lot of lightening.

[Hemi Dude]

Love ❤️ It! That little engine was awesome. I built a few back in the 70s. I had a ‘74 HP 360 with the 340 hardware, later ran a 273 solid cam in that block, in my service truck. Transferred recently to my son’s 63 Belvedere after a complete rebuild.

[Nile]

I bet that 273 turned a lot of heads, no pun intended.  If I remember correctly the Mopar small blocks of that era had a higher nickel content which led to greater strength than other V-8's. I realize the aftermarket has embraced the LS3, and they certainly are cheap enough, but I'm just not impressed with their durability.  Two of my friends have done the LS3 conversion with their RX-7's and they do run well, when they run.