Re: Engine Removal

["daveswingle2" <dswingle@xxxx>]

It is not really necessary to remove the engine to perform the 
maintenance you mention. That being said....

If you have the time and energy, do it. A couple of winters ago I 
underwent almost the same work. After I had put the trans back in, I 
took the exhaust off to fix the heat shield and realized that I was 
about 3 hose connections and two engine mount bolts from the same 
work as pulling the engine. I still regret not doing it. It would 
have made a lot of the work much easier, and I could have done a much 
nicer clean-up/paint-up job. That is probably the best justification 
for it, and if you are not in a hurry and really want to get in there 
it's the best way to go. If this is just a mission to fix what needs 
fixin' and get back on the road, it's overkill. This is partially the 
difference between car repair and car restoration. 

I know of one guy in the midwest club who has done this enough times 
that he considers pulling the engine a 2-3 hour job. 

Instructions are in the manual, basically you unhook the shift and 
fuel linkages, axles, trans and engine mounts, clutch hydraulics, a 
couple of fuel hoses, cooling hoses, vacuum hoses, electrical 
connections, exhaust system at the converter, take off the rear 
louver, hood, facia and away you go.

Dave Swingle


--- In dmcnews@xxxx, "Ed Garbade" <edgarbade@xxxx> wrote:
> I was discussing this with a friend and he suggested that as my 
list seems 
> to be growing rapidly it may be worth considering the removal of 
the engine 
> and transmission. This would make the removal, replacement, 
cleaning, and 
> painting the various components easier (engine bay needs work also).
>