oil leak

[transitgeoff]

Hi i have one for ya a 2002 2.4 has an oil leak from the back of the engine, when i removed the gearbox and flywheel as im standing directly behind the engine looking just above and off slightly to the left there is a small circular hole that appears to have an insert of somekind, well its leaking, what is this thing and most of all what can i do to stop it??
aqny ideas gratefully accepted

[Nighthawk]

Oh poo is a term you might want to consider


That odd looking thing is actually a type of pop rivet which blocks off the oil gallery drilling.

I've replaced engines because of a leak there! Although the rivet costs around 58p i know no one with a rivet gun which will accept ¼ or so stalks on the rivet. It is possible to drill the block there and thread it and fit a bung, but thats not something a ford dealer would be allowed to do as a warranty repair.

Have a word with some local engine refurb places, they might have the facility to install a new rivet for you.

Your not having much look with the old duratorq's are you

[transitgeoff]

oh dear !! well its back to the drawing board then while we are talking about these type engines, i was stripping some engines earlier not 2.4 but 2.0 ones, and i notice the right early ones had a solid flywheel, then 2001/2 had dualmass( all no good) then i strikp a 2004 and its a solid flywheel again whats that all about oh and have a word with Ford about these 2.0 engines as i have a yard full of them as they never seem to go wrong not like the 2.4 which we sell frequently.

[Nighthawk]

Don't get too confused with DMF's

The 75PS engine in 2.0 form was always fitted with a solid flywheel, thats still the case after the upgrade to 85Ps.

The 100Ps engine had a DMF, which has been replaced with a solid item and it was a service repair too but you also needed to replace the crank shaft damper/pulley.

125ps 2.0's are DMF only.

I know that one engineer has been playing with a solid DMF on a 2.4, the item was sourced from Turkey, i have no idea how thats going on with regards to NVH.

How are you condeming the DMF's m8?
A good deal of DMF replacement is un justified and costly.

[transitgeoff]

Hi, i scrap dmf,s by in and out movement usually and noy side to side even though some are very loose and appear to have lost all signs of damping? saying about the engineer using a solid flywheel on a 2.4 from Turkey, i was talking to a fella that says he has marinised a 2.4 and says he got a fuel pump from turkey that is not a fly-by-wire one he says the Turkish Transits have a throttle cable, have you heard of this the fella says a boat shop near him imports them as the 2.4 is great for marinising if i could find the part number of this pump it would open new doors

[shaungriff]

hi, thinking of buying a swb so would you say the 2.0 is the more reliable than the 2.4 ? do you know if theres much performance difference between the 85 & 100 ?? cheers shaun

[Nighthawk]

The 2.0 does seem to suffer less with issues than the 2.4, but thats probably because the 2.0 has an easier life.

The 100 is a bit nippier as it has the extra 15Ps, fuel and general drive are about equal tbh.


Re the marine application, i don't doubt it having a cable operated pump, no need for such emission control and perfomance/drivabilty quality on a lump thats just going to sit at 3k rpm all day in a boat.

The coming transit in FWD form will have the high pressure pump driven off the camshaft and not off the chain too.

Going back to DMF's, anything more than around 2mm axial movement or if the 2 masses can touch each other when rocked and it's a scraper, and anything more than 5 ring gear teeth rotation without resistance and its duff.