Date:         Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:56:58 -0700
Reply-To:     mdrillock <mdrillock@COX.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         mdrillock <mdrillock@COX.NET>
Subject:      Re: 2.1 running again, thanks, list!
In-Reply-To:  <CF5E5376C14241B3B3B81EE05784F65F@ZoltanPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

I agree, lifting from above has too many advantages to go back to floor
jacks. I built my first version to do it that way about 10 years ago and
I still use it.
I have 4 floor jacks and a tranny jack but for engine
removal/installation the hoist method is preferred.

Another thing I use is a piece of plywood about 2' x 4'. I put 2 holes
near one short edge and put a rope handle into those holes.  This is
what I lower the engine down onto. Then I pull the wood with engine out
from under the van with the rope handle. I put the engine back the same
way but I use some broom stick pieces under the plywood to help roll the
engine/plywood  back into place. The end of the plywood with the rope
should be as far from the engine as practical to help with sliding the
wood. Lowering the engine onto any kind of cart requires the vehicle to
be raised higher than just a piece of plywood does.

My device is more like a sawhorse with room below it for a come-a-long
type hoist. The added height is required for some Vanagon engines though
not waterboxers. My sawhorse is made of square steel tubing.


Mark

The Westy man wrote:
> Amaizing how little recognition that simple device I made, to take out
> and
> istall the engine to make it a joy, received.  And for me to read about
> double jacks and all kind of obvious struggles with platforms and what
> not,
> is really a puzzle why most don't realized the simplicity without lifting
> the car both sides.
> Well, we are not all the same, I guess.  I went through my struggles
> myself
> too.
> Zoltan
>