The 1100 lb. lift table was finally delivered today. It has a higher capacity than the yellow table I posted about earlier, at about the same price (or was — they raised the price by $60 the day after I bought it). Dimensions: 31.5" L x 19.5" W x 33.5" H. It's made of thick steel and is powder coated. I was happy to see it has large rubber wheels. Funny thing, see the plastic bag on the crossmember at the bottom? It contains parts that don't seem to belong to the table. No mention of them in the 1-sheet assembly instructions. I hate it when parts are left over. I taped the bag there in case their purpose dawns on me. I plan to put my 500 lb. engine on it tomorrow. I have some short 2x4s and 1x2s I can use to block it level.

http://986forum.com/forums/uploads02...1737263414.jpg

Advice needed. Although it's still mostly supported by the hoist, the engine seems to sit solidly and securely on its large, thick aluminum sump cover. I had intended to put blocks under it, but it's not obvious how blocks should be placed. Can the sump cover support the weight of the engine without being damaged? If not, how are other folks approaching the problem? As I said, the hoist is supporting most of the engine's weight at this time.

BTW, you'll notice the bottom of the engine is dirtier than the rest of it, thanks to 39K miles of road grime. Gotta correct that state of affairs (along with the transmission) before I put it in the car. Clean engine, clean mind.

http://986forum.com/forums/uploads02...1737332730.jpg

JFP would know for sure, but I'd think it's OK, since the cover is flat and the pressure is transferred to edges. The danger would be a single pressure point in the center.

I'd recommend a rubber mat of some sort. That diamond pattern steel can easily gouge or scratch the aluminum sump with even the slightest movement.

Al, I've been wondering when someone would comment about the diamond plate. Like you, I wasn't aware (until I touched it) that it's only a rubber mat with a diamond-plate pattern. Looks like the real McCoy.

The only structure in the center of the sump cover is the oil drain plug, but luckily it's recessed. Even if it projected, the "diamond plate" would probably compress enough to protect it.

Nevertheless, I'm prepared if JFP tosses cold water on the idea, in which case I'll have to come up with a blocking solution utilizing 2x4s and 1x2s.

If that cover on the lift is a compliant mat (rubber, etc.) you should be fine; if it isn't, I would get a heavy-duty rubber mat to set it on.

Thanks, JFP. That diamond plate rubber is pretty compliant and heavy duty.

I have another question for you. It's my understanding that, with a 5-chain engine, only the bank 1 exhaust cam needs to be locked, that with the crank locked at TDC and the one exhaust cam locked, all the chains are immobile. I read that 3-chain engines do require the intake cam to also be locked. However, some folks would have you believe that, even on a 5-chain engine, the intake cam also needs to be locked, as well as both cams on bank 2, contrary to my understanding. Is that another case of the blind trying to lead?

I would prefer to call it being "belt and suspenders" about it. Because the five chain engines have both cam tied together by the small chain, installing a single smaller locking tool on bank #1, the right bank (looking at the flywheel), all the chains are held during the retrofit proceedure. Some prefer to lock both banks, but that is not required.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/Em...8nC60BJQ=w1280

D'OH! I meant bank 1's exhaust cam, not bank 2's. I'm going to correct that right now so that future readers won't be confused (or think I'm a nitwit).

I am not sure what is a nitwit.. :p

But, the cam locking tool is inserted into both, the intake and exhaust cam slots, then bolted into the block (just to keep the tool from falling off).

BTY, you are taking lots of pictures, right? We will enjoy being part of your journey :rolleyes:

Hmmm, I understood the double-cam lock was for 3-chain engines. In any case, it's considerably different from the single-cam lock (which also bolts to the block), so I don't think they're interchangeable (see photo). I'm now setting up the workspace with the engine positioned on the lift table in such a way as to provide access to the IMS bearing and rear main, as well as both cam covers (for when I replace those pesky Variocam wear pads, a.k.a. timing chain tensioner shoe pads).

You can count on lots of photos, in addition to descriptions, explanations, complaining, philosophizing, and bloviation. Otherwise, where's the fun of it?

http://986forum.com/forums/uploads02...1737422747.jpg

Perhaps there is something I don't get but as I understand it you have to lock the cams, at least, in the opposite head to the one you are working on. Personally I lock both.
You are right, on the 5 chain engines you only lock one cam on each side with the shorter tool.

Isn't the reason JFP mention for only driver side bank (2) cam to be locked on 5-chain engine because:
to change the IMSB you take only two chain tensioners out - 1 tensioner for the IMS - cam and 1 tensioner for the IMS - crank.
Risk to have the chain to skip a teeth is when there is no tension on the chain.
On the passenger side bank (1), the tensioner will remain in place under tension and the chain should not have a chance to skip there while you work on IMSB.

Ready for action. As you can see, I have all the tools I'll need.

http://986forum.com/forums/uploads02...1737486987.jpg

LN's IMS toolkit includes only one shorter, single-cam locking tool, which I plan to use to lock bank 1's exhaust cam, since locking only one cam (in addition to locking the crank at TDC) immobilizes all five chains. If I wished to also lock bank 2's cam as belt and suspenders I would need to procure another single-cam locking tool.

Actually, every knowledgeable source, including JFP, Jake Raby, and LN, recommends locking the exhaust cam on bank 1, the passenger side, on a 5-chain engine. Regarding tensioners, it's my understanding there are three, two timing chain tensioners and one IMS chain tensioner. LN recommends removing all three:

https://lnengineering.com/files/2023-IMSS-instructions-rev-03-24.pdf

JFP, care to weigh in?

I agree, but make sure you have new sealing washers for the hydraulic tensioners and make note of where they came from as they are not all the same.

Noted, thanks.

I agree that more we elminate the risk of messing up the cam timing the better.

Anyhow, what I mentioned below is same as the Pelican Parts advices on their technical article regarding removing the two tensioners (I remebered wrong the locking of both vs. only one exhaust cams - both is the right answer):
"With the camshaft timing properly marked and the intermediate shaft secured, it's time to remove the two tensioners that pull on the flywheel-end sprockets of the intermediate shaft. The first one to remove is the tensioner for cylinders 1-3, which is located to the right of the flywheel area and is shown in Figure 77. Next, remove the tensioner that tightens the chain that connects the intermediate shaft to the crankshaft, located to the left of the flywheel area (see Figure 78). Be sure to have an oil catch pan ready when you remove these two tensioners, as oil will spill out. Next, remove the center nut from the bearing. "

Link here to the same article:
https://www.pelicanparts.com/techarticles/Boxster_Tech/14-ENGINE-Intermediate_Shaft_Bearing/14-ENGINE-Intermediate_Shaft_Bearing.htm

Interesting is that this above is seen as not a good practice :)

You need to be aware that when IMS retrofits all began, Pelican published "their" procedure designed to save the DIY market money, but the end result was a disaster, with far too many retrofits that went bad due to their "special procedures", some of which required engine disassembly to repair. Jake Raby developed a proven method which is the only one LN Engineering recommends to this day. We have used that exact procedure on innumerable retrofits, and never had a problem. Stick with the LN procedure and ignore Pelican.

I reached the same conclusion after encountering the contradictory information. I have come to view Jake Raby as the authority when it comes to IMS bearing replacement. However, Pelican has some useful information about other procedures.