It did'nt crank/start :(

[E. Roy Wendell IV]

Because I'm on digest mode I'm probably repeating Huw's response but...

> Doesn't the starter get grounded as it makes contact
> with the tranny housing? If so, I might have to strip
> paint off of that area, which brings me to the next
> point below.

There must be metal to metal contact somewhere between the starter  
and engine. That is in fact the ground path for the starter current.  
Ideally you would have masked off the mounting face for the starter  
when you painted the engine so that surface area is maximized but the  
bolts should do a good enough job of carrying the current to the  
transmission and therefore back to the engine.

> Also you said:
>
> "Is the engine mount well grounded to the block?"
>
> That depends, I took such mount out and painted it, I
> also painted the whole engine block, including the
> area to which such mount attaches to the block.
>
> So, if paint serves as an alienating agent between the
> mount and the engine block, the answer is
> then...NO...the engine mount is not well grounded.

Alienating agent isn't the term I would have used...insulator is.  
Once again there must be bare metal to metal contact between the left  
hand side engine mount arm and the block. Starter current has  
hopefully gotten from starter body to block, now it must get from  
block to engine mount arm and then through the ground cable to the  
ground stud on the chassis next to the engine mount.

Regardless of whether or not it's in a major current path, the  
general rule of painting metal structures or parts is that the  
mounting face must either be bare or there must be a grounding  
jumper. The point is to keep all parts at the same electrical  
potential for the purposes of static electricity reduction, current  
flow in case the structure is the ground return path, and corrosion  
control. Depending on the mounting bolts to perform this function is  
bad form because you can never tell whether the contact points  
between the bolt and structure are well insulated by paint or at what  
point in the future corrosion will accomplish the same. There is also  
the possibility that by passing current through the threads they will  
either weld in place or, due to galvanic action and consequent  
corrosion caused by the current flow, weaken and fail. Who knew that  
painting engine bits was so tricky? Like most things, there is a lot  
more thought that goes into how a car goes together than first meets  
the eye.

At for testing, get out the handy ohmeter and make sure that you show  
zero resistance between the starter case and something welded to the  
chassis (like the engine mount stud). An even better test is to turn  
the key on, switch over to reading voltage and ensure that there is  
zero volts between the same two points. If there is any resistance in  
the ground path from block to chassis, the voltages supplied to the  
engine sensors will raise the block above ground potential. Another  
quick test would be to use a jumper cable to make a temporary engine  
to chassis or even engine to battery negative ground and see it that  
solves the problem.

> I mean, these engine blocks left the factory fully
> painted in black, correct? And that paint did not
> cause a ground problem, correct?

They may have but every one I've encountered so far has been painted  
like NASA paints the shuttle external fuel tank, which is to say not  
at all. For corrosion control of the engine bay, Audi sprays  
everything with a thin layer of wax. It specifically says in the  
Bentley that if you do something like wash down the engine bay with  
solvent or use a steam cleaner than you must reapply the wax coating  
or everything will corrode.

E. Roy Wendell IV
erwendell at mac.com
Too many type 44 tqs
A pair of MR2s