Jump to content

Bfg

TR Register Members
  • Content Count

    348
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

49 Excellent

About Bfg

Profile Information

  • Location
    Suffolk, England

Recent Profile Visitors

474 profile views
  1. Geoff the new louvres look great, but do they not take air out of the engine bay, for that heat and possibly fumes to then be pushed down into the interior / heater system.? I was advised, many years ago, while an apprentice designer, that engine bay vents immediately in front of the windscreen were a dangerous feature ..should there be a overheated water spurt / steam cloud, or oil an leak. Mind you "back in the day" it was not uncommon to hear or see evidence of an engine bay fire. I do recall seeing, back in 1980, an XJ Jaguar on fire, on the dual carriageway between Warwick and Coventry - That appeared fiercely hot. I see your car also has what looks like extractor vents down the sides of the bonnet. Pete
  2. 883 GOH - Triumph TR4 - 1962 - Green - Rallied car. As per the title, a friend of mine has asked on behalf of ( I believe a brother in law) Gerald Bailey, who was a prior owner who used to rally this car. It used to have a Surrey top and was, according to Gerald - last know to have gone to Scotland. I did a search on this forum and found reference to that registration < here > in a post by 'Ryan', Ryan Pickering, in Southampton, who was discussing rallying. However that member only posted 32 times with his last post in March 2014. He last visited these pages in August 2015. However going back through the archives I see his first post was this . . Posted October 12, 2011 - "Hello, I have only just spotted this forum really since purchasing what is Roger's old car after the Hughes rally. Lisa and I are looking forward to our first event in our "new" TR. It may be our first time out in a quicker car than the old vitesse but we will still be trying, no point really being there otherwise. Look forward to seeing you at scrutineering on Friday night, cheers." I've did a quick search on the TSSC forum but there's no mention of 'Pickering' or "833 GOH" , nor even of a green TR4 with surrey top. I note from the DVLA website that this TR4 survives with Tax Due: 1 April 2020 and its Date of last V5C (logbook) issued: 26 March 2015. As Ryan Pickering bought the car in 2011, and last posted on here in 2014, one might presume he then sold her the following springtime, or else it passed to another member of his family.? Perhaps someone here is, or knows of, the current owner and is willing to drop Gerald a note. He (Gerald) is pretty aged now but is still interested to know how the old car was doing. Thanks very much, Pete
  3. Glad to be of some guidance. I am a novice to car engines so I have to take things pragmatically if I am to learn with least mistakes. There are some chaps on here who a great with their advice and have been really generous in sharing their experience and contacts.. I bought a pair of carburettors with this engine, but I haven't touched them yet. My friend Rich and others have suggested a few specialist which I will probably try. One of the first was Glen Watson t/a GW Carbs in Bicknacre, Essex - 07803 593126. I haven’t spoken to him yet, but Rich tells me that he will refurbish the carburettors & linkages, returning them to as new condition for about £400. Well, I could tackle this task myself, and probably save a chunk of money to boot. But if someone is geared up specifically to do them, to thoroughly clean inside and out, and will return them with spot-on adjustment and pretty much guaranteed to work ..straight out of the box - then that will save me shopping for rebuild kits, getting exactly the right parts (of a decent quality), possibly a couple of trips to the machine shop, and a few weeks of work myself ..which I might better use for other doing other jobs (..of which I have plenty !). So perhaps £400 isn’t too much ..in the big picture of getting the car running smoothly and reliably as soon as possible. Another, contact was Martin Jay - Distributor Doctor - 01984 629540. I spoke to him a couple of days ago (seemed a very nice chap) because the distributor supplied with my car was incorrect to the TR’s. (see page 88 in the Moss catalogue for the correct numbers) and it was also rusted up inside. I have managed to source a replacement but that one is off the TR4, which again is not quite the same as for the 4A. It is also without a cap. Martin can correct the specification as he rebuilds it, and include the cap - so it's ready to just bolt on, set the timing and go. His price is currently £195 + VAT to rebuild my own distributor, or plus another £50 + VAT to supply one outright. Again it’s a lump of money ..and I don’t have much to splash around, but I’m thinking - if I'm spend a thousand or two on the engine itself, am careful in its rebuild, and then the distributor and carburettors are in first class order - I ought then to have a really good and reliable engine. Final decision has not been made yet ..but that’s the thinking. A third contact was ; EP Services, Wolverhampton, West Midlands - 01902 452914, who specialise in rebuilding water pumps. Again I have spoken to them recently, and again they are very helpful, and they will charge £45+ VAT on exchange. My car’s water pump has a interference-fit pulley on it, rather than a nut on the front which is more easily removed & refitted, and although I could probably do the job myself for less, it probably isn’t worth the small amount I’d save. These chaps replace what’s needed to give a 5-year guarantee. So their parts must be good. And for about £60 (with postage) I feel that’s good value.. Yes, these costs do add up very quickly, but they also shortcut a considerable amount of time. They'll save a lot of learning, and any concerns about decent quality parts, and getting the job done absolutely right. Personally I’m tending to think - I’d rather like my project happening and done ..before I’m too old. These are decision anyone doing a major restoration is faced with. To have the satisfaction of doing it ourselves or just get it done n’ dusted ..while we get on with saving money in doing other tasks.? Food for thought perhaps. Only you can make those choices according to your own time and financial pressures. Pete. p.s. might I suggest - If you liberally spot every fastening you can see, and the underside of those pistons, with penetrating oil as soon as possible, and then repeat doing it in a couple of days - then it will be soaking in / working between now and the weekend.
  4. Mark, Hopefully you haven't discarded that gloop in the sump yet. The reason I say this because it can be like archeology to teach us what has happened before. I let mine stand for a while (at a tilt) and then drain off most of it ..and to the rest I add a thinning agent (usually old / stale petrol) or something similarly cheap. I mix that in, and again let it stand before draining off the excess. Once the worse of the gloopy has gone into an old oil can (for responsible disposal), I'll thin it down again and then run a magnet through ..to pan for metal bits, like swarf, the odd nut or washer, or perhaps a split-pin or broken bit of chain or sprocket tooth. This is trawling / panning for information can lead to spotting possible issues ..that I might otherwise not have been on the lookout for. Looking both outside and inside (either from the top or bottom) of the engine.. I'm looking for any nut or bolt that doesn't look like it was made in the 1960's. Note if any have been damaged or rounded off at all - indicating an amateur has been there with poorly fitting tools. And check to see where washers are, and what type they are (split locking washers, flat washers, thick washers, copper or fibre washers, etc). I also feel how much movement and twist there is each of the bearings ..as a first impression to getting to know this particular engine and to determine how much wear there is. For example, I knew before I removed the big end caps that the shells were shot, and therefore most likely the bearing's journals were too. I recorded the torque needed to undo the important bolts (like the big end caps and the main bearings). Again I was gaining a 'feel' for the engine, and then comparing the figures recorded with those in the workshop manual I gauged how well the engine had be put together ..and therefore if I might trust anything the previous owner did. Have a good look also around the outside of the engine for signs of oil &/or water leak. To me the black gloop in your sump says that there was no water inside the engine, but the cleanliness of the castings suggests it's not long since being (part) rebuilt. It may have been rebuilt but leaked like a sieve (signs of leaking outside / under the engine &/or around the gearbox) and so was never used. Conversely it could be that the engine was rebuilt and the gearbox or something in the drive train was trash and too expensive to repair ..so the owner gave up on the whole car. So he'd got it running but perhaps for just a mile or two, perhaps never even turning a wheel at all.! You'll probably not know for sure ..but it's something to consider, because if that had been the case and then the car left standing in North East US freezing weather then come the thaw - heavy condensation would in fact give you exactly that sort of undisturbed loose rust and aluminium corrosion inside the rocker cover and over metal parts that the oil has run off. With the tyres shredded from being pulled out of its barn and onto a trailer - I'm guessing the clutch is or was seriously corroded on, or else transmission or drive / axle or brakes are (or were) locked tight. Similarly, I look closely at every gasket to see if it had been reused and also what sealant has been used. I cannot trust any engine that has been put together with globs of silicon gasket sealer. In short, you'll be wise to take your time ..to learn to read the signs at every single stage of dismantling, whether ancillaries or the engine itself. Seriously, this is like reading a trail when tracking an animal ..the marks that you see along the way tell you where to look at next and what to look for. It does take a time to learn these things, and then most experienced engine re-builders do it subconsciously. For my 'lump' ..there was every indication that the engine had never been apart, but that the water pump have been replaced and the timing cover might also have been removed at some time. I would gauge my engine is of relatively low mileage, but after the original running-in service schedule it had rarely, if ever, had an oil change. Judging by the photos you shared - the aluminium of the pistons has furred up / oxidated and I would guess that has locked up between the piston and the cylinder (there was only 0.004" (four thousands of an inch) between the piston's skirt and the iron cylinder bore when it was fitted. However, spraying up around each the cylinder and piston skirt with thin penetrating oil will help loosen things. Btw the fan on your engine is secured by four (1/2" headed ?) bolts which ought to be locked in place by a single tab washer plate (which also locks the big central bolt from undoing). Once the tabs are tapped flat and the four bolts are removed - then the fan itself lifts off. And then the big headed bolt holding the fan extension and pulley is accessible. However, before you seriously try to undo it.. it's quite possible that you can use this bolt to turn the crankshaft back and forth. (Remember ; clockwise tightens, anti-clockwise loosens 99.9% of all bolts, nuts and screws). Initially it may only move 1/4 of a millimeter one way and then the same back. Back and forth a few dozen times and you might begin to see the movement. Persevere and in time you ought to get more.. Oh do take the car out of gear before you try doing this and if your clutch feels like it's working then you might also block / wedge that all the way down to the floor. If I recall correctly, I used a 30mm (1-1/8") open end spanner to undo that central fan extension / pulley bolt. That's not a size of spanner found in most tool kits, but my dad (ex-RAF) had filed a old 1" spanner to that size, so I didn't have to go out and buy one. They're supposed to be humongously tight but mine ..with this spanner and a 4ft length of scaffolding pole had no problem at all. Hope that helps, Pete. p.s. excuse any typos ..it's been a long day
  5. ^ Lovely candlesticks, I'm sure your wife will be very pleased.
  6. As per the title : Distributor - whats the difference between a TR4 and a TR4A one please ? The distributor supplied to me when I bought the TR4A engine was the wrong one and rusted up inside. Don't worry the kindly seller says I have others. However, on searching through his stock, he only has a one (less the cap) for the TR4 ..part number 40735A. This according to the Moss catalogue is for the TR3A - TR4 (86mm engine). The one they state I should have is 40795 of the TR4 - TR4A (86mm engine). Does anyone know what exactly is the difference and whether the TR4 may be converted to the TR4A spec. ? Conversely does anyone have a decent TR4A that they might sell me for a modest price.? Many Thanks, Pete.
  7. . Yesterday I spent a long afternoon trying to better weight match the con-rods, both without and then with their big-end caps. I started off with trying to get the weight of each little end (wrist-pin) a little closer. The big-end caps were not fitted at this time as they would be a counter-balance. I reworked those in conjunction with working along the length of the con-rod ..so at the same time I was working toward better matching their overall weights. Little end - for as far as I was comfortable in grinding away - this stage of figures were ; 233.3 g ..as is evident in the photo above, nothing was taken off this ( lightest) con-rod. 238.6 g 237.6 g 238.4 g The difference between the lightest and the heaviest little-end is now the equivalent to the weight of a penny (coin). That still seems a lot to me but then I'm used to shorter aluminium motorcycle con-rods rather than these long steel ones. I then reworked the big ends of the con-rod, without the caps. Again I did this with an eye on overall weight as well as the weight of the end itself. Big end and overall weights (without caps) ; 384.5 g & 554.8 g ..again nothing was taken off this ( lightest) con-rod. 386.9 g & 560.0 g 385.3 g & 558.7 g 394.0 g & 560.2 g ..so, +9.5g & +5.4g (o/a) That's still a lot but the original weight differences were 16g (big-end) and 13g (overall). And then I fitted the caps (but not the shells), with the big end bolts in place and pinched each up to 6ft-lb torque. After reworking the figures were ; 934.0. g & 702.5 g ..5g was taken out of this cap. 934.2 g & 700.2 g 934.3 g & 701.5 g 932.6 g & 704.4 g So, there we go. That's about as much as I'm comfortable in grinding away. I also feel that whatever additional time I put into them will be of greatly diminished return. Over the two afternoons, I spent about 7 hours reworking these. I'm confident that I've smoothed out lumpy and extra thick bits rather than waisting away places which are most highly stressed. And I'm happy with the overall weights now being within 1.7g of each other, and the big ends within 1.9g of each other ..which in relation to the 1.56 kg mass of each complete piston & con-rod assembly - is pretty darn close (for a road car). Was it worth it ? Probably not ..in the big picture of the reciprocating and rotating masses in this engine. But I didn't know that until I did it. Pete. Edit.. for those wondering why the weight at each end were different between these con-rods, here's a very quick explanation. . The con-rod itself is a piece of forged steel, where the outside shape is rough and the flash (squeezed out excess metal) has literally been ground off by hand. Before being machined there was no flat edge, no accurate corner, nor even a straight place to measure from or position it. But, two almost exact size holes and the split for the big-end cap have to be machined a very precis distance apart. When the con-rod's blank (this is what it's called prior to being machined) is put into the machine and clamped tight it might be it may be a little way up or a little way down the blank's length. That's because of the rough outside shape, and so it just depends on what lump on its rough outside happens to be positioning it. Similarly, the little end may be slightly to one side, and then again so might the big end, or not, or perhaps pushed across to the opposite side. However, there is enough strength designed into these to be safely a couple of mm out, one way or the other. And if it's not within that spec., then the part is rejected and the 'scrap' metal thrown back into the furnace. Those which are close enough were passed over to a skilled man who matched similar weights of con-rod assembly (now with the cap bolted on) and further ground the outside flash a little more so the set of four's overall weights are almost exactly the same. I recall reading a specification which said they should be within 7g. of each other ..but I think that was also including piston and rings etc, so the con-rod might be heavy if the piston is lightweight, or vice versa. If the combined overall weight is pretty close, does it matter very much if one con-rod's big-end is heavier than the next.? The answer to this lies in the fact that the big end rotates whereas the little end and piston are reciprocating within the tight confines of a sleeve (activated by the force of mighty combustion !). That force propels the piston / con-rod assembly downwards and the crankshaft pushes the big-end sideways. That sideways element is the cause of secondary vibration (..primary being that from the combustion), so if each con-rod big-end has different mass ..so then the secondary vibration will be different (for each cylinder). This is perhaps easiest to picture in the mind's eye as - the primary vibration being up and down, and the secondary vibration being side to side. The force of secondary vibration is very much less than that of the primary ..but it's still very much there and it's still loading and twisting the crankshaft. In brief ; the heavier (big-end) weight takes more of a push to move sideways, and the reaction to this is in crankshaft twist. And that is what I was aiming to minimize. Thank you.
  8. They are 9", which I understand is correct for the rear of a TR4A.
  9. Thanks Richard you are correct about the offset. Having 7 blades it's not easy to measure but I'd say it was pretty close to the same at 12-1/2" (317mm) diameter. Pete
  10. See, what did I tell you Marco ..about the through flow of air returning power to the crankshaft " So finally - we are back on the crystal ball again". Well, you have a car, and you have a fan. All you need now is a rolling road, a big electric fan blower to simulate traveling along the road at 160km/h, and a spanner ..to try with the fan and then without it.. You Sir are the scientist ..to go down in history having definitively answered this question ..which has flummoxed motor enthusiasts for 100 years !
  11. . Sorry Marco I cannot help you with how it was balanced, but surely your only concern is how to now do so ? (..with your new parts). . . . delivered today. ^ 194.2g including its hardened rubber, the four steel spacer tubes, and 3 out of 4 steel washers. If I recall, the original tropical fan blade was 910g, so I'm happy with this plastic one and its refined aerofoil blade shapes. Positioning is different to the original in respect that the new would mount onto the end of the extension piece, whereas the the original blades sat further back towards the engine. Not having a car here, I don't know if the 20mm difference will position it too close to the radiator ? If so, then someone has suggested using the shorter extension piece off the TR6. Different number of blades but very similar in diameter. The perspective from it being in front of the original fan makes it look bigger in comparison, but its radius / each blade length may be perhaps 1/4" (6mm) more. Pete
  12. .. Big Red van Postie arrived early this afternoon with a seemingly humongous parcel, but not very heavy .. what on earth have I bought here ? I wondered. As is often the case., a whole lot of this parcel was in the double and triple packaging.. courtesy of a friend who had collected some bits I bought before Christmas ..and waited til now for the post-office queue to shorten. Oh yeah ! a pair of Al-fin style finned rear brake drums ..which I'd bought through this website's classified ads. I'm very sorry dear.. it was a very brief moment of weakness, soon after selling my Norton. I'm not sure how effective this style of finning is, but they're made in " Aluminium with a cast-in steel band. They not only reduce weight but improve cooling with the trademark fins and the greater thermal conductivity of aluminium." .. I particularly liked the idea of lessening the unsprung weight of these brakes on an IRS car. A quick look suggest that this pair are in super barely-used condition, the steel inserts had been greased to fend off rust while on the garage shelf, and all the aluminium fins are intact. The instruction sheet is from Peter Cox, dated April '06. I admit it was an indulgence ..BUT I'm very happy with them !! Thank you kindly seller. You know who you are. Best regards, Pete.
  13. . Evening all, just a few hours pottering in the garage today, Starting with removing the water pump off the block to see if its dismantling became more obvious from looking from another angle. It didn't, so I'll come back to that another time. Next I cleaned the staining off the con-rods and their caps. They look very well made and now much cleaner to handle, but of forged steel they are incredibly heavy compared with what I'm used to. Just the con-rod themselves without its cap, the big end shells, or the bolts - weigh in at over half a kilo each. To think of these buzzing around a high engine revs is intimidating. My task this afternoon was to see how their weights varied and if practical to see if I'm might get them closer to being the same. In turn each con-rod without cap weighed 554.5g 564.6g 562.4g 567.3g One is noticeably lighter than the others, with an overall difference of 13g. That's the same as a tuppenny piece & a twenty pence piece (both together). I rigged up a very crude pivot next to my scales to get an idea of how that weight was distributed along the con-rod's length. . (Below) each con-rod's overall weight, then the weight of the big end (as shown above), and the fourth column is the weight of the little (crank-pin) end. 554.5g 383.7 232.8 564.6g 386.4 239.3 562.4g 384.6 238.6 567.3g 398.7 233.7 The differences might be compared with a tuppence piece which weighs 7.1g according to my scales. And physically that's quite a big coin (amount of metal). ^ this is the heaviest #4 (right) being back-to-back compared to the lightest #1 con-rod. Aside from all the other con-rods having more of the forged flash (squeezed out metal) remaining all around, the thickness of the casting varies quite considerably, not only is this apparent by the width of the machined surface but equally in the depth of hollow shaping (arrowed) between the flash and the edge. The wider and deeper flash is easy to cut away with a power file ..but cutting the hollow deeper is a risky business, after all one wouldn't want to damage the machined side faces of the big-end. The weight and balance of this was 4. 567.3g 398.7 233.7 It is now ; 4. 560.3g 394.1 232.3 That was about 2 hours work, and it's still some way off the weight and balance of #1 @ 554.5g 383.7 232.8 This is as far as I'm prepared to go. But halving the difference at least brings their overall to within 1% of each other. And I might still be able to reduce the big end's weight a little more by reworking its cap. Btw., what I'm doing here will make no difference at all to a road car's performance, but it might make it just a teenie bit smoother. I doubt if I'd actually feel the difference but I wanted to have a go before the crankshaft itself is reground and re-balanced. Pete. p.s. new old stock exhaust valves arrived yesterday . .
  14. Mark, just remember that you're not alone. You'll see this by the number of questions we all ask ..and get answers to. If there's something you just can't get your head around - just ask, and if you don't want to do that on the forum then send me or anyone else a pm. I've done this with a few chaps on here (..people I've never met) and with others at the club meetings - and without a single exception, every one of my queries have been answered. TR owners on here are very generous. Personally speaking I very little experience of car engines (..or indeed other car parts like suspension) and I've sometimes struggled with what the manuals were trying to tell me. But even though I'm not particularly smart ..given time I can usually figure things out. But in the past, I've tried to take on too much all in one go. I then find a project / bits scattered all over the place is overwhelming. Clearly I'm not alone in doing this ..judging by the number of abandoned projects ! So I now take numerous photos, take off only what I need to ..one step at a time. I loosely reassemble those parts as I put them in a tray / box / container on the shelf ..so I know the order of assembly, and even where each and every fastening (..nut, bolt, washer) was. I systematically clean them, still keeping everything in order, and at the same time check and note down anything which might need replacing (bits which look wrong, are broken or chewed up). Once things are clean enough handle easily and see - then I measure the gaps to see if things are within build tolerance. Build tolerances are important because so many of them control the flow and the pressure of oil. Oil needs to be clean so as to not carry abrasive bits into tight places where they do a lot of damage. This is particularly so of grit (from the outside of the engine), of rust flakes (within an old / unused engine), and of particles of worn metal. That oil is used to carry heat away from hot spots of friction or combustion ..and to lubricate moving parts. The lubrication works like water on a road hydroplaning even heavy trucks. In an engine the film of oil allows parts to skid passed each other with a minimum amount of friction. If things are too tight then there's not enough film of oil to skid on, so like spinning tyres at a drag strip things get very hot, very quickly. Similarly if tolerances are too great then the film of oil is just pushed sideways out of the way ..and then again things get very hot. So the design engineers considered each and every gap (between everything) and the sizes of each oil way. And then after hundreds of thousands of miles of controlled testing (and sometimes racing experience) proved what worked best. Thereafter we only need to know that if our engine is reassembled withing those (Greek !) tolerances - the car will work reliably and for a very long time. And that your driving a TR is a blast ! And when things get a bit scary, just remember that garage mechanics generally don't have doctorates in mechanical engineering, and still they manage to rebuild cars.! Pete.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please familiarise yourself with our Terms and Conditions. By using this site, you agree to the following: Terms of Use.