Jump to content


TR Register Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ts27952 last won the day on December 29 2018

ts27952 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About ts27952

  • Birthday 08/06/1960

Profile Information

  • Location
    Frankfurt area, Germany
  • Cars Owned:
    TR3A, 1958
    gone: MX-5 (2001)
    .....and several other useful cars without much character

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. TS27952 still had the bracket for this fuel tap. At Comm TS15497 the piping was changed, but the fuel tap remained - it was deleted later (according to Bill P.s book) at an unknown Comm No. Johannes
  2. Isn't the bore (83mm … 86mm … 87mm) metric as well? Regards, Johannes
  3. In my eyes there are two routes to go - depending on HOW the displayed speed is going wrong. The position of the needle is defined by magnetic forces (rotating disc, driven by the speedo cable) and a little return spring (like a spiral). If the deviation is a constant value (always showing 20 mph too much), this could be corrected by moving the needle 20 mph "back" - carefully, If the deviation is a constant factor (always reading 25% too high) then the magnetism is too strong (less probable) or the return spring got weaker by time & age. In this case the magnetism should be reduced or the spring strengthened (exchanged): Both a specialists job. Regards, Johannes
  4. My neighbor worked at Opel's main factory in Ruesselsheim/ Germany - so a "sister" to Vauxhall" and part of the GM family.His first job was a plumber, than he changed in to the car industry for the money… they placed some pounds of lead onto the bodys in those days, closing gaps, straightening surfaces etc. So I think you can be sure that this was "from factory" Later restaurations tend to use bondo Regards, Johannes
  5. In my eyes - having restored a "wrecking yard special" - anything bolt-on may have been changed in the past or prior to selling in in order to sell a complete car. So forget about bumpers, sidescreen fasteners, high-port heads, gearbox tunnel etc - The engine was changed or replaced in the past - the original engine number should be between 22449 and maybe 23xxx. TS68xyz is definitely not original engine. - You can see the bolts for fixing areoscreens below the windscreen - they were standard until TS32833 (June 58) -> so this would be correct for an early TR3A or a real TR3 - The boot floor is "early" - The rear panel seems to be correct for a early/mid TR3 without separate indicators: Rear looks as prior to TS16473 (Feb. 57) - The wiper motor on the right side was standard until TS12567 (July 56) So in my eyes many "not easy to modify"- details suggest, that this is a real TR3. There were several upgrades/ repairs like engine swap and change of side screens… It will for sure be a full restoration - it may be worth the money if the frame is ok - the body looks quite ok. Regards Johannes
  6. Hello Bob, in my case the TUV just didn't look too close at the rear lights - and saw (as a technician) no obvious disadvantage of a bright brake light in todays traffic. So he did not want to notice - BUT this is no guarantee for the next test: Another engineer, another opinion…. Rear lights, indicators, fog lights etc are all tested for function only - on/off. I had discussion regarding may daytime running lights (with the correct E-number, stating them as road legal DRLs!): The engineer saw them as not allowed in combination with my vehicle registration as a "historic vehicle".... where the original state has to be preserved except for some (listed) safety improvements. Regarding head lights: They are tested not only for function but for the correct alignment and beam pattern (especially with modern car systems a complicated task!) - in general it is only allowed to use a lamp with the "correct" bulb. The combination of bulb & reflector has its E-number - the certification will state, that a typical 7"-WIPAC will have to be used with a classic bulb or a H4 bulb. So to get a legal solution here you would either need: - A very time (& money) consuming individual test - A certified "headlight- system" (combination of reflector & bulb) with E-number, approval etc. I can only guess, that this process is not too easy. Basically LED-headlights are allowed - many modern cars use them. But nobody (up to now) certified an "old style" 7" round lamp for the use as retrofit for old cars. As nobody reacted up to now, i can only assume that the market does not seem to be interesting for the "big players". Next problem could probably be the lack of standardization: A H4 bulb is clearly defined in respect of the light emitting area. Looking at LED-replacements I see a lot of different versions…. so you probably end up with certification of only one special LED to run it (this is what is done with modern cars too) - or you get a certification of the head light system (bulb including reflector) Regards, Johannes
  7. Hello Bob, over here on the continent the rules are complicated: - CE / RoHS is mandatory to get products into the market - RoHS tells you, that no hazardous substances are used in this product - so in case of swallowing it or dumping it somewhere ….. that has nothing to do with the function of this device - CE tells you that certain regulations are met like EMC-regulations, low-voltage directive or others - depending on the product: Again - nothing related to the real function of the device - additional rules are applied in certain applications. One is car lighting (exterior): There are rules e.g. regarding the brightness of the headlights (or rear lights) As these rules are coming out of the past, they have not been adopted to todays technique - they talk about wattage. So imagine a 21W brake light equipped with 21W LED power..... blinded by the light, as Manfred Mann used to sing. Locking at head lights, there seems to be another rule, forced by the advent of Xenon head lights and the new LED head lights: The brightness is limited to (i think) 1800 lumen AND each head light has to be tested if its usage is "correct" (not shining to high etc.... this process has to be paid by the car maker. IF Wipac/ Lucas/ Bosch would design a LED- bulb for usage in their reflectors AND if they would pay the tests, then this bulb could get an E-marking and could used. But as they don't see a large market here and as a bulb would (having the E-mark on its own) this bulb would have to be tested in a lot of reflectors as a an item for common usage, this has no high priority for these manufacturers. And for all others, sitting in China, this process is too complicated and the related market is too small….. The real problem is: You can use LEDs, you can drive with them BUIT in case of an accident, the insurance company will state that your car was not according to the regulations and they make you pay for that…. Regards, Johannes (sorry for this bad english - I hope you are able understand the meaning) (the local TUV = your MOT did accept my LED rear lights …. they saw the real improvement in visibility)
  8. @ Inge: I think that Bob knows that - that's the way to fix the outer part of the cover. But what to to with the inner part? @ Bob: As far as I know, there should be a small pocket in the inner lower corner, this is intended to go over the foremost part of the (folded) hood sticks. So this should fix these corners. I could imagine, that the main portion in the rear is just wrapped around the hood sticks and the fix by the weight of the sticks, pressed between hood stick and rear panel. Regards, Johannes
  9. Rob: even then you need some pressure (even a milli-psi is pressure). And just lifting the oil from sump to head needs some pressure too You are right: But keep in mind that any kind of pipe or passage is a restriction of flow - and high flow until the main bearing with direct exit into the sump doesn't help you with lubricating the big ends or the rockers Regards, Johannes
  10. Just my 2 Cents: - Thrust washer in a 4-pot consist of 2 half-circles each - Impact on oil pressure - why? - there is just one set of thrust washers as this bearing is designed as the one taking the load. If there would be more than one , there would always be only one "working": So keep it simple (and cheap) and skip the others….. - pressure is necessary to make a fluid flow. So without pressure: No flow at all. - The pressure is measured in the oil gallery - this pressure is dependant from the oil pump, setting of pressure restrictor AND the flow resistance of the oil channels after the measuring point. - first (and main?) factor is the main bearings. Worn bearings loose as t lot of oil -> thus the oil pressure is reduced. - The flow through the big end bearings depends on the flow through the main bearings: So worn main bearings reduce flow in the big end bearings - the oil flow into the head depends (4-pot) on the rear main bearing: Worn bearing -> less oil in the head Rebuilding my engine gave me much higher oil pressure with much more oil in the head - so (TR3 with "open" oil cap) so I lost oil by dripping out of the oil cap Regards, Johannes (Sorry for my english …)
  11. Regarding the long black bars: Could it be radiator support, but for a TR4 (using a similar radiator) or a TR4A (using a wider radiator)? For a TR4 I would expect longer supporting struts than for a TR3/A/B as the track is wider and the inner wing is different) Johannes
  12. Sorry John, the name is "HORCH" which means (translated) "listen" - although it is the name of the founder August Horch. Funny thing: After August Horch left his company in 1909 (due to difference with co-owners) he founded "Audi" - which means "listen" also, this time in latin. Both companies had to merge in 1931, becoming two of the four rings of the "Auto-Union". Johannes
  13. Hi Folks, I'm running the T-TRAC2 since 3 years now - size 165 SR 15 (../80s) - on my TR3. They are ok, worth the money and equipped with some grip. Compared to the Firestone I used before they are a bit better but the difference is not impressive. The cost for the "Classic Sprint2 ist much higher here - so I wonder wether this may be justified….. … and I don't care for the look but for grip in dry (and wet) conditions. Regards, Johannes
  14. Hello there, I'm no specialist in O/Ds but: 1) the solenoid operates a lever, this lever opens a hydraulic pipe, and IF there is oil pressure within the O/D THEN the gears are moved and the O/D engages 2) oil pressure is built up by a cam mounted on the gearbox main shaft (which happens to be the input shaft for the O/D). Plus you need a certain amount of oil to move the gears. So the faster this main shaft rotates, the more oil is pumped and the faster the O/D engages. This is why many O/Ds engage faster the faster you drive ! 3) so at a stand still, there is no oil pressure and O/D disengages typically What I do not know is: What happens if the solenoid/ lever ist stuck and the oil pressure can't be reduced/ reliefed - in this case, if the system is leck-tight - the pressure will stay high and the O/D stays engaged. Regarding the solenoid: If activated, it draws a very large current (10amps?) until its plunger moves. Then - at the top of its movement, there is a small switch inside, which is activated and the power of the solenoid is reduced. A very nice little electro-mechanical trick with one draw-back: IF this switch does not work or if the top position is not reached to activate the switch then the amount of power inside the coil will destroyed this solenoid within minutes. So be careful when examining the whole unit - keep an eye on the solenoid…. I would remove the solenoid anyway and then try to move the lever "down" to its "disengaged"-position. If the O/D stays engaged, then removed because something mechanical might be wrong inside. Regards & good luck, Johannes
  15. An oil consumption is also given - as much as 1 l per 1.000km or 1 large droplet per km ! And we are concerned today about any droplet reaching the ground Regards, Johannes
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.