Graham Robson Posted August 31, 2015 Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 To answer a pub argument, how about this one ? I think we all know that the TR (Vanguard) 'wet-liner' engine layout was inspired by the Citroen 'traction avant' engine of the 1930s. I think we are all agreed that there had been no previous 'wet liner' Triumph, or Standard, engine before the Vanguard unit came along. So (pub argument question coming up) - was there ever a rival British 'wet-liner' engine of any type before that ? I don't know, so would love to be educated. Hon. Pres. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest ntc Posted August 31, 2015 Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 Marshall ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stuart Posted August 31, 2015 Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta_Car_and_Engineering_Company Stuart. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Graham Robson Posted August 31, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 Maybe I should have said 'production wet-liner engines', for that's what I meant .... Hon. Pres. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest ntc Posted August 31, 2015 Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 Maybe I should have said 'production wet-liner engines', for that's what I meant .... Hon. Pres. This was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_Marshall Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted August 31, 2015 Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 The classic 'wet liner' production engine was surely the six-cylinder AC, was it not, which preceded the Standard engine by some 3 decades . . . . . ? Wet liner engines were not new when Weller designed the AC engine immediately post-WW1, and had been utilised in aero engines as well as in automotive . . . . . . and continued to be employed in aero engines and in the new diesel engines during the inter war period. Cheers Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AlanT Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 I'd be interested to know WHY they did this. It's obviously more expensive and possibly more trouble-some. And obviously not necessary. So why? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tr4Tony Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 Hi Surely this was about cooling in those days, then ease of production, length of service (with replaceable liners) etc. ? Regards Tony Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Motorsport Mickey Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 Renovation,...far easier to replace components insitu when the individual liner bores can be replaced rather than the engine having to be removed and stripped for reboring and then rebuilt etc. Very useful if a single liner is damaged. As pointed out in TR Technicalities for the impecunious TR owner (nearly all were), if during in car head removal you found a large step in the liner bores (thrust side) you can pull the liner and rotate 90 degrees allowing fresh material to take the strain on the thrust side. Given that the car was likely to have over 100,000 miles on it before you rotated it and you could do this 4 times therebye achieving the 360 degree rotation, I think they describe it as " being able to achieve reasonably high mileages by using this method". Mick Richards Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RogerH Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 Hi Mick, turning the liners through 360' is very clever. Just imagine the mileage achievable if they could be turned upside down as well Roger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tim hunt Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 Hi Mick, turning the liners through 360' is very clever. Just imagine the mileage achievable if they could be turned upside down as well Roger +1 Roger Tim Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tr4Tony Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 'On the roof' ... Hard in a TR, but not impossible ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RogerH Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 ... you silly boy....... Roger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dick Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 Wouldn't rotating them 360º put them back where they started from? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Motorsport Mickey Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) Wouldn't rotating them 360º put them back where they started from? "Yes Wilson, I wondered how long it would take you to realise that" You've gone all surreal on me and taken it literally, the first worn position counts as 1 and then another 3 changes of liner position which makes 4 liner positions in total, means the liner has been rotated a total of 270 and with it's original starting position included (but not rotated) 360 degree. An apple and a banana for the gentleman. Mick Richards Edited September 1, 2015 by Motorsport Mickey Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andy Moltu Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 It might also be theoretically easier or cheaper from a casting and machining angle to produce a wet liner engine than to machine it directly in the block in some instances. The use of liners may also allow lighter alloy materials to be used for the block (not in the case of the TR engine of course) that might not have withstood use in direct contact with the piston rings. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dick Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 It is an interesting discussion..... ST must have had a reason to design wet liners when all of the other main stream makers didn't. Even a change of liner spigot diameter to increase the capacity from 1800cc (early tractor, Renown, 1800 Roadster) to 1991cc and above ( Vanguards, Trs etc) didn't move them away from wet liners. The six cylinder engine didn't follow the pattern and was never wet linered, I wonder if it was ever debated in ST boardroom. The 4 cylinder motor was very popular as a power plant for smaller manufacturers...Morgan etc. and was highly regarded for reliability , long life and the ability to endure abuse. Alot were fitted to export products, perhaps the ability to rebuild where no machining facilities were available was a selling point. There must have been hundreds of thousands of 4 cylinder engines made so ST must have got it right.....was it by accident or design. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 The original logic behind wet liners involved issues of cooling and material, as already suggested - they were first employed in high performance engines, competition car and aero, and came into increasing use in the years after WW1. Subsequently wet liners were more common than dry in early diesel engines, which may well have been the determining factor with the Standard Triumph design - tractor factor. Cheers Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ianc Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 The Jaguar XK engine, in its original 3.4 litre size, is, I believe, a proper wet-liner engine. Partly compromised as bore increased, according to an elderly Jaguar purist whom I met at Lydden Hill some 50 years ago (he was driving his own 2-seater Jaguar Special, which used, of course, the 3.4 engine). The longevity of Vanguard, TR and XK engines is legendary. Ian Cornish It seems that I have been harbouring a misconception about the design of the XK engine - see post #21 below. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dick Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 Rolls Royce used them in their 1950s designed V8 which was still fitted to the Anarge range in the 2000s. They were sealed by a number of '0' rings. One at the top and two at the bottom if I remember correctly. The two at the bottom had a weep hole between them so if the first seal failed water would drip from the weep hole suggesting a rebuild was soon on the agenda. The unscrupulous would block up the weep hole and rely on the bottom '0' ring to keep the water in.......which usually it would for a considerable mileage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ianc Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 A correction to my post #19 above: It seems that I have had a misunderstanding of the XK's engine design for the past 50 years! However, the 3.8 litre version has dry liners - perhaps that was what the elderly gentleman was trying to impart to me at Lydden all those years ago - being a purist, he considered the increase to 3.8 litres had compromised the design (see attachment). From Wikipedia, it would seem that the 4.2 litre was even worse as far as compromises are concerned! Ian Cornish Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ctc77965o Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 The jag V12 is wet liner Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Steveb19 Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 I'd be interested to know WHY they did this. It's obviously more expensive and possibly more trouble-some. And obviously not necessary. So why? Triumph triple motorcycles produced at Hinckley were all wet liners too until recently. Not sure about the latest models Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stuart Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 A correction to my post #19 above: It seems that I have had a misunderstanding of the XK's engine design for the past 50 years! However, the 3.8 litre version has dry liners - perhaps that was what the elderly gentleman was trying to impart to me at Lydden all those years ago - being a purist, he considered the increase to 3.8 litres had compromised the design (see attachment). From Wikipedia, it would seem that the 4.2 litre was even worse as far as compromises are concerned! Ian Cornish The 3.4 engine when bored to 3.8 by the racers (Mike Hawthorn et al) in the fifties before the factory went to 3.8 was found to have very little material left between the bore and the water jacket which is why when the "Official" 3.8 factory version came out in the XK150 it was a "Liner " version. The only compromise with the 4.2 was that it further limited the piston speed hence the lowering of the RPM red line. Stuart. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RogerH Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 Here's an idea!!! The TR block is cast as a wet liner. This reduces a great deal of machining etc and the liners take the heat and the wear. Could the block be cast using an Ali Alloy - that would save some weight - no more rust around #4 liner. I wonder Roger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.