Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The above video suggests that the liners will all stick up the same amount, I supose it could happen but not very likely?

Chris

Edited by ChrisR-4A
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Pete - DON'T give up with owning a TR - there are other cars out there - just put the word out on here and elsewhere and I'm sure something will come up Chin up  Cheers Rich

Or these people? http://www.leacyclassics.com/parts/classicmini/engine-components/2k7440.html Roger

. Carrying on from TR4 -v- Tr4A engine, and my purchasing a 'spare'  < here >  ..so that I might get on and have an engine ready by the time the Chance is actually bought and shipped,  we h

Posted Images

Yeah, I'm afraid there are a number of big fails on the videos, amongst them he measures the liner heights having pulled them down with washers, big mistake, you have to compress the Figure of 8 gaskets as it would be in running condition, that means pulling the liners down with the head and torqueing at 105 lb ft. Then remove the head and retain the liners with the large washers torque them down to about 40 lbs (non critical) it's just to prevent the gaskets "flexing" and altering the liner height.

Also having made a big deal of fitting the liner retaining washers because he makes a mess of the process in order of fittings (head gasket)  he doesn't show refitting  the liner retaining washers in place whilst you rotate the engine with pistons fitted at 14:31...a  recipe for breaking the seal on the Figure of 8 gaskets he just carefully fitted and later causing water leaks into the sump. 

Mick Richards

Edited by Motorsport Mickey
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also a notice from me to the last video:

in the drills through the head there is old oil, crud and rust, if you slide the head over the studs the threads work like a rasp.

The crud falls out on the gasket and it will not be sealed. Don't ask why I know!

So with a new head gasket I first put the gasked, than the head on the engine, then screwed the bolts throught the head in the engine.

This worked well.

 

Edited by Z320
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Bfg said:

^

I'm guessing you're talking about the sump pan, where over-tight bolts pull it out of shape.  Thankfully this one is in really good shape with minimal distortion, and certainly nothing that would dress out with a hammer and dolly.  The paper gasket tore as I dropped the sump.  I don't know what sealant was used on it but I'm glad to report there's no evidence of that horrid silicon stuff. :)

 

Yes, some years ago I wrote this post

But I did not use a hammer!

Edited by Z320
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Marco.  I am in agreement.

< hereis my take on the same subject from my old website.

Your using the knurled and Allen key screw to flatten these is a good tip.  On the motorcycle engines I did not have the ridge in the flange pressing so a hammer n' dolly worked well .

Pete.

 

Edited by Bfg
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sunday again,  it was just last weekend I was trying to free this engine.   Doesn't time fly when your hands are covered with filthy black oil. .

Today  Before n'  After  . . .

 P1330037s.thumb.jpg.92aa1a0463b9c1ce90618c8793e4bcac.jpg     P1330040as.thumb.jpg.834633c3a5d64fc1e5cd1a9757b693c0.jpg

^ oops sorry, the engine was inverted inbetween photos

 

Edited by Bfg
Link to post
Share on other sites

^

Only a quick look before I started cleaning. but I've not turned the crank to inspect them all.   The one or two I could see though looked fair to serviceable, but this one appears to have a mark of a crack near the top of its lobe. . .  I've seen this sort of flaw on cams which have been rebuilt ..and they seem to work fine, but after cleaning, a better set of photographs, and closer inspection we'll have to see about these.

P1330039a.jpg.3152d6e90ce8edd373a6cc2fb1f85a22.jpg

^ looking at the big end bolts in this photo - I cannot see a locking washer.?   Similarly in the photo (below) of the cleaned engine they are not obviously apparent.   Is it usual practice with car engines to leave them off and perhaps rely on thread-lock instead ?

P1330040b.jpg.4c10156a6c17e28687b4df9f375349fb.jpg

^ I'm also noticing the numbers are missing on #2 cylinder con-rods.

Edited by Bfg
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete - now you've got this far, are you planning to check your big ends and main bearings for wear? Would seem sensible to do so.

Re the locktabs, I'm no expert but would have thought they were worth having

cheers

Rich 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning Rich,

yes I agree, I would also have thought locking tabs were worth having.  I'll put a torque wrench on them today ..just to see if any are loose. 

The big end shells are clearly shot.  This was evident by the deposits of white metal in the sump and also my feeling how slack their end float is.  End float not being the issue, but their sliding so freely back n' forth tells me they are not such a snug fit !  Very likely then the big end journals are also worn.  And as the end float is so free moving then I might presume the little ends are likewise worn on the gudgeon pins.  And, with such an inevitable drop in oil pressure from the big ends being loose - one might reasonably expect the main bearings to also be worn.  I'm sure when the engine last ran it was very free revving but distinctively rattly.  ;)

As previously discussed #3 cylinder bore was seized with surface rust, and subsequent to it freeing off - my distinctively pink coloured penetrating oil had leaked into the sump.  ie., passed the rings of at least one cylinder. This suggests the rings are seized into at least one piston's grooves.  Clearly the engine needs to be rebuilt ..which was of course to be expected, but I live in hope for something to be better than 'one might reasonably expect'. :rolleyes:

Today I'll check condition of the rockers, and then armed with a parts and task list - need explore prices.. for parts from different suppliers and for the engineering / machining.  I'll also go back to the engine re-builders, with this crude assessment, to further discuss / for revised quotes.  

Only when I have all the information can I balance the odds.   "if I were a rich man, da dee da de da ..." 

Pete.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete,

The TR4a was just stretching into "new thought" engineering practices at Triumph and you'll probably find the con rod bolts are of the "stretch" variety - hence no lock tabs or split washer showing on yours I think. They were supposed to be ok for a couple (or so) uses but given you don't know if they've been used before (almost certainly) new bolts of whatever sort you wish here are very worthwhile. On the race car I'd gone onto using Unbrako cap heads with a smidge of blue Loctite and reused them over 3 seasons rebuilds with no problems.

Mick Richards 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bearing in mind a modest budget as I start to look at specifications to rebuild this engine to - I'm faced with various questions.  The first of which is regarding bore size.  

The standard is 86mm.  87mm piston and sleeves are the very same price for a 50cc increase in capacity.  But then, referring to the current TR shop prices - the 89mm pistons and sleeves are £170 more for an additional 100cc in capacity ( 2,188cc  -v- 2289cc) and cut away / short piston skirts. 

Seeing as I have no wish to increase the compression ratio,  nor to increase valve sizes or to invest £-hundreds in porting,  nor will I be using twin choke Weber carburettors.  Indeed I am looking forward to low to mid-range torque characteristics rather than higher engine speeds power (and yes I accept power & torque are linear)..  am I not correct in thinking this 4.5% increase in capacity does not directly translate to producing 4.5% more power / torque.?    So I'm led to ask -  Can just 100cc difference in capacity be felt with a 2.2 ltr engine ?

And,  are pistons with longer skirts (of the 87mm pistons) less liable to cock, so be slightly less noisy and perhaps wear less than those with cut away skirts,  or is there an offset benefit in slightly more splash lubrication to the cylinder walls ?

Cheers,  Pete.

 

 

Edited by Bfg
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds to me that you want a fairly standard 2138cc engine.

Unless you are intending to do 1000's of miles per annum, the other options are all just that, options on how to spend your money for very little gain.

Its worth remembering that TRs were noted for their low down torque and mid range performance, that why most of us don't tweek them too much, because when you do, you lose the inherent features that you liked when you bought the car:wacko::D

If you want a smooth torquey engine, my suggestion would be to stick to standard and spend you money on balancing the reciprocating components......it does make a big difference in my experience

Iain

Edited by iain
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, iain said:

Unless you are intending to do 1000's of miles per annum,

Well yes I would certainly hope to do more than 1000 miles in a year.   I would be disappointed to spend two or three thousand pound on refurb'ing a motor and then for it not to last (with frequent servicing) a hundred thousand miles or so.   Of course whether I live long enough to see that is another matter altogether.!   

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Bfg said:

Well yes I would certainly hope to do more than 1000 miles in a year.   I would be disappointed to spend two or three thousand pound on refurb'ing a motor and then for it not to last (with frequent servicing) a hundred thousand miles or so.   Of course whether I live long enough to see that is another matter altogether.!   

Sorry you misunderstood my 1000's. Note the apostrophy s.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

I'm suffering with a bad tooth at the moment and spent a lot of time on the phone yesterday trying to get immediate care. That was not successful ..but a call again this morning to my own dentist, which had given a 3 week waiting time, has now fitted me in tomorrow morning.  This is pertinent to our conversation only insomuch as I got very little done yesterday, but did speak with The TR shop.  Fyi., their sale is on until the end of January, and also before the end of December they offer free shipping on orders over £120.  So I am in haste to get the discounted prices, at last on the bigger items. 

I also spoke to Enginuity who were very generous with their time and advice.  As a consequence., and if my own are not re-useable with a new set of piston rings, then I'll go for the 87mm piston size.  Enginuity suggested they prefer not to machine the scroll off the rear,  but prefer to assemble it very closely, and then they have no issues with it.  I had otherwise read that sometimes the rear rubber seal, because it is split, can still leak a little  - but generally I got the impression that most owners appeared in favour of that mod.  Have I misinterpreted this in-so-much as many of you do in fact prefer the scroll.?  The company I'm otherwise talking to to have the engine rebuilt says they have no problems with the Landrover type seal fitted to the rear, not least because the crank is freshly reground to take it so there's no corrosion. 

 

Today I checked the end float. Using feeler gauges might not be the most accurate way but it's a certainly a very quick n' easy way to do things .  .

P1330045s.jpg.7fbf5aa6e65083fd51e68b3757268656.jpg

End float in the crankshaft should be 0.004" to 0.006"  and this engine is at 0.011" so new thrust washers will be required. Not a biggie as those are just £7.58 + VAT a set. 

I also visually checked all the cam lobes, and they seem to be in remarkably good shape. . . :)

P1330050as.thumb.jpg.3d19c5940e532495bd5c442aaae31ba7.jpg

I don't know that I need to change that,  but in case spoke to Newman Cams - and to regrind this to their very popular PH1 profile, for torque / road use, will cost £100, plus £40 for new cam followers.

2050354969_NewmanCams-TRPricelist2019.thumb.jpg.46c04d2449a8f0d331b0a20698821dc5.jpg

 

I then moved on to check the big end shells. I wanted to see the state of the journal and also check to see what size they were. . .

P1330058s.jpg.003236e3a193e3ee7f012d586aa2b3ee.jpg

^ this is much better than I might have hoped for from a 1965 engine, not least from a car which clearly hadn't had frequent oil changes.

P1330060a.jpg.028e8f7742fcb0b2fa8ff7350db7281e.jpg

^ Standard size and if I'm not mistaken the boxed in [G] is for Glacier which was OE spec.

So although I haven't measured for oval wear on the journal, nor have I yet checked the other caps - I'm hoping for no more than a 0.010" regrind.   That's very pleasing.

I also spoke with Simon @ TR Enterprises to see what they have on offer, their prices and recommendations. All in all very helpful.

And in the meantime I'm compiling a spreadsheet to get a better picture of what machining and parts are likely to be required.

Pete.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in the throws of doing all this on a TR2 engine.

BE  & Mains Check ovality then clearance with  'plastigauge' for clearance and consider renewing the shells.  I have a spare set of 'red' I can post to you.  (Images shews a -.050" crank main brg that has done 40,000 miles after polishing.)

Do crank end float.

Fit chain and tensioner and timing cover oil seal.

Fit speedisleeve to front pulley

Fit Mad Marx rear seal assy which is a scroll and rubber seal combined.

Clean out rocker shaft and re-bush rockers as required.

If fitting reground cam you will need new followers.   Newman will supply.  Confirm front cam bearing end float.

Check the end float on the distributor to cam timing gear.  I had 0.008" (target 0.004-0.006)  before a gasket was fitted.  I made shims to jack up the bush that goes in the block.

Check tightness of pushrod end cups - Repair or renew as they will rattle.

If not fitting pistons.......

Re-ring pistons?  Hone liners with 'flex hone'

Re-bush small ends and clean con rods?

lots more I am sure...

Cheers

Peter W

PS Forgot to mention that you should do the oil pump clearances.  Simple task on a flat plate.  Check rotor clearances first, then end float.

 

 

 

Plastigage.JPG

Edited by BlueTR3A-5EKT
Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm, no doubt about the Christian Marx lip seal,

but my thought yesterday was: "I hope Pete does not too much on his engine...."

Perhaps it runs again with little effort to do?

Edited by Z320
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete, we all used to get the scroll ground off to fit the Landy type seal as a perceived improvement on the designed scroll method, but since those days the Christian Marx seals have become available which give you the best of both worlds so you keep your orignal scroll but have the additional benefit of a viton seal as well, I've been using these for several years now without any issues at all. Just make sure the fitting instructions are followed precisely with the correct size mandrel and you wont be dissappoointed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BlueTR3A-5EKT said:

I am in the throws of doing all this on a TR2 engine.

BE  & Mains Check ovality then clearance with  'plastigauge' for clearance and consider renewing the shells.  I have a spare set of 'red' I can post to you.  (Images shews a -.050" crank main brg that has done 40,000 miles after polishing.)

Peter W

Very interesting Peter Thank you.   I'd never heard of plastigauge but have looked it up via Google and its very interesting.  Might I ask though how effective it is when the shells are part worn.?    It would seem logical that, to check for wear of the journals - new shells would have to be fitted.  This would mean buying a set of shells (Std size) and then if I discover the journal wear is beyond tolerance then I'd need to then buy another set to suit the reground size. 

Of course if they are within tolerance then that saves me a whole lot of dismantling, and machining costs.  Is that a fair summary of the pros and cons ?  I'd like to learn / experience the use of these sometime, so if you have a spare set then I might try them out.  Thanks.

Unfortunately however, I have just been out to the garage and measured the one big end journal with my old SP digital vernier gauge.  I say 'old' because it has been well cared for but since I bought it twenty or so years ago, it's not been re-calibrated.  Still as accurately as I might get with such an instrument - it tells me that I have of 0.0035 - 0.005" wear,  so 1.5 thou ovality.   So it looks like it'll have to be a first regrind to  -0.010" 

Pete.

Edited by Bfg
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete W may want to reply, BFG, but you are mistaken about Plastigauge.    No need for new shells - it will tell you the clearance on old and ?worn ones too.      Very worn, grooved shells might bias it but not a lot.

Works on a known volume of putty-like plastic with a known "squidgability" compressed in the bearing space, so that the width of the smear corresponds to clearance.    You do need to put an appropriate amount of plastigauge into the bearing, by choosing the right thickness of strip.  See: https://uk.rs-online.com/web/c/test-measurement/linear-measurement/clearance-gauges/?cm_mmc=UK-PPC-DS3A-_-google-_-1_UK_EN_G_Test %26 Measurement_Linear Measurement_Exact_{AS_Test}-_-Clearance Gauges-_-plastigauge&matchtype=e&aud-828197004210:kwd-3276390907&s_kwcid=AL!7457!3!377872228266!e!!g!!plastigauge&gclid=CjwKCAiA58fvBRAzEiwAQW-hzSYq9OiTSDGA05mJSEqG4KJmubORt3FTKNhfZEMeilB4QQOkegO7ShoC5_AQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pete,

I used plastigage but also measured my bearing bores and journals with a micrometer and bore gage. The calculated clearance was within 0.01 mm with the plastigage readings. This was with a reground crack and new Glyco shells. I was convinced:)

1.5 thou (0,04 mm) ovality seems a lot to me, maybe do a 2nd check with a good micrometer? 

Maybe someone local to you can help you out?


I tried King trimetal shells, but they were too thin, so then ordered Glyco, which gave a better fit, about 0.01 mm less clearance on average.

Waldi

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bfg said:

Very interesting Peter Thank you.   I'd never heard of plastigauge but have looked it up via Google and its very interesting.  Might I ask though how effective it is when the shells are part worn.?    It would seem logical that, to check for wear of the journals - new shells would have to be fitted.  This would mean buying a set of shells (Std size) and then if I discover the journal wear is beyond tolerance then I'd need to then buy another set to suit the reground size. 

Of course if they are within tolerance then that saves me a whole lot of dismantling, and machining costs.  Is that a fair summary of the pros and cons ?  I'd like to learn / experience the use of these sometime, so if you have a spare set then I might try them out.  Thanks.

Unfortunately however, I have just been out to the garage and measured the one big end journal with my old SP digital vernier gauge.  I say 'old' because it has been well cared for but since I bought it twenty or so years ago, it's not been re-calibrated.  Still as accurately as I might get with such an instrument - it tells me that I have of 0.0035 - 0.005" wear,  so 1.5 thou ovality.   So it looks like it'll have to be a first regrind to  -0.010" 

Pete.

I think you will find the first undersize regrind is -0.020" 

If you want it ground to 0.010" get the bearing shells in your hand or ask the grinder to supply before instructing the machine shop.  Historically there were 0.002" shells, but they have been thin on the ground for many years.  Ask the grinder if they can polish the crank to preserve it from a regrind.  I just had a TR2 crank polished that was -0.050" on the mains, and -0.030" BE  Main brgs are available in  -0.060" , but I felt preserving the crank for another 'life' was worthwhile.

As stated above  - Get the crank measured by someone else just to confirm your findings.  I would have expected to see wear through the shell whitemetal facing if the crank pins are oval by your stated amount.

Cheers

Peter W

Link to post
Share on other sites

That crank needs checking with a micrometre, with a "very near" as they referred to in engineering circles it's too easy to lose a thou or two because the Vernier gauge (see it's only a "gauge", to be used when better equipment isn't at hand) isn't exactly at 90 deg to the bearing crank plane... visually from the photo the bearings don't even look badly worn to me.

Go into it "old school",  fit the bearings into the conrod big ends and torque it up (hold it in a vice in soft jaws) and use snap gauges (expanding Telescopic gauges) to measure the inside dia of the fitted and torqued big end bearings and mike that up. Compare the dimensions against the crankshaft big ends checked by micrometre (measure in two axis around the journal checking ovality also) and see what you get, you should be within a thou of correct for clearance that way.

Mick Richards   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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