Jump to content
Bfg

That was a year that was..

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Motorsport Mickey said:

"I'll position those to be used as cylinder 1 (best cooled) and cylinder 4 (hottest)."

Hmmm nope...try again parallel thinking required.

Mick Richards

Thanks Mick..  That was another question I didn't know to ask !      Prompted by your / this post - I thought about the flow of coolant in line with my having (previously) noted the water pump outlet  / feed into the block was asymmetric.  I'd guessed that was so the water would flow around the one side so as to more equally circulate the cooler water around the rear cylinders..  I hadn't figured out that the water flow was too fast to transfer the cylinder's heat to the water.    I guess you discovered it from racing / tuning experience where you found #1 was running second hottest ? 

For those who have no idea what we're talking about.,  here's a copy of Mick's explanation ..I found via a good old fashioned search of this excellent website..

" The block doesn't remove heat in a uniform fashion, not many engines do, but in this case No 4 cylinder runs hottest being furthest from the water pump and receiving water preheated by passing cylinders 1/2/3. Then number 1 cylinder runs hottest, contrarily being too close to the water pump the full force and flow races the water past it and doesn't allow the extra milliseconds required to lift the correct heat sink from the metal. You'll be relieved to hear that at least some of the cylinders run OKish with number 2 and 3 running at a median or thereabouts engine temperature, the sum of all the individual cylinder temperatures gives us our generic engine temperature which hopefully reassures you when you look at the gauge."  

That and much more truly invaluable advice can be found in reading the whole thread < here

I note in the Moss catalogue there's an uprated water pump which (from memory) delivers something like twice the water flow.  I wonder if that is either a good thing or necessary in our temperate climate.?   

I very much appreciate your heads-up on such matters - cheers ..  

My engine's water pump does not have the removable pulley wheel, but almost certainly needs rebuilding. Would you all recommend I just replace it ?       

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

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. 

P1330489s.jpg.eff5ab28006d1df5ad11c13a87431278.jpg

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

  1.     554.5g
  2.     564.6g
  3.     562.4g
  4.     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. .   

P1330506s.jpg.edadbf84c6a89ba2076e1b20325e3266.jpg

(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. 

  1.     554.5g       383.7      232.8
  2.     564.6g       386.4      239.3 
  3.     562.4g       384.6      238.6
  4.     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).

P1330514as.jpg.e6b714263df3f57c2d1fe6e01c6c9fe9.jpg

^ 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.  

P1330507a.jpg.4aed52a5154764b6041c23f92bbedec0.jpg

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. 

P1330519s.thumb.jpg.ee4d8798a4b72b8bd2a83257d57ba05d.jpg

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  . .

P1330488s.jpg.29f3345fa068d147d8986e08867bb170.jpg

Edited by Bfg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..

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.

P1330520s.jpg.ff192f415f7ce5a45f18a87c5c31412b.jpg

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.

P1330521s.jpg.d92c7f94297e182d3efa59bc4778c864.jpg

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 :wacko:  

               ..BUT  I'm very happy with them !!  :P

 

Thank you kindly seller.  You know who you are.  

Best regards, Pete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they 9" or 10" ?

Stuart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, stuart said:

Are they 9" or 10" ?

Stuart.

Look like 9”.   like Datsun 240Z but alloy

Peter W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, stuart said:

Are they 9" or 10" ?

Stuart.

The upside down casting dimensions say a maximum of 230mm or 9".

Mick Richards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bfg said:

They are 9", which I understand is correct for the rear of a TR4A.

It is, good purchase, I have the same but in 10" on mine.

Stuart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Yesterday I spent a long afternoon trying to better weight match the con-rods, both without and then with their big-end caps. 

P1330526s.jpg.25bce2d3bc311f59bba921cb0a9cac1d.jpg

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 ;

  1.  233.3 g    ..as is evident in the photo above, nothing was taken off this ( lightest) con-rod. 
  2.  238.6 g  
  3.  237.6 g
  4.  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) ;

  1.  384.5 g           &       554.8 g    ..again nothing was taken off this ( lightest) con-rod. 
  2.  386.9 g           &       560.0 g
  3.  385.3 g           &       558.7 g
  4.  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 ;

  1.   934.0. g          &       702.5 g    ..5g was taken out of this cap.
  2.   934.2 g           &       700.2 g
  3.   934.3 g           &       701.5 g
  4.   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 ?  I'm not sure ..considering the huge reciprocating and rotating masses in this engine.  But it's done now and I don't regret taking the time to do it.  :rolleyes:

Pete.

 

Edit.. for those wondering why the weight at each end were different between these con-rods, here's a very quick explanation. .  

P1330553s.jpg.2f63e1ba664d9649cdc3669e6622cece.jpg

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 very accurately 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.

Edited by Bfg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evening all, it's been a few days since I last posted so I thought I'd do a bit of catching up.

I had a slight delay before the new old stock inlet valves arrived, and then aside from everyday distractions in life,  my efforts were to try and get my act together ..regarding what the engineering machine shop was to do. 

P1330549s.jpg.8d4165331bdd1c37f1c8eeb83ff9522b.jpg

Standard-Triumph new-old-stock Inlet valves, valve guides and timing chain tensioners. One tensioner is very slightly thinner steel than the other, and also has sharp bottom corners so may have been from a different model, but both are new and from the same source.  Yes there are two sets here because.. ever hopeful that one day I might get the car with its engine.,  I will then need these same parts for that.

With those coming in on Monday,  I took everything across to the machine shop J.D Robertsons, Colchester, on Tuesday.  it was the same very nice gentleman on the desk, that I'd spoken to on the phone several times before, so he had a pretty good idea what was coming in.   As it happens a gentleman brought in the cylinder head for a 1955 Massey Ferguson tractor while I was there, so I had the rare opportunity to compare them side by side.  Talk about low compression ! phew the combustion chamber was recessed into the head by something like 45mm, whereas my TR4A head was recessed only about 15mm. That was a low port head which is designed to run on paraffin.  Aside from it's extra depth it was quite familiar though.. a few changes to the water jacket holes including one which ran front to back underneath the inlet and exhaust ports.   oh and those ports were half moon shape rather than round.   All in all a pleasure to see and chat with the owner.  The gent in the machine shop seemed equally as interested and so there was no hassling to get on with things.   It's very nice to deal with such old school gentlemen.

My own engine's cylinder head is in for ;

  • pressure testing
  • checking the machined gasket faces are flat,
  • new unleaded exhaust valve seats,
  • re-cutting or replacing the inlet valve seats,
  • if required replacing the valve guides, and
  • replacing the core plug while cleaning out inside the water jacket.   

The crankshaft is in for ;

  • regrind the big end journals to suit the +0.010" shells (supplied assembled in the con-rod for their measurement)
  • check to ensure the main journals are within tolerance
  • to remove the core bungs and clean out the oil galleries inside.
  • for balancing.

And so then we had the flywheel(s)..  The one I'd bought from a TR3 and one Rich C-R  lent me from a TR4 (..this had been lightened and is still drilled for the coil-spring 9" clutch).   Before I took them across I compared them . . .

P1330537s.jpg.6ff93b413204d66fa8be773a6ef0a115.jpg

TR4 is on the left is heavily greased rather than rusty, and the clean / lighter coloured TR3 flywheel is on the right.  The TR4 has a bolt on starter gear-ring and so the recess for that is noticeably deeper-in from the perimeter.

What cannot be seen here is that the overall diameter of the TR3 flywheel is about 8mm greater, so a lot of metal will have to be removed to get the TR4 bolt-on ring to fit it. That's OK because I'm happy to save more weight from around the perimeter.

P1330543s.jpg.6fb2e13783a72ef228a4ec020ba6a223.jpg

From the engine side.,  the greased / brown flywheel has been lightened considerably. It was a similar dished shape to the TR3 one but someone has machined it flat to within a few mm of where the starter's gear-ring bolts on.  According to my ancient bathroom scales, with the gear ring it weighs in at 9kg (21lb).  The TR3 flywheel, as seen is I believe original aside from it's clutch side face has been skimmed back to flat. That weighs in at 7-1/4kg (15lb). 

P1330544s.jpg.3fa00b99deabceddd5246c278d8c34b5.jpg

The clutch side ; lookes very similar but the dowel positions are different and of a different size.  I believe they are both drilled to take the 9" coil spring clutch. It's barely discernible from the photos but you might just make out the dowels and bolt holes are closer to the edge on the TR4 one ..because it is the aforementioned 8mm smaller in diameter (approx 280 versus 288mm).  As I say Rich's flywheel has been packed away in dark brown heavy grease, it is not rusty.

The dowel pin which goes into the end of the crankshaft is different, as you may see on the shiny TR3 one, only the pilot holes have not been drilled all the way through.

P1330547s.jpg.53a52c4ce3e097d521d4b91e0a548a84.jpg

The diaphragm clutch sitting on the TR3 flywheel illustrates the difference in overall diameter and the PCD of the clutch mounting holes & dowels.

For those interested in doing a similar thing, here is my brief  ..written out as much for me as to discuss with the engineering company . . .

 

1.  Flywheel : I am furnishing x2 flywheels (used) x1 bolt-on type gear ring (new), x1 diaphragm clutch cover (new), x4 bolts and x2 lock washers (each new, for fastening the flywheel to the crankshaft). And x1 page copied from workshop manual regarding fitting to the starter gear.

The hollowed out / 15lb flywheel  is from a TR3, and the one I wish to use.  The other, flat faced one,  is an already lightened one from a friend’s TR4A.  This is only for use as a pattern to help determine offsets and drillings - so no machining work is to be done on this part.

I would like the TR3 flywheel’s perimeter to be appropriately turned to fit the starter gear ring provided and also to drilled and tapped for x6 suitably sized bolts. Triumph of this period predominantly used UNC or UNF bolts.  Personally I do not mind what the thread is, only that they are high-tensile bolts and with low profile heads.

The gear ring is a slight interference fit, necessitating modest heat to the ring for its fitting.  The teeth of the gear ring are shaped on one side, and the starter motor Bendix gear is drawn forward ..from the gearbox / clutch side of the flywheel to engage.

I would also like this flywheel to be drilled for the Borg & Beck diaphragm clutch cover supplied. Again I don’t mind what the threads are but again the bolts must be of high tensile specification.  The location dowels will also need to be moved to suit this clutch cover. 

The mating face which fits to the crankshaft and flywheel needs to be checked for flatness, size, and run-out. Again the dowel hole needs to be altered to fit that on the crankshaft. A page (p.1.123) copied from the workshop manual is supplied. It tells me that clutch-friction-face run-out should not exceed 0.003”.  

The TR3 flywheel is approximately 8mm greater in overall diameter than the TR4A one, and the diaphragm clutch is 8-½” dia.  so smaller than the TR3’s  9” coil-spring clutch. I would like the excess metal removed to ensure ample clearance for the starter gear and to save weight.

And where practical,  I’d like further excess weight trimmed off.  Please see the illustration, copied from Triumph’s official publication “Tuning Triumphs with engines exceeding 1300cc” which illustrates where it may safely be removed.  Personally I would aim to leave 3mm of land either side of the gear ring, but please remove as much as you feel comfortable with.

Finally, the crankshaft, flywheel together with the clutch cover will need to be re-balanced

Thank You.

990534094_flywheellightening.jpg.939625c9857abb1b06170770dce17fc4.jpg

The red line indicates where (I think) Rich's TR4 flywheel has been lightened. I have read that the original weight was 31lb, with starter gear-ring, so this has removed about 8lb in weight.

That's it from me for this evening. I wish you all a good one.

Pete. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you checking the crankshaft nose, to ensure the oil seal......does it’s job.....can be fixed with a speedo sleeve if needed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete.

All great stuff, & highly detailed. 

One thing you may wish to consider is that if you were to decide to use a modern geared starter motor, then the starter gear meshes with the ring gear from the engine side.

Bob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Iain,

The pulley's hub is the journal for the timing case oil seal, and that is in good shape. There's almost no evidence of wear but there is very fine pitting one patch.  Unfortunately I don't have a photo of it after being cleaned. Below is as it was when first lifted off. Bottom line is that I believe it to be serviceable and ought not tear the lip seal, so no speedi-sleeve is necessary (at this time).  

765832339_P1320838a(771x617).jpg.5031b46788f22565386c10b7b7c81fa8.jpg

- - -

 

Thanks Bob.  I didn't know the geared / hi-torque starters engage from the engine side.  The gear ring is of course reversible so if I choose to go that route then it's not a biggie, unless the engine is already in the car.  Then either it or the gearbox would have to come out ..to remove the flywheel and reverse its gear ring - Very useful to know.  

Out of interest would it not be usual practice to replace the gear ring for new when you fit a new starter (or bendix gear / pinion assembly ) ..so the wear of one was not detrimental to the other.?

 

Might I also finally confirm which way around the start gear ring fits ? 

The Haynes manual says fit with the "front of the teeth facing the flywheel register".  That is unclear to me.  I might, at best, only presume the "front of the teeth"  is that with the chamfer,  but even then I'm not familiar with what a "flywheel register" is.   Unfortunately the Standard-Triumph TR4 / 4A workshop manual appears to make no specific mention of which way around the gear-ring is fitted,  nor do the drawings show the teeth chamfer,  but a photo on p.1-123 (fig.46)  does show them on the gear-ring's teeth facing rearward.  The TR4 flywheel (I borrowed) didn't have its gear-ring fitted, so I can't use that to confirm. 

NB. The type of clutch being irrelevant to the starter & gear ring.

My own logic does tend to suggest ; the chamfer side of the ring-gear teeth faces the direction the starter-gear engages from.  So.., 

  • The early car's bomb-type starter gear pinion (this is used with the 91-tooth heat-shrunk-on ring-gear) moves rearwards ..to engage with the gear-ring from the engine side. Therefore the teeth's chamfer are to face towards the flywheel's crankshaft mounting (ie., away from the clutch cover).
  • The TR3A / TR4 / 4A  bendix-type starter motor pinion (which is only used with the 90-tooth bolt-on ring-gear) comes forward ..to engage with the gear-ring from the clutch cover / gearbox side. Therefore its teeth chamfers face towards the clutch cover. 

Is that definitively, and finally, and with every certainty.. correct ?

Thanks, Pete.

 

Edit OK here's what's correct

P1330164as.jpg.ba481274e5849a6ac3cc629317858084.jpg

^ This is a bendix type starter motor used on the later 4-cyl. TR engines.

 

The point which is so obvious that I was missing it ..is that the chamfer / bevels on the gear-ring are there to both help engage and disengage. 

As you can see in the above photo, the starter's gear pinion also has bevels on its teeth to help engage it  ..so even if the starter ring was on back to front it would generally work.  But the very important function of those bevels on the gear ring is to ensure that the starter motor disengages when the engine starts.  

Consider for a moment, the ratio between the starter's gear and the flywheel's gear ring is (..lets say) 1 :10.  So the starter motor turns at 1000rpm,  and because of that gear ratio - turns the engine over at 100 rpm to start it.  (That may not seem a lot but I can assure you it's very much more than a motorcycle kick-starter ..however many cylinder or powerful the engine is).  

Now what happens when you've blipped the throttle and the engine starts ?   The engine fires, starts and engine revs spin up to 2000rpm.  So if the starter motor is still engaged that would be spinning at ;  2000 rpm x gear-ratio of 10:1  = 20,000rpm !     Those ring-gear chamfers / bevels are there to protect the starter motor by encouraging the gears to disengage as soon as the fire kicks into life. 

Clearly that's a pretty important thing to happen, so the chamfers/ bevels need to face the bevels on the starter motor's pinion.   

And as the early cars and the later ones had a different starter motor, and the hi-torque may come in either configuration, and then there's probably some which have been mix n' matched - then the sure fire answer is to look at the starter motor to see which side of the starter's gear pinon the lightweight spring is.  (see illustration above).

Pete.

 

Edited by Bfg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Haynes manual"

would be very wise to get a real one, or use the online version in the members area . Over the years we have found numerous errors in the Haynes bible :mellow:

Iain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree with your logic on which direction the front (smooth) side faces. In practice it works perfectly well either way round.

Regarding whether to renew the ring gear when changing the starter - That s a hell of a lot of work !!!

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iain said:

"The Haynes manual"

would be very wise to get a real one, or use the online version in the members area . Over the years we have found numerous errors in the Haynes bible :mellow:

Iain

and I wrote . . .

"Unfortunately the Standard-Triumph TR4 / 4A workshop manual appears to make no specific mention of which way around the gear-ring is fitted,  nor do the drawings show the teeth chamfer,  but a photo on p.1-123 (fig.46)  does show them on the gear-ring's teeth facing rearward."

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to your efforts with the conrods, when I rebuilt my engine, I made a balance beam and compared the weights of the con rod and piston assemblies.  They were all within a nat's cock the same weight.  I can't imagine that the pistons would have varied much so I guess the conrods were all the same.  I don't know whether that would have been the way they came out the factory or the work of a previous owner.

Rgds Ian

Edited by Ian Vincent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to the flywheel, I have a post 20k TR3a and the ring gear for that stayed on the same side when I fitted a hi-torque starter.

Rgds Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rockers and front crank hub repairing.


 NOS Vandervell bushes in the rockers, then line reamed.   (I have found a small stash of them)

Speedo sleeve on front hub

 

cheers

Peter W

 

 

AF4F56A3-B599-4E27-864A-4611201C6869.jpeg

8F7FDE4F-3C19-4E6C-8225-9D3B46EB5D2B.jpeg

32C44E67-3010-4DF0-A4BA-BEAFD2D73E4C.jpeg

Edited by BlueTR3A-5EKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ian Vincent said:

Going back to your efforts with the conrods, when I rebuilt my engine, I made a balance beam and compared the weights of the con rod and piston assemblies.  They were all within a nat's cock the same weight.  I can't imagine that the pistons would have varied much so I guess the conrods were all the same.  I don't know whether that would have been the way they came out the factory or the work of a previous owner.

Rgds Ian

This engine's piston n' con-rod assemblies (as removed / not even cleaned up) were within just 3g of each ..so very good.  I understand the tolerance is 7g. 

But as you see from my figures (post of 14th January).. the difference in weight of the con-rods themselves (without gudgeon-pin, big-end shells, cap or bolts) was 13g.   And their end-to-end weight distribution varied even more - with the difference in weight of their big-ends varying by as much as 15g. 

It was their variance in weight distribution / end-to-end weight  that I sought to even up.

The four new 86mm +0.040" pistons (..recently bought with 87mm liners) vary in weight by a total of 3.7g.   That was with gudgeon pins, but without piston rings.  Once matched to the piston rings and con-rods - I'll minimise their overall weight difference.

Pete.

Share this post


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

This engine's piston n' con-rod assemblies (as removed / not even cleaned up) were within just 3g of each ..so very good.  I understand the tolerance is 7g. 

But as you see from my figures (post of 14th January).. the difference in weight of the con-rods themselves (without gudgeon-pin, big-end shells, cap or bolts) was 13g.   And their end-to-end weight distribution varied even more - with the difference in weight of their big-ends varying by as much as 15g. 

It was their variance in weight distribution / end-to-end weight  that I sought to even up.

The four new 86mm +0.040" pistons (..recently bought with 87mm liners) vary in weight by a total of 3.7g.   That was with gudgeon pins, but without piston rings.  Once matched to the piston rings and con-rods - I'll minimise their overall weight difference.

Pete.

I guess you will set the deck heights of the pistons by machining the top surfaces and then re balance them by either mixing light pistons with heavy con rods or removing weight from inside the piston skirt as required.

Cheers

Peter W

Edited by BlueTR3A-5EKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BlueTR3A-5EKT said:

I guess you will set the deck heights of the pistons by machining the top surfaces and then re balance them by either mixing light pistons with heavy con rods or removing weight from inside the piston skirt as required.

Cheers

Peter W

Be suspicious of No1 piston being a different compression height, check by measuring down from the liner top around the bore. Also check for bent con rods (engineering firm may not check or find when honing little ends) by tilting the piston crown by pressing down on all 4 compass points and measuring. 

Mick Richards

Edited by Motorsport Mickey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 1/24/2020 at 4:48 PM, BlueTR3A-5EKT said:

Rockers and front crank hub repairing.

I haven't pulled the rockers off the shaft yet to examine the bushes, but I have tried to rock them (side to side) to feel for play. Only the inlet port rocker for #2 cylinder seems to have excess play.  I'll strip them off to check them this coming week.  In the meantime I'd be glad for any advice on the rocker arms themselves

  P1330559s.jpg.93426ceab7bd5d94ce8f99fe2e607a37.jpg

again #2 cylinder rocker arms are in the worse condition . . .

P1330563as.jpg.3bbafd8be44632de7456d2f7e6c9aa16.jpg

^ in a close-up photo they look worse than they feel. 

Without caps on the valve stems, the stem of the valve presents a localised load.  I asked the machine shop I'm using and they said that they do not have the facilities to re-harden surface if they were to grind these smooth. They recommend hand dressing them ..to take of any high ridge, but otherwise making do with them.   What are the thoughts of this forum ? 

- - -

Very little tangible progress this past week.  I did get the camshaft wrapped and sent of to Newman Camshafts.  I want to ask them what they make of the broken surface condition of the lobe tips ..as discussed previously < here >  and whether it was practical to / worth regrinding that camshaft.?  Their Ph1 camshaft has been recommended and is intended for good degrees of torque rather than a high revs.  So that's what I'll go for.

Otherwise I also got the water pump sent off to EP services, in Wolverhampton to be checked and if necessary rebuilt. 

    P1330555s.jpg.2db3e071e72cd5aa7945f58495bd9223.jpg

^ It cleaned up and looks to be in good shape, but was locked up when I bought this engine.  The belt-pulley is a press-on type rather than bolt on, so I thought I'd just pass the matter over to their capable hands.  I've asked them about converting to a narrow belt and they are going to advise me as to what they can do. 

- - -

For sake of pulling together my experience with this engine ..all in one thread, and for the sake of anyone doing the same in the future - I (below) copy a reply to Mark, who has just imported a TR4A from the US  < here > ..  The reply was in regard to his rebuilding the carburettors, and I spoke of my intent to out-source some tasks to a few specialist companies . . .

 

Mark, I'm 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 are 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 n' out, and will return them with good adjustment and pretty much guaranteed to work ..straight out of the box so to speak - then that will save me shopping for rebuild kits, getting exactly the right parts (of decent quality),  possibly a couple of trips to the machine shop,  and a few weeks of work myself ..that 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 to be 4A as he rebuilds it, and includes 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 they are very helpful. 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 my time in 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 be 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.

- - -

And then, yesterday I wrote to Raymond, the seller of 'Chance' the TR4A I'm trying to buy in Arkansas.

Back in May last year, we came to an agreement of price, and what was to be included (I didn't want his TR6 engine nor the Mx5 seats) and what was necessary to prepare for shipping.  I offered to pay extra, for him to build (or have built) a cradle up from the bumper irons and to fit the 'spare' chassis on that.  The car was rolling but had been stripped out of interior, exterior trim, ancillaries, engine, gearbox and diff., but these things were still with the car, even if the engine was totally in bits.  ie., I was buying a basket case. 

The agreement was ;  the heavy mechanical lumps were to be loosely refitted into the car and everything else was to be boxed up inside ..this was for convenience of handling one rolling, steering 'car' overland to Huston and into a shipping container.  Cutting to the chase - the agreement was that the car would be ready to ship by the beginning of September.   However, Raymond, his family and their community have had a series of disasters, including a flood, hurricanes, accidents and illness.   All in all the family had a pretty difficult year ..so I tried to be patient.  And I bought another engine to get on with .. moving towards my having a half decent TR4 to tour in. 

From the beginning of May to nearing the end of January is quite a long time when you're waiting for something, but the real issue was - that Raymond was communicating less and less each month.  No money had been transferred so it wasn't a matter of having been ripped off, it was just that it looked as if this was never going to happen. Excuses, however real and valid - are still excuses. 5 or 10 minutes occasionally to keep me updated should be too much to ask.   So I wrote a stern but polite letter yesterday evening to express my profound disappointment, saying that he was making a fool of me,  and that I wished him and family well.  In short, a kindly but rather sad Goodbye.  It was time for me to look elsewhere.    

:(

>  Twelve hours later, received at 5:49am our time, which would be just before midnight in Arkansas,  I received a very nice letter from his wife Kathy (who had not written before) to apologise and to explain that Raymond was working 60-70 hr weeks in his own job and in helping with her commercial cleaning business, which on top of the catalogue of disasters this past year has him "beyond exhausted".

She went on to say.. "If however you are no longer interested, we would fully understand. After all of the delays, I wouldn't blame you at all.  If you choose to go ahead with purchasing the car and are willing to wait until the end of March, please let us know as soon as possible so that we may go ahead with getting it prepared."

 

Even though I know this car needs a huge amount of work, I still have a good feeling about 'Chance'.  And in my mind's eye - it is the car I see us touring in 

I must admit I've never known anyone waiting the best part of a year to buy an old car ..which is not rare, is in bits, which they haven't seen, and don't even have very good photos of.  Admittedly, it's not expensive (by today's prices),  but with overland transport to Huston, and then shipping across to England, and then import tax and registration ..it's not cheap either.  

I have just replied that I would still like to buy the car, and agree to wait until the end of March before it's ready to ship.

What is with men ..that might account for such irrational thought and actions ! ?

Pete

 

Edited by Bfg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning all,

Just thought I'd add a quick pictorial sequence of what's been happening the past couple of days in (..and out) of the garage. . .

P1330500s.jpg.1e683868e1da3c416ba118d7a6d6e279.jpg

^ Water pump housing, much as it came off.

P1330601s.jpg.13186a2fd3ca48a28e34bbd60663f487.jpg

^ Clean up but not quite finished yet

P1330566s.jpg.5cb49ca989e9974e1d575b87dfaf54a4.jpg

^ cleaning up the push-rods.  I cleaned one by one so as to keep them in the same order as they came out of the engine. and then I polish them on the mop. The one being held is half polished to show the difference.   

Why ?  Well, at the last TR club meeting (again tonight at The Alma, near Colchester), a gent brought in a push-rod in two parts ..as if it had separated in the middle, twisted slightly and been pushed back together again.  I cannot quite imagine how it had happened, but I felt the necessity to carefully examine mine ..to ensure that non had any sign of stress nor had any nick in it - that might propagate to a failure.  Polishing these parts helps me see any surface imperfections very much easier.   Of course one has to be very careful when doing this job because the polishing mop tends to toss anything aside that is not being held very carefully. 

P1330571.thumb.JPG.3e81b4bd932c87dedfc34a9ea4564985.JPG

^ pretty ..but more importantly exposed to very close examination.

P1330578s.jpg.d6a69045dfcdf084aec7f46e1a3bee4e.jpg

^ I finally got around to pulling the pin and cleaning out the shish kebab.  The shaft is badly worn so I'll look for a replacement.  Again every part is kept in strict order of assembly, for when it goes back together again everything will be in its original position. 

 

P1330582s.jpg.69dd4cc3628dac52de3cc512d0094941.jpg

^ engine on the stand again.  You can see the inside of the water jacket, sans liners, and amazingly (to me) it still hadn't dried out in the corners. Considering the horrid rusty mess that came out of it I'm pleased at how well it looked ..but I needed to do a bit more yet

This is the first time I've mounted the engine-block from its bell-housing end.  Must admit I'm not impressed with the balance I achieved, as it was top heavy and so awkward to rotate.   However it did mean this still heavy engine case was easier to move about on my own ..away from the overhead winch.

P1330584s.jpg.4d83c4b01e550bef2f27a42f33e316f2.jpg

^ With the (Makita) pressure wash on it's most viscous fine jet setting I wanted to blast out any remaining rust flakes and to for the water pressure to delve right into the casting's pitting and deep corners.

P1330586s.jpg.c2891d05e94640eb28cc2dac6ed177ec.jpg     s-l640.jpg

I then scrubbed it with a household degreaser (Sgrassatore) for pots and pans that I was introduced to by my dear friend Barbara ..living in Slovenia.  A few years ago, she and her family helped me clean up (ready for restoration) a '74 Citroen Ami-Super,  and she used this stuff to clean off underseal from the inside of that car's wings (they were also bolt on / removable).  I was so impressed that I bought a couple of bottles back to England with me, and when they were used up I then bought 5-ltrs via e-bay and had it shipped from Italy.!    In the photo above I had used a pot cleaning brush, with stiff plastic bristles, to work it into the corners. I used a pipe cleaner into any of the larger drillings. And I used an old wood chisel to loosen a few more encrusted rust lumps in the corners of the water jacket, and then used a rotary wire brush in my cordless drill to really work it in and scrub it all a bit more.   I spent a good two hours trying to get this clean.

P1330590s.jpg.2c79f80d0adec7a5a3c92627cc6b7b2c.jpg

The cavities where the cam followers go and the underside insides (where oil normally is) is painted from the factory. I didn't want to loose nor damage that finish so I only scrubbed in there with the plastic bristle pot cleaner and degreaser - Not with the chisel or wire brush.  I did thoroughly blast it with the power wash though ..including into each of the oil galleries between the main bearings and the camshaft bearing, and along the oil gallery which runs the length of the LHS of the engine (pulling each of its bungs and blasting in inside.)  

P1330597s.thumb.jpg.54dfb954c4213904877ac8a47dd1c627.jpg

And then the block came back into the garage and was placed alongside the coal burning stove, and with my dehumidifier blowing up its skirt.

I proceeded to dry the metal with a clean t-shirt and paper towels.

P1330600s.jpg.4e471ea0d298b85832212c3b33a3b301.jpg     

^ underside inside - the original factory paint (used to seal any pores and to lock any remaining sand from its casting) remains intact and in excellent condition. As far as I can see non was blasted of by the power wash (which I used as aggressively as I could).

P1330599s.jpg.b35e9d2acb55701c65623670c9ee83bc.jpg

^  the water jacket is about as clean as it's going to be (save just a little more work with the wire brush). The machined faces where the figure-eight sleeve gaskets go are in good shape,  and the heavy build up of sludge in the cavities above the cam followers is now cleaned out.  I think some of that came back and hit me in the face judging by the look that greeted me when I later looked in a mirror !  Each of the drillings for the studs had been jet-blasted into or through so I'm guessing they'll be mainly clean too.

That was it. The stove was stoked up to burn for another six hours, and I laid a dry clean t-shirt over the top of the engine and left the dehumidifier on a high setting all night to blow through and thoroughly dry inside all the crevices and drillings. 

Another job done and now most of the engine parts are clean enough to handle.

Pete.

 

Edited by Bfg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 1/13/2020 at 5:03 PM, Fireman049 said:

Puzzle find the black drain hole on this engine ~ and here is the cylinder liner.

Tom.

DSCF0225 - Copy.JPG

Thanks Tom,

 And this was mine .  . .

P1330582a.jpg.c056787966e6d52bf4138a9e5bde8cc7.jpg

^  Arrow indicates the spot where, drilled from the outside - the water jacket's drain tap is ..which was likewise hard-packed with rusty crud.  Obviously the photo is before I chiselled it out ..shamefully misusing a small screwdriver to do so :wacko:

- - -

Next..  very likely controversial but..  I've decided to paint my engine block inside the water jacket ( and out). 

P1330608as.thumb.jpg.6af7257dd9a6eabfb8e6893b65231648.jpg

" I have read the arguments against painting inside the water jacket.. and that antifreeze has anti corrosive properties so there's no need to do so ..but having seen the crud that was in there (see photo below) the thought of putting it back together with raw cast-iron inside there was just too difficult to bear..  

I spent most of a day looking on-line, and was frustrated that no-one in this sunny Suffolk backwater called Ipswich seemed to stock anything but VHT rattle-can paint.   So it's my own engine and I'm prepared to use it as a guinea pig.  And I've used POR-15 petrol tank sealant, which is what I had left over from coating / sealing petrol tanks on my vintage motorcycles ..so I know sticks incredibly well to rough surfaces and raw metal that's not perfectly clear of rust.  I also know it has excellent resistance to many strong chemicals. So my major concern was - how well would it stand up to engine temperatures.?   I contacted POR-15 and was told it's only rated up to 100 degrees c.   However, short of experimenting with other / unknown products, I decided to test a sample piece. Actually, this was a length of 1/2" flat bar that I had used as a mixing stick .. and which had deliberately been left outside in all weathers for the past six months.  That was a test to see how well it might protect the chassis.

I used the oven in my tiny coal burning stove and placed the painted and weathered bar in there. It's temperature tends to range from 100 to 190 degrees c. depending on how low or high I have the stove burning.  When I put the piece in there it was c. 140 degrees.   I laid it flat to the floor of the oven (hottest place in this particular oven because the fire box is immediately below it) and left it for an hour.  I pulled it out and was happy with a simple scratch test. I put the sample back in the oven as I worked for another couple of hours. I stoked the fire before bed and left the air-intake vent cracked open, so the fire would burn hot (575 degrees is usual in the firebox itself).  The following morning,  the paint on the sample was still fine.  I have to admit that my sample had weathered outside from being originally the grey aluminium colour you see (above) to being gold  ..and that amount of heat had caused it to turn more of a darker antique gold colour.  Although that indicates a change - I'm still giving it a try.   I've also painted inside the water pump housing (which will have most turbulence) and I'll do the same with inside of the thermostat housing. I can easily lift this off to inspect inside.  If I see evidence of flaking then I can of course strip the engine down and remove it again. That will cost me in time and a gasket set,  however compared to the rust that was in there  (below) - I can't see paint as being much of an issue, unless it comes off as a sheet rather than as flakes. .

Note:  I'll not be painting the liners themselves, so heat dissipation through those to the coolant / water will be unaffected.  Nor have I painted in any place inside where there's engine oil, so they'll be no risk of paint getting in the oil ways, pump or bearings. The machine spaces inside the cast-iron block was originally painted by the factory ..and it remains in excellent condition ..despite I feel it being a very much harsher environment.

P1330469s.jpg.34500170b698e133dd7b5e406340450d.jpg

Share this post


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.