Jump to content
Bfg

That was a year that was..

Recommended Posts

Thanks all.  I much appreciate your advice ..and moral support.

 

21 hours ago, Bfg said:

It would seem logical that, to check for wear of the journals - new shells would have to be fitted.

John, might I ask why is this assessment mistaken ? . .

18 hours ago, john.r.davies said:

 BFG, but you are mistaken about Plastigauge.    No need for new shells - it will tell you the clearance on old and ?worn ones too.

Note.,  I specifically wrote "to check for wear of the journals".

Plastigauge is very clever stuff insomuch as it measures the gap (clearance) between surfaces.  But as far as I can envisage - it cannot differentiate between the amount of wear in the shell and that of the journal.   So.,  if the shells have been replaced for new and the journal is worn and plastigauge records 0.0035" gap,  then that would result in the same amount of squidge spread as journals with no discernible wear when the shells are worn by 0.0035".   No ?

- - -

In the instance of this engine's big ends, and although not apparent in a photograph - I can feel they need regrinding. Old school says " if you can feel a wear ridge with your finger nail - it's too much ".   

Mickey and others are (imo) correct in suggesting a micrometer is required for a more accurate measurement.  However, by applying a gentle pressure on the vernier as it is carefully rocked either side of 90 degrees to square, one can ascertain a minimum measurement. It is that minimum figure I noted.  And although not recently calibrated the comparison between said measurements - in line with the crank throw and at 90 degrees to this, indicates excessive ovality.  Whether that is 1-1/2 thou-of-an-inch or a fraction less is immaterial. Had they been less than or close to 0.001" ovality - I would have questioned my findings.

I will of course have the engineering shop check these for me, and will be delighted if they say "throw your vernier gauge away" ..because they have measured the journals as "well within" tolerance.  The purpose of these measurements was simply to indicate whether I needed to dismantle the bottom end at all,  and also to indicate just what size shells might be needed.   

- - -

18 hours ago, Waldi said:

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.

This is interesting - thanks Waldi.  It seems to me that if I were to buy Trimetal shells and have the crank reground to those,  and then after x,000 miles - I could swap to Glyco shells for a still better fit (..after the reground surface has been run in).

This thinking follows something interesting I read in the Haynes manual, which I'd never noted nor even heard before.  It reads..

" Very long engine life can be achieved by changing big end bearings at intervals of 30,000 miles, irrespective of bearing wear.  Normal Crankshaft wear is infinitesimal and a change of bearings will ensure mileages of 100,000 to 120,000 miles before crankshaft regrinding becomes necessary. Crankshafts  normally have to be reground because of scoring due to bearing failure."

Of course simply changing the big end shells every 30,000 miles would maintain excellent oil pressure for the rest of the engine - and so help preserve those bearings too.  I like it.!

Pete.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pete,

regarding bearing life and periodic renewal, I have read that too. Maybe others can comment if they indeed follow this practice? And what it does with oil pressure.

It would be good to measure the bearings, fitted to the block and con rods, prior to machining, to achieve optimal clearances.

If machining is required, insist on a nice radius for each journal, to avoid stress risers due to poor geometry.

I “invested” in a couple of SH Mitutoyo micrometers and 2 sets of Dasqua bore gages (80 euro each). The Dasquas are very good for their price. This covers all measurements on a TR engine, including pistons and liners.

The SH micrometer can be calibrated with the little  calibration piece that belongs to it, to I felt confident about my measurements. If I had outsourced the measurements I would have paid the same.

Regards,

Waldi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

This afternoon I did a drastic thing .. I stripped off in the cold   :blink:

I started at the bottom and worked my way up...

 

P1330062as.jpg.dec36b0a20f67947aacfdd85a02d36c3.jpg

^ the figures on the card below the row of big-end shell was the torque required to undo each. So the slackest was 62.5 lb.ft and the toughest was 77.5 lb.ft. Torque setting to do them up is 55-60 lb.ft.

P1330063as.jpg.5c1b3cf514dd9621626429b9795f93ec.jpg

^ the other big end journals were all in slightly better condition (visual assessment only) than #3 which is the one I pulled first because it felt slackest.  Thankfully no deep scoring on any.

Then it was back to working from the top . .

P1330075as.jpg.1274acd9e57206df9b1bb4f53d3d7047.jpg

^ i do wonder if that was the original water hose.?  (its part number is printed on the upper side).

P1330076as.thumb.jpg.a0f1ebef5adc3733af03019913d0d6e7.jpg

^ rocker shaft lifted off easily.  Push-rods pulled and poked through cardboard (..old school :)   Sump temporarily back on (..just four bolts) so that the engine might rest on the m/c lift.  And the winch used to raise the head

As is my way I had also recorded the torque required to loosen the head bolts. These ranged from 65  to  >115 lb.ft. (which is as high as my larger torque wrench goes).  The tightening spec is 100-105 lb.ft.   One stud was missing when I got the engine,  but of the others  x6 released at 90 lb.ft or less.

P1330079as.jpg.e9c22068cd2c06f73ad86c7feed6029d.jpg

^ as soon as the nuts were released the head lifted freely over its studs.  That is very unlike the aluminium motorcycle engines I'm used to working on.  As I have not lifted one of these cylinder heads for 25 years I couldn't recall how heavy it was going to be.  As it happens I could have managed without the winch ..but using it did make life very easy indeed. The head gasket is the Stanpart copper composite, and when wiped of oil looks as bright as a new one.

P1330083s.jpg.9ed5b36ed2e7ca568d61f86131b7173d.jpg

^ inside.,  first impressions was a shock.

P1330084.thumb.JPG.62bcf941f3b001472da25a1c5fa8423d.JPG

^ this is #4 cylinder.  It was #2 and #3 cylinders which had their valves open.  I assumed it was the latter which was locked with rust in the bores.  But this is the one full of rusty crud.  Btw it's all pretty loose, and most likely it looks even worse because it's soaked in my pinkish coloured penetrating-oil mix.

P1330085.thumb.JPG.fe9b35ab1953a870bc5440d87e900603.JPG

P1330086s.jpg.a078fedcc572e1036bc823c8519abafe.jpg

^ first impressions

but after just a minute or two scraping and wiping it off  ..it looks better than most I have seen for sale .  .

P1330089as.jpg.52f5c4252893dc2f36e3852a6a41dc7b.jpg

^ with a decent clean up and those exhaust valves replaced for unleaded ones, I'm hoping it will be a decent engine. 

That's its. three hours in the cold garage was enough for me today.

Pete.

 

 

Edited by Bfg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A profitable few hours Pete 

great record of activity too. Keep it up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

In the meantime I've been pulling together a list of parts, and also a list of engineering services I might require to recondition this engine. 

That may seem not so difficult ...you think !   Perhaps I'm going about it the wrong way, but most suppliers & engineering companies do not freely offer such a list. Whether a deliberate policy or not., it does make comparison rather difficult.  I guess the average customer chooses a supplier and basically works through their website, or calls them up for prices and to order. 

Personally speaking I don't have a prince's budget ..so like my grocery shopping - I need to compare prices.  Furthermore I'd rather like to know what I need and the brand I'll be buying (as an indication of the quality i might expect) before I buy.   After all, whose not been there before ?  Where you've bought a bundle of stuff and then find you need a few more ' little bits'.  Aside from the hassle and delay ..just as you were ready to put things together again, the postage on those small items is always disproportionate to their value. 

So, unreasonable as I might be - I'd like a list, either printed out so I can scribble across it, or else one which is compatible with the Microsoft programs on my computer.   Tom from TR Revington  very kindly helped me out with such a list and their prices. That was in picture .jpg  format which would have been fine to print out,  but tbh I'd much prefer a spreadsheet.  Online I translated the two pages .jpg to .txt and then formatted that.  I had to individually select text and change those from upper to title case (because my dyslexia struggles with everything being in upper case Ariel font).  I then copied that into Excel and corrected the cell spacing, changed the order of the words in many listings - so items might be appropriately grouped together, and finally I coded and sorted that into listings - such as ; fastenings, gasket, engine block, camshaft & timing, cylinder head, and such forth.  I also added columns to include VAT and to multiply number required by the price. 

I systematically pulled in other parts listing from other suppliers and engineering company's  ..which I'd taken over the telephone and hastily written on the back of envelopes or across a journalist's note pad.  Naturally, the terminology used was different, as was the methodology in listing, so they were changed.  Hey ho.!  

The following list is work-in-progress, and is just the parts list with the engineering services. So far, there are figures from one engine re-builder and two Triumph parts suppliers (differentiated by colour of text).  It was a fair amount of work, but now at last - I'm beginning to see what might be need  ..and how much it all adds up to.  Also I can begin to prices compare side by side.  Now that I have the bulk of the list, adding any other item or prices will be easy.

My next edit will be from Moss's excellent on-line buying website, referring to the exploded diagrams to hopefully pick up on any minor bits which are otherwise missing.  It's a very good resource and I'm sure why Moss have been so successful in business. Of course it doesn't copy easily into a spreadsheet !  Their customers just scroll down the pages and tick the boxes ..and then pay by card. For many I guess it's just too time consuming to compare prices, so Moss wins the whole order.  

Talking about which I found similar with the engine re-builders. The price of their parts and engineering services are on the whole carried across from their previous job's prices, plus a little ..just in case.  In fairness, the engine re-builder don't have the time to chase around for the best prices anyway.  One company in effect said '"this is out (total) price for a 4-cylinder TR engine rebuild  ..bar any infrequent issue. We don't have the manpower to provide quotes with a breakdown."   Another instance of this, from another engine re-builder, was the price for pistons & liners @ £522.  These were 89mm dia but I had found them on offer for £255, for 87mm dia, from one of the suppliers.  Had I accepted his quote and given him my engine to rebuild then I doubt if I'd have seen that £267 difference knocked off the bill.  This was a biggie but the little items all add up too, which is why I'm obliged to shop around. 

Most obviously missing from my own list - is the prices for valves and valve seats. It seems as if these are usually priced as a whole by the engineering service ..and their price includes the valves and seats.  That of course tells me nothing about the brand / quality of parts being used, nor does it tell me if all are being replaced or only the exhaust valves (for unleaded).  And does that including new valve guides ?  I guess knowing this will take further conversation &/or is otherwise taken on trust ..according to the reputation of the company involved.  It's all rather hit n' miss though.  

I'll let you know in a couple of weeks what the breakdown is and of course the total.  

Pete. 

2042912108_Triumphenginerebuild-PartsList.thumb.jpg.6f627b9bc4d83173fffb8ac9de65fd2e.jpg

Edited by Bfg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a basic rebuild you're in the 3K range. 4K range with some exotic upgrades. 5K and above for top notch job

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on how much work you can/will do yourself, Gecko.    I'm just about to install a new engine for racing that has cost £1500, and that includes lightweight conrods, a hi-lift cam and a light weight flywheel.       

John

Share this post


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

  Another instance of this, from another engine re-builder, was the price for pistons & liners @ £522.  These were 89mm dia but I had found them on offer for £255, for 87mm dia, from one of the suppliers.  Had I accepted his quote and given him my engine to rebuild then I doubt if I'd have seen that £267 difference knocked off the bill.  This was a biggie but the little items all add up too, which is why I'm obliged to shop around. 

There's always a wide price difference between 86/87 mm (~£ 250) and 89 mm (~£400). You can't find 89mm for less than that simply because there's less demand hence smaller production. 

Edited by Geko
spell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, john.r.davies said:

Depends on how much work you can/will do yourself, Gecko.    I'm just about to install a new engine for racing that has cost £1500, and that includes lightweight conrods, a hi-lift cam and a light weight flywheel.       

John

That's assuming rebuild done by a pro, as he intends to do. DIY job is half of the above figures of course

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Geko said:

There's always a wide price difference between 86/87 mm (~£ 250) and 89 mm (~£400). You can't find 89mm for less than that simply because there's less demand hence smaller production. 

My TR4A has 89mm Mahle pistons and liners, simply because one of the suppliers had a special deal on them at Malvern IWE in the mid-eighties. From memory the 87mm were about £250, the 89mm about £150.

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Today I had a parcel arrive through the post.. upon opening it seemed as if the mice had nested in it..  :unsure:

P1330092s.thumb.jpg.262ae8475fbc3500d0706d24ea3031b5.jpg

Thankfully no furry critters scampered out ..and once the packaging was swept up I was left with a very nice looking . . 

P1330094s.jpg.74a91d54648abd69c66c751d2b3fc41f.jpg

TR3 flywheel, with resurfaced clutch face and new starter ring. :) 

This weighs in on my vintage bathroom scales at (about) 8-3/4 kg , so what's that 19 - 20lb  +/- couple pound.  B)  That's said to be about 10 lb lighter than the standard TR4A one.

In fact it's actually very similar in weight to the flywheel which was sold to me with the engine (below left) but which is wrong one . . .

P1330095s.jpg.e7c7f572647cdd95d8126837ccb9cf62.jpg

^ unknown flywheel (above & below) left.  TR3 flywheel (above & below) right.

P1330096s.jpg.48fb3ade7b1f2b27223c29a140f448ae.jpg

The starter ring supplied with the TR3 one is a slightly small diameter than that of the unknown one.  And as you can see the mounting hole pcd is very different.  The unknown is about 2-1/4" whereas the  pcd on the TR3 flywheel and my TR4A's crankshaft are both about 3-1/4".   The bolt-holes match but the dowel size is different dia. (but same place) so that flywheel needs to be drilled a little.   I understand the TR3 one will also need to be drilled for the diaphragm clutch, but otherwise I hope it and the starter ring are good for the TR4A.

I'm guessing the unknown flywheel is off a six cylinder.  But can anyone definitively identify it please ?

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Out of interest, this is David Vizard's take on lighter flywheels. .

Flywheel

The standard flywheel is, on the 6-cylinder engines, good for giving a smooth tickover, but for a tuned motor it is unnecessarily heavy.

The four cylinder engines also have a heavy flywheel. For these engines, you can have one of two different flywheels depending on the type of clutch fitted, the one being heavier by far than the other. To lighten the flywheel, it is simply mounted in a large lathe and machined as shown for the relevant flywheel in Fig.46.

Practically any machine shop has a lathe large enough to tackle such a job, so there should be no problem getting it done. It must be pointed out that a lighter flywheel neither increases the power nor makes the car faster. It does, however, allow the car to accelerate faster because of the reduced mass which the engine has to speed up.

To clarify the point a little, let us look at a simple example in assuming we have reduced the effective weight of a fly-wheel by 10 lb.  

While the car is in bottom gear the engine rpm to driving wheel rpm is 16 :1  ie. the engine turns 16 revs to the wheel’s one rev.  The 10 lb. flywheel weight reduction is equivalent (in acceleration) to reducing the weight of the car by 160 lb. that is 16 x 10 lbs.

When we change to second gear which, which is about 12 :1 overall ratio, the gain, because of the lighter flywheel, will be 12 x10 lbs which is 120 lbs. By the time we get to top gear, the effect of the lighter flywheel will only be about the same as lightening the whole car by 4 x10 lbs. or 40 lbs.  With the exception of one of the TR4 flywheels the effective weight saving (in its machining) will not-be as great as 10 lbs.  A more likely figure is between 6-8 lbs., but this is enough to make a noticeable difference.

By way of a bonus, the lighter flywheel also enables snappy gear changing when going down the box.

2098994278_TR4andTR4aflywheellightening-removeshadedpart..thumb.jpg.fdee7f77458a720ae451a2ac645391e0.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will also need the right starter for that type of ring gear.

Stuart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, john.r.davies said:

How are you going to fit that ring?    Heat shrinking it on needs a forge, or a very large and very hot oven, doesn't it?

I would have thought this would have been a job for oxyacetylene around the ring, and fitting that to the flywheel after it's been out in the winter weather overnight. 

1 hour ago, stuart said:

You will also need the right starter for that type of ring gear.

Thanks Stuart,  might you expand on this ?  Aside from the latter being bolt on, are the starter rings on the 3, 4 and 4A not the same diameter and tooth size ?  or else, is it not easier to change the ring rather than the starter motor ?

Although the pinion on the early starter motors were shrouded, I assumed the gearing was the same. Indeed according to Moss the starter motor pinion gear Part Number: 503529 is for Starter Motor - TR2-4A (1953-67),  as is their starter motor Part Number: 201906X

Pete

Edited by Bfg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top Tip

Get yourself a printed copy of the Moss TR 2-4A parts catalogue and you will then have all the tech tips we wrote that the web site does not give.  It explains flywheel and starter motor matching plus lots of other stuff.  Get the TR 5/6 one too at the same time as that has a host of other tips.  They are free at present.https://www.moss-europe.co.uk/moss-parts-accessories-catalogues.html

 

That is a TR2/3 ring gear and flywheel and will need. ‘Bomb’ type starter.  Here is a link to a hi torque unit that is stated as a correct replacement for the bomb starter.  https://www.autoelectricsupplies.co.uk/product/783/category/225
 

If you fit your original TR 4A starter with that flywheel and ring gear there will be tears.  And a loud noise probably. 
 

We fitted a ring gear recently to a TR 2 flywheel using freezer to cool the flywheel and blow lamp to warm the ring gear. The technique can be viewed below.  Remember not to overheat the ring gear or you will take the temper out of it.
 

Cheers. Peter W

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

What's the situation with clutches ?  Unfortunately I'll need to buy this soon so that I can get the crankshaft balanced. Normally I go for a Borg n' Beck but I've been told they have sold the name and they're now being made in the far east.  Any issues with these, or should I look for another brand. Moss are selling Raicam clutch system, which I've never heard of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pete,

Dave Vizard probably knows better than me but kinetic energy (“energy of speed”) from a linear motion (like a car) cannot be compared to kinetic energy of a rotating mass.

Energy stored in the car at e given road speed: E1= 0.5 X M X V.V

Energy stored in a rotating mass at a given engine speed (rpm): E2 = 0.5 x J x ohmega .ohmega, where ohmega is engine rpm times 2 x pi.

From the above, you can see the additional energy to speed up the engine with a heavy fly wheel becomes more important at high RPM (to the 2nd power).

Waldi

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To expand on Peters post above, the 3A/4 etc. flywheels with a bolt on starter ring use a 10 tooth starter gear, the earlier 2/3 ones with a shrink on ring gear

need a 9 tooth starter. this can be the original type (Bomb), or a modern 9 tooth geared one i.e the Wasp type from TR shop is recommended.

If you want a "Bomb" type I have two examples doing nothing in my shed both are in good working order.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JD: How are you going to fit that ring?    Heat shrinking it on needs a forge, or a very large and very hot oven, doesn't it?

BFG: I would have thought this would have been a job for oxyacetylene around the ring, and fitting that to the flywheel after it's been out in the winter weather overnight. 

You have edducated me!   From examples on the 'Net, the cold winter's night isn't even necessary!

J.

 

Edited by john.r.davies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Stuart, Peter W.,  & Bob.  That's been informative.

And just for future quick reference ; 

  • The flywheel's shrink-on starter ring is 91 tooth and is used with the shrouded (bomb) type starter motor with a 9 tooth starter motor gear.
  • The flywheel's bolt-on starter ring is 90 tooth and is used with the exposed bendix (long type) starter motor with a 10 tooth starter motor gear 

I'll let Waldi work out their ratios :P

Pete.

 

Edited by Bfg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

the first of many dirty jobs for a couple of hours this afternoon. .

P1330098s.thumb.jpg.162c5913e97b35eb6ad96e5d3b0ff286.jpg

^ second scrub

P1330108s.jpg.b6710899ccdf89ec8bef9a4ca88a6cb1.jpg

P1330111s.jpg.1a9cc3ff2114e8d7258bd319189add8b.jpg

 

P1330107a.thumb.jpg.170fa6a48942b6551b7d149fc4fc7242.jpg

P1330104a.jpg.481aedc76ec13edaa8df1e01fc4908a2.jpg

^ The combustion chambers of cylinders 3 and 4. The latter being the one which had been full of flaky rust.  Assuming the exhaust seats (..and the valves ?)  are replaced when going unleaded, then I think only #4 inlet valve need be replaced for one which is not pitted with rust. Perhaps someone has a good used one sitting unloved and unwanted somewhere in a box in their garage ? 

And although the pitting in this combustion chamber will result in that cylinder have a very slightly different volume and therefore compression ratio, I'd guess it'll not make a huge difference for a standard road car  ..or is the consensus that it will (and therefore all the others) need to be cleaned up on a milling machine ?

As I've never had a cylinder head pressure tested before. Can someone kindly advise what will the engineering company will need from me (aside from the head itself) to do this ? 

Might I also ask - should I use a chemical rust treatment inside the water jacket & thermostat housing.  And then, after the head has been pressure tested - what's best to paint it with.?  I have POR15  ..but haven't checked to see if that's suitable for this application and the temperatures involved.  The same question will apply to when I pull the cylinder sleeves out and wish to treat the block's water jacket.  

Thanks, Pete.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evening Pete, I am enjoying your engine strip down. As you did not see you engine running you will have no idea if you push rod tubes are leaking. I don’t know if you can check them or if your sending cylinder head away if they can check them, mine let a lot of oil past so will be have my head rebuilt and having the tubes changed.

Mike. Redrose group 

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.