Trumpy Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 (edited) Happy new year everyone! I removed the rocker cover for a clean up and a coat of paint today and I noticed the end rocker arms (tr5) haven’t got the small end Springs between them and the rocker shaft end stop . This allows the rocker arm about 3mm of float along the shaft which can’t be good . Is there any reason why these would’ve been missed off intentionally? it’s been like it for the last 5 years at least with no obvious signs of uneven wear or problems - as yet . I wondered if anyone else has come across this ? (pics attached because they’re worth a thousand words ) Edited January 1 by Trumpy Factual correction Quote Link to post Share on other sites
roy53 Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 Cannot think why it would have been left out ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trumpy Posted January 2 Author Report Share Posted January 2 Popped into Rimmer’s today and the new spring cost the princely sum of 50p . However having now stripped the rocker shaft to fit it I discovered some wear and tear on the shaft and on some of the rockers so it’s now £150 for a new set . Maybe averted a bigger problem down the line though , every cloud ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John L Posted January 7 Report Share Posted January 7 Would interesting, before you put it back together, could you run a straight edge along the ball ends and see how many of the arms are made differently, compare with my photo the amount of gaps between the ball ends and the straight edge, I havent found a good set yet to be the same. John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Z320 Posted January 7 Report Share Posted January 7 Good to know! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stuart Posted January 7 Report Share Posted January 7 Thats why theyre a ball end into the cup of the follower. Stuart. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John L Posted January 7 Report Share Posted January 7 But that error in the position of the ball to shaft makes a big difference in the amount the valve opens, and so different valve timing for each valve per cylinder. John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BlueTR3A-5EKT Posted January 7 Report Share Posted January 7 37 minutes ago, John L said: But that error in the position of the ball to shaft makes a big difference in the amount the valve opens, and so different valve timing for each valve per cylinder. John Does beggar belief that the maker can drill one hole, turn the item 90 degrees and drill a second without repeatability. Perhaps the child doing it does not have an alignment jig. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trumpy Posted January 7 Author Report Share Posted January 7 I’ve already fitted the new rockers and shaft so to late to check them I’m afraid , I didn’t notice any variation when fitting them but I probably wouldn’t without putting a straight edge across them . I was slightly concerned that at tickover 11 rockers had oil exhausting from the drain hole on the rocker top and 1 not . However I could see oil oozing from around the shaft and the lower drain hole and once I upped the revs to 1000rpm all 12 had oil showing so hopefully not a problem . I did squirt oil through the shaft and check oil emerged from all 12 holes before assembly . some of the old rockers didn’t have the top drain hole so they were obviously a mixed set . Car runs smoothly in the garage but not been for a run because it’s just not Tr weather at the moment! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ian Vincent Posted January 7 Report Share Posted January 7 Back in the day when we ran our cars on a shoestring I was told to block the hole in the top of the rockers to improve oil pressure. On my very worn engine there was enough oil leaking from the bearings for top end for lubrication not to be an issue. Rgds Ian Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Z320 Posted January 7 Report Share Posted January 7 From time to time I got the idea to make o slow motion video of my TR‘a rockers, but I never did. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Drewmotty Posted January 7 Report Share Posted January 7 3 hours ago, Ian Vincent said: Back in the day when we ran our cars on a shoestring I was told to block the hole in the top of the rockers I blocked mine with a spot from a tig welder 40 years ago when a new shaft was visibly worn after a few hundred miles. No problems since. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ian Vincent Posted January 8 Report Share Posted January 8 (edited) 11 hours ago, Drewmotty said: I blocked mine with a spot from a tig welder 40 years ago when a new shaft was visibly worn after a few hundred miles. No problems since. If you block them with new bushes and a new rocker shaft you can end up with a lack of top end lubrication and premature rocker wear. Don’t ask me how I know. Edited January 8 by Ian Vincent Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RogerH Posted January 8 Report Share Posted January 8 19 hours ago, John L said: Would interesting, before you put it back together, could you run a straight edge along the ball ends and see how many of the arms are made differently, compare with my photo the amount of gaps between the ball ends and the straight edge, I havent found a good set yet to be the same. John You've got three the same height - that's not bad Roger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John L Posted January 8 Report Share Posted January 8 Would be even nicer that the other 9 would be the same, thanks Roger! Still deciding where to get some new ones. Don't suppose there will be any NOS ones left by now. John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RAHTR4 Posted January 8 Report Share Posted January 8 John, How have you confirmed that the rockers you purchased were original new old stock parts..?? I have a Standard Triumph Engineering Change Sheet dated 23-3-1965 stating that the material was to be changed from EN.32B to EN8. This was followed by an ECS dated 31-3-1966 which states that 25,000 pairs were being manufactured. The forgings were to be identified by a recess in place of the present Drilled Dimple. They will be delivered to Fletch South by Garringtons and are to Copper Plated before being sent to Radford for machining. All the TR4A engines I have seen - including the one in my car - were fitted with copper plated rockers. However, I would add that I have never seen any new old stock copper plated rockers...? Regards, Richard Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BlueTR3A-5EKT Posted January 8 Report Share Posted January 8 36 minutes ago, RAHTR4 said: John, How have you confirmed that the rockers you purchased were original new old stock parts..?? I have a Standard Triumph Engineering Change Sheet dated 23-3-1965 stating that the material was to be changed from EN.32B to EN8. This was followed by an ECS dated 31-3-1966 which states that 25,000 pairs were being manufactured. The forgings were to be identified by a recess in place of the present Drilled Dimple. They will be delivered to Fletch South by Garringtons and are to Copper Plated before being sent to Radford for machining. All the TR4A engines I have seen - including the one in my car - were fitted with copper plated rockers. However, I would add that I have never seen any new old stock copper plated rockers...? Regards, Richard We are getting our engines mixed up. I have a few NOS rockers for TR2/4A and all are copper plated. I do not recall ever seeing a rocker for TR250/5/6 Spit or GT6 that were copper plated. The only changes I saw were the existence or not of the oil hole in the rocker arm top surface. These were identified by different part nos. Talk to Chris Witor Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ian Vincent Posted January 8 Report Share Posted January 8 I bought a set of good S/H ones at Malvern a few years ago and they were copper plated. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RAHTR4 Posted January 8 Report Share Posted January 8 Apologies, my mistake, I missed the original post was a six pot...!!! However, just to clarify the first EC has the following description : Trial Run of 25,000 pairs of Valve Rocker Forgings made in EN.32B Steel instead of EN.8. So I would assume the forged recess in place of a drilled dimple was the actual identification measure. Regards, Richard Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BlueTR3A-5EKT Posted January 8 Report Share Posted January 8 12 minutes ago, RAHTR4 said: Apologies, my mistake, I missed the original post was a six pot...!!! However, just to clarify the first EC has the following description : Trial Run of 25,000 pairs of Valve Rocker Forgings made in EN.32B Steel instead of EN.8. So I would assume the forged recess in place of a drilled dimple was the actual identification measure. Regards, Richard The first image included on this thread is of a 4 cylinder rocker gear. The second is a photo of a 6=cylinder rocker assembly displaying the missing double coil washer. We were mislead at the start! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trumpy Posted January 8 Author Report Share Posted January 8 Interesting that you say that , the pic is from my Tr5/250 Haynes manual but obviously differs from the actual assembly on my car . Certainly not misled , well not by me but possibly by Mr Haynes ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BlueTR3A-5EKT Posted January 8 Report Share Posted January 8 1 hour ago, RAHTR4 said: Apologies, my mistake, I missed the original post was a six pot...!!! However, just to clarify the first EC has the following description : Trial Run of 25,000 pairs of Valve Rocker Forgings made in EN.32B Steel instead of EN.8. So I would assume the forged recess in place of a drilled dimple was the actual identification measure. Regards, Richard You have explained everything. Information derived from the Haynes Book Of Maybe Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trumpy Posted January 8 Author Report Share Posted January 8 24 minutes ago, BlueTR3A-5EKT said: You have explained everything. Information derived from the Haynes Book Of Maybe I’ve had to pop out to the garage to check this revelation out . The manual is specific to 6 pot cars (including tr6 ) but I hadn’t noticed the rocker assembly shown has only 8 rockers , so as you say a 4 cylinder. That certainly explains the difference. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BlueTR3A-5EKT Posted January 8 Report Share Posted January 8 8 minutes ago, Trumpy said: I’ve had to pop out to the garage to check this revelation out . The manual is specific to 6 pot cars (including tr6 ) but I hadn’t noticed the rocker assembly shown has only 8 rockers , so as you say a 4 cylinder. That certainly explains the difference. Be aware. The Haynes book might not be accurate. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.