Triumph - That was a year that was..

[Bfg]

.

Yesterday afternoon I pulled the bottom end apart,  but had already had a quick look at the middle main bearing journal. .

^ just a quick rub over with a piece of soft scouring pad cleaned off the caked-on oil residue from around the middle of this bearing. The ridge / wear of the journal is just about discernible by feel but we're probably talking of 0.001" or less. I'm happy to reuse that with new bearings but not reground.

Now to check the others, so quickly running through the task ..in comic strip fashion . .

^ fastenings removed for the rear oil-scroll caps.  Where there's a number of the same size fastenings I break their lock with a 3/8" socket, and then zip around removing them with a cordless drill. 

^ with the main bearing cap bolts removed (..again I like to check the torque of these as I undo them) its cap may be tapped upwards (via a hardwood block) and the oil-scroll plate is lifted out. This then makes room for a wooden lever to get in to lift the main bearing cap vertically out.

 

Main bearing cap as lifted, with the bearing shell still on the journal.

^ shell removed and a quick wipe reveals this journal looks and feels similarly barely worn . 

^ this was the worst of the three, but imo there's not enough wear here to need a regrind. Subsequently I tried to measure what the wear was, between the centre 'ridge' where the oil way is compared to where the bearing actually runs, but my vernier gauge (or my own skills in using it) is not accurate enough to even measure half a thousands-of-an-inch wear. And yet I feel it ?

Moving on . .

^ the engine mount's plate is bolted to a gasket block ..which provides a bridge / a level surface for the sump pan to seal against.

And the front main bearing bolts are tucked away under that gasket block.

^ when undoing the timing cover fastenings, don't forget the one in the middle.

^ I expected a puddle of filthy black oil to dribble out, but there was not a drip.

^ the wooden block stops the crankshaft from turning as I undo the cam chain sprocket bolts.

^ Cam chain sprocket lifts off easily and I note there's a punch mark (finger is pointing to it) on the sprocket which corresponds to that on the end of the camshaft.

^ Camshaft bearing carrier has two bolts and then pulls out.  The other bolt alongside this is for the engine mounting's plate.

^ with the last bolts removed - the engine mount plate pulls off, but for the fact that the gasket glues it to the engine block ..so it's peeled away. 

^ looking a little naked now.  Seen just under the water pump is the screw thread of a stud, and a positioning dowel. A second dowel can be seen next to the crankshaft sprocket.

^ the sump gasket infill block has the cork in either end face but is easily tapped out with a wooden block. Its underside is scalloped to clear the main bearing bolts.

 

^ With its two bolts removed - the forward main bearing cap may also be tapped free.

^ That's it.. the crankshaft is free to lift out.  I used the winch to lift it out, not so much because of its weight as it awkwardness in reaching to both ends - so as to lift it out squarely.  Don't ask how I know that reaching and at the same time lifting is not good for my back.!

 

^ having already removed the front bearing carrier the camshaft itself just pulls out of the hole through the front face of the engine block. 

After a good clean up I will inspect and measure the camshaft to see if it actually needs replacing. First impressions is that it does not.   I would however be glad to hear feedback regarding what the difference in engine characteristics between the standard versus a high-torque camshaft (..when nothing else is changed ).   If this camshaft is still good, is it worth my spending another £100 - 200 in replacing it or having it re-profiled ?

That's it for today.

I wish you a happy New Year's Eve.

Pete.   

[spartacus]

I couldn't comment on the 4 cylinder engine but I fitted a mild performance cam to a straight six TR engine a few years ago, then had the carbs jetted at Pete Burgess place in Alfreton. It transformed it, more everywhere, cam technology has moved on since that engine was designed, I would say it's worth at least looking and asking on forums etc for opinions. 

Nice work on the pictorial strip down, it's a great thread!

[Bfg]

..

Ok holiday's over and we're back to work

          .. well even if the dustmen are having a couple of extra days, I was back into the garage yesterday afternoon  (now being warmed by my tiny stove < here > ).

Hands up, I admit, I made a mistake - as during strip down of the timing chest I had omitted to take some more measurements of wear.  So yesterday I had to take a step or two backwards so as do those.

Firstly though I cleaned the camshaft . .

 

The lift of this camshaft measures as 0.0267" ..which is 0.007" more than specification tells me it should be.! ?   Its cast-in part number reads ; 307036  ..and so not the same as 301466 specified in the Triumph Spare Parts Catalogue,  but 307036R  is noted in the Moss manual as ' Camshaft, exchange'.   Although it doesn't have (room for) the 'R' suffix - we might assume it was replaced at some time.  The engine's  number CT561xxE implies it was not a factory exchange unit, which show a 'FRE' suffix.  But judging by the unmolested condition of this engine, I wonder if this work was done by a Triumph trained garage mechanic.  Unless someone can shed some light on this, I'll probably never know.

Unfortunately, although the lobes are unworn this camshaft will need to be reground . .

^   it's not the only one as three other lobes have faults, although non quite as bad as this one.  I must admit starting the new year with another £250 bill isn't what I was hoping for.

 

Hey ho.,  moving on  

I tend to think of myself as being a slow thinker but given time I have average intelligence.  So it's with some surprise I am again finding the manuals to be poor. .

Although this camshaft is to be reground I wanted to check its end float, because like that of the crankshaft ; end-float has a direct bearing on the alignment of the timing chain sprockets.

Haynes manual says to check it with a dial indicator / depth gauge.  Great, but I don't have one.  The Standard Triumph manual says "Assemble the camshaft front bearing to the camshaft and temporarily attach the camshaft sprocket. Measure the end float of the of the front bearing on the camshaft journal as shown on Fig.49.  End float should be 0.003" to 0.0075". 

(NB. their 'Dimensions and Tolerance' table has a slight discrepancy insomuch as it says 0.004" to 0.0075".)

^ Ok that seems clear enough. .  so I put the camshaft back into the block, front engine plate on so I could fit the bearing carrier, and then pinched up the timing chain sprocket. 

All reassembled and armed with feeler gauges I set to it . .

^ oh yeah sure, I'm going to get a feeler gauge in there !   ..the arses !

so I tried to measure the end float another way. .

^ using a piece of softwood I wedged the camshaft forward in the engine block and measured the gap between the camshaft's end face and the bearing to be about 0.0025".   Well that's less than specification, but I guess if it's lasted all this time - it can't have been detrimental. After all if was too tight it would surely have worn looser ?

But then after I slept on it (did I say  I'm a slow thinker !) and woke to realise there was a much easier way .  .

 

^ That's the easy and accurate way to measure camshaft end float.  This one measure 0.005" so presumably the inside bearing face of the sprocket is slightly worn too.  Must admit, it does look polished but I'm surprised at the difference from what I had previously measured. But doing things this way is indisputable.  It's a little annoying that the illustration led me down the wrong path, and with the text and data page not being the same - I'm beginning to not trust that workshop manual.   

Next I cleaned up and inspected the sprockets themselves, for wear, damage and/or hooking of the teeth . .

^ these sprockets look to be in good shape.  I've arrowed the timing alignment marks as particularly the one on the crankshaft sprocket is not easy to find when it's in situ.   Indeed it was only after when taking this photo that I did see it.  I think blob of paint would help.  Note, the end journal where the timing-cover's oil seal goes - is in very nice condition too.

^ This is how the timing is set according to the book. with a straight edge from the centre-line of the cam-shaft sprocket, through the mark on the rim of that sprocket and to the mark on the crankshaft's sprocket. 

I next checked the chain for wear. .

^ 10mm in metric is easier than 0.4"  ..I haven't used a rule with 1/10" since I was at junior school ..a very long time ago.!  Although I believe my mother had a such a measure for use in dress-making.

The G-clamp helped hold things in place while I took the photo.  The edge of the red felt-pen mark on my steel rule indicates 10mm, so the wear on this Renolds chain is about 8mm.  That's within tolerance but I guess it's much easier to replace for another now rather than struggle after 20,000 miles when the engine is in the car.

 

The tensioner is worn but from what some have said in other threads - it's worth reusing as replacements seem to have a poor failure rate.  NB. the reddish colour marks are not rust they're are gasket goo.  

 

^ close detail of an Iris (a quality German brand) chain versus a "heavy duty" chain "manufactured for strength and longevity".

Aside from wear in the rollers ..measured as stretch of the chain itself - one of the great advantages of better quality timing chains is in the finish of the edges of the chain link plates.  Those which are figure eight in shape and those with a rough edge surface will each wear the tensioner very much quicker.  Of course, aside from that premature wear ; the metallic particles from either the edge of the links or the tensioner, are not good to have in your engine oil.!

 

Again moving on.,   I tried to check the alignment of the sprockets

This was less than successful, even with the camshaft blocked forwards (to take up its end float) and the crankshaft similarly blocked backwards (thrust washers temporarily back in place) I couldn't get them in line.  Indeed I could get a 0.006" feeler gauge to slip inbetween the straight edge and the nearside rim of the camshaft sprocket.  which according to my calculations says the sprockets (even so blocked) are  0.010" out of alignment.  As the crankshafts end float was 0.011", and the camshaft's end float was 0.005"  ..then these sprockets out of plane alignment was anywhere between 0.010" and 0.026".    

Although the camshaft bearing carrier could be shimmed out, I noted the crankshaft sprocket was not sitting flat to the end of the crank's journal   . .

 ^ I have not even tried to move this, sprocket, but I measure 0.019" gap in there.  This gap is where shims are fitted to bring the sprockets in line.  Without these the alignment of the sprockets would be very close.  I haven't tried to pull that off the crankshaft yet, as my puller is not appropriate ..and I don't want to risk damaging the sprocket.  I think I'll leave that to the machine shop / engineering company. I'm sure they must have an appropriate puller.

And so finally, for yesterday, I rechecked the crankshaft end float.

   

Before dismantling, I had measured this end-float as being 0.011" (measured between the flywheel's flange and the back of the engine case). Measured here inside the engine  it was exactly the same.

That's it for today. I hope something of it has been of interest.

Pete

[Asimo]

This thread should be linked to for those "I have taken my engine out, how can I tell which bit is ufcked?" questions.

10/10 for doing the explaining much better than any Haynes manual.

[Bfg]

.

And for those contemplating such a 'project'   ..here's the other side of reality . .

 

This afternoon I ordered the first batch of parts ;

From TR Enterprises

• 1              Big Ends +10 (OE : Glacier / Glyco)                 £100.00
• 8              Big Ends Bolts - x8 Stretch TR4A type              £67.20
• 1              Crank Thrust - Set of 4  of +0.005"`                      £8.48
• 4              Flywheel Bolt                                                                 £5.62
• 2              Flywheel lock tabs                                                       £1.68
• 1              Oil Pump - uprated spindle & rotor                     £59.00

And from the TR Shop, London

• 1              Core Plug Set                                                                  £5.66
• 1              Flywheel Ring Gear - bolt-on 4A                           £34.99
• 1              Gasket set - Block                                                      £18.95
• 1              Gasket set - Head                                                       £24.95
• 1              Oil pressure relief valve - spring                               £4.75
• 1              Piston + Liner set (87mm)                                    £255.00
• 1              Seal - timing cover / Fr.Crank                                   £7.40
• 1              Seal - Rr lip oil seal kit (scroll removal necessary)       £59.95   (scroll removal not necessary)   £79.15

Sub-totaling  £653.63   £672.83,  which when added to the £70 cost of the TR3 flywheel + £100 for the Borg & Beck clutch now adds up to £823.63  £842.83  ..on top of the £575 cost of the engine itself.

I could have made savings, such as £50 off the Big-end shells - but there are some things, like this and the oil pump, I want to buy the best I can sensibly afford.   So these prices represent the best quality at the lowest price I could find ..without spending another month or two price checking everyone else.   There's nothing from suppliers like Moss, simply because some of their stuff is budget rather than best value, for a car I hope to keep  ..and I don't have the time to sort the wheat from the chaff so I've gone to retailers with good reputations.

Pete.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Bfg
price of rear lip seal changed to one where scroll removal is unnecessary

[spartacus]

What's the score with the wear on the camshaft, it looks almost like a casting fault from the pic. If that's the case then isn't it possible to source a new cam with whatever grind you want on it from a reputable manufacturer?

[Bfg]

^ looks to me like the surface hardening has cracked off which then exposes the cast metal of the camshaft. That would suggests it was fault from the manufacturing process.  I don't know when they came off because there were no bits in the sump. 

I can buy a new camshaft .. that's just a matter of deeper pockets. The cam followers need to be replaced at the same time. 

I was thinking of having this one reground and re-surfaced hardened but I think that's only worth it if the shaft's four bearing surfaces in in first rate condition. These are serviceable but not brilliant. So I guess its another £250 to be spent to replace it.

Pete

[Bfg]

 

Following a number of ardent recommendations (on the TR Register forum) not to have my crankshaft's rear scroll machined off so I might use the Land Rover type lip seal (ordered above),  but instead to buy and fit a Christian Marx / Mad Marx seal instead, which retains the scroll and situates a lip seal externally of this.  The Marx seal would have cost me almost £170. A couple of guys there also offered to lend me the necessary centering tool, which otherwise cost £34.

I cannot see why both a scroll and a lip seal should be necessary.  Nowhere else in the engine, gearbox, or drive-train needs two means of keeping it from dripping, and Mad Marx developed the product specifically for excessive engine revs while racing  and so as to not need to take the crank to an engineering shop for a single machining operation ..whereas my crank has to go in anyway to have it's big ends reground, and I'll never rev the engine over 4,500 - 5,000rpm  

But hey-ho, I asked for and value their opinions, and cannot dispute their cumulative experience - so I have just ordered one.  It specifically says its viton rather than rubber seal ..and I think that alone might account for this design's success.

One of their members very kindly sent me a link to ang-classiccarparts on e- bay and their Marx seal kit cost is £80 inc P&P  ..which,  is the same cost as the LR one + the machining.  This of course a substantial saving over £168 (or very much more from some !) when bought through one of the usual TR suppliers .

UPRATED REAR CRANKSHAFT OIL SEAL CONVERSION KIT that would be suitable for the following vehicles :

TRIUMPH TR2, TR3, TR3A ; YEARS 1953-1961.  TRIUMPH TR4, TR4A ; YEAR 1961-1967.

This item is supplied NEW and for reference has the Part No. 060826UR.  The kit comprises of an uprated Viton® oil seal which has both high temperature & chemical resistance properties and a pair of machined aluminium oil catcher housings (with a Blue anodised finish).  The benefit of this kit is that unlike replacing the standard type rear crankshaft oil seal there is no machining of the crankshaft scroll required. This kit simply bolts into place.

- - -

I'm still looking to buy a set of TR2 - TR4A  Main bearings (std size) ..new old stock and made by Vandervell, Glacier / Glyco please. 

Pete

[Bfg]

.

I must admit when I first saw the 084  stamped onto the sump gasket face  I wondered what was 0.084" ?   Yesterday I was cleaning the main bearing caps of their accumulated oil crud  and found the matching number ..from when the caps were originally fitted during manufacture and line bored to this engine block. . 

^ the number stamped into the main bearing cap is usually hidden under the bolt head. Likewise on the front cap. 

- - -

I'm now looking at replacing the original fan assembly for something  lighter in weight.

^ All together, that's a massive 3kg of spinning mass hanging off the front end of the crankshaft.

Another thread, on the TR Register forum, was discussing use of the five blade fan ..from BMW's 1602, 2002 models.  Then another chap, Stuart, recently added " TBH why bother? Why not fit the later TR6 fan that's a multi-blade type, I have the yellow 8-blade version (TR5 early TR6 type) on my 4a and it works very well." 

As I'd prefer not to go electric, that seems a sensible option ..as it's also plastic and so lightweight.  I understand this fan is the same as that used on the 6-cyl Triumph Vitesse. I also wish to go for the narrow fan-belt and an alternator.  All in all  I'd very much welcome any suggestion as to which is the cost effective / sensible route to follow. 

If I had a lathe, and was familiar with using it, I'd make the fan extension in aluminum and use a propriety pulley off another car.  Unless anyone with a lathe volunteers  ( Hint, Hint )  I'll have to ask the engineering company to make that 114mm long bobbin / extension piece  (left hand side in the above photo). 

Thanks,   Pete.  

[Bfg]

 

..for those who might be interested.  ordered on Sunday and delivered in Tuesday morning's post. .

^ very tiny ' shop soiling' scratches seen on the face, but otherwise it looks beautifully made and finished in its very pretty cyan coloured anodizing. 

The Split seal part number reads M35BTR4.

^ Instructions sheet together with invoice. The price was £79.15 including VAT and carriage.  

Pete

[Bfg]

.

Good afternoon, just a quick update before I disappear back into the garage for a bit more dismantling, cleaning, and checking.

Starting off with cleaning up the components of  fan, fan extension and pulley . .

I just wanted to see exactly what I have here and to recall how it was assembled, with the view to swapping out the blade for a lighter weight item, replacing the pulley with a narrow belt one, and to consider my options with regard to re-making the extension spigot (presently cast-iron) in aluminium.

   

I took it to the local TSSC club meeting last night and aside from it 3kg mass I think the materials and construction was appreciated mostly for its wonderfully steam-punk style.

I'd rather not go for an electric fan, so I'm shopping for the TR6 / GT6 8-blade plastic fan if anyone should happen to have one. Thanks.

- - -

Aside from that, over the weekend as I was cleaning up the main bearing caps, I photographed this one for your perusal . .

The white metal, in just one half-shell fitted into the rear main-bearing cap, had been flaking off.  And a number of those flakes can be seen embedded into its corresponding half-shell, which of course was fitted into the bearing seat in the block.  Can anyone explain why this disintegration might have happened ?

- - -

Following on from this, and because the engine's design is unfamiliar to me, and I'll need to be sure that all the oil passages are clear and clean., I looked to see how the oil circulated around the bottom end bearings. . . 

 

^  The light-yellow / black screwdriver (middle of photo) is sitting where the oil pick up pipe with its strainer, and the oil pump are fitted.  Engine oil is pumped upwards through a drilling (orange arrows) through the engine block's casting to where the oil filter is fitted on the engine's left hand side (approximated by the second yellow / black screwdriver). The oil circulates through the filter and return (light green arrow) into a gallery / cavity bored the whole length of the distributor side of the engine block. Accordingly there is a core plug into each end of the block. 

90-degrees to this cavity are three drillings, across to each main bearing (indicated by the green handled screwdrivers). The block has a bolt with a copper washer, to plug the outside of each of those drillings. There is an oil gallery grove all-around each main bearing (oil also helps dissipate heat) and a drilling through each half-shell  to lubricate the bearing itself.  Each grove then has another, diagonal and smaller diameter, drilling (indicated by the three red handled screwdrivers) to route some of the pressurised engine oil to lubricate the camshaft bearings (for clarity just two red arrows indicate their general direction).

Each (TR4A) plain bearing fitted into the line-boring of the camshaft have holes which must align with the drillings from the main bearings.  However I note the holes in the bearings are in fact smaller than the diameter of that diagonal drilling. I'm guessing this is so the accuracy of alignment is not so critical when they're fitted, and that the hole-size in the camshaft bearing is calculated to limit the flow rate.  The three bolts, seen to go horizontally through the outside face of the block into each camshaft bearing, are simply there to locate and secure the bearing. 

There are x3 main bearings, whereas the camshaft has x4 bearings, so the fourth camshaft bearing is lubricated via a diagonal drilling up from the main oil gallery (again those light green lines) and its closing plug is seen as a bolt head just below the petrol pump. 

From the cylinder head gasket face (rear LHS corner) there is a vertical 1/4" drilling down into the rearmost camshaft bearing. This is to route engine-oil up and into the cylinder head.  Intersecting this is another drilling, from the rear face of the cylinder head (again seen as a hex head plug) which takes the engine-oil just a little way forward. And finally, the tiny ;  3/32" (2.4 mm) final drilling - vertically intersects with that (drilling from the rear face),  to route the oil upwards and into the rear pedestal onto which the rocker-shaft sits. And then the rocker shaft itself is hollow and that takes the oil forward to each of the rocker arms. 

Understanding this helps me know what all those bolt heads, through the engine case, do.  And then following this somewhat convoluted route ..systematically, will be necessary when I scrub out those oil-way drillings.  I'll also re-anneal each of the copper washers used to seal the many hex-head plugs. 

Pete.

[spartacus]

1 hour ago, The Mighty Quinn said:

Looks like acid in old oil has eaten into the shell due to standing.

 

I'd definitely take a micrometer to the crank to check for ovality. If OK I'd polish them up with strips of 800 grit and WD40.

I've built engines before but never something that's been stood a while, hence never knew this. Every day's a school day...

[Bfg]

^ Thanks gents, it's a mystery.

. . .

And today I looking in to valves and their seats..   

Poor old (..ancient) valve compressor barely reached, thankfully from the other side of the cylinder head it was a little better. 

I started with the rearmost valves as that was the cylinder full of rust.  The exhaust valve seats will be replaced when converted to unleaded, but I wanted to see if the valves themselves were re-usable and of course to see how well the inlet valve seats had fared..  not really that good a news 

As they came out ^ inlet (above left) and exhaust (right).  As you might make out that inlet valve seat is in poor shape ..as indeed was the inlet valve itself. 

By the time this is ground back to good, I fear the valve will be deeply recessed (poor for gas flow).  The exhaust valve is in much better shape,  but for quite deep rust pitting ..mostly on the combustion side. It would cut back to be usable.  The two valve guides were a nice fit.

Exhaust valves,  NOS Stanpart I found and have just ordered off  e-bay for £30 the set inc postage. 

#3 cylinder inlet valve was similarly passed it.  Those in cylinders 1 & 2 were worn but re-grindable if needs be. 

 

WANTED please :  inlet valves OE part number 107626.   If anyone has NOS set that they might sell me, then please pm.

Thanks. Pete.

 

[spartacus]

That's some serious 'y-tho' action in that picture.

It's a shame those valves are so knackered but at least if you have new ones you'll be making the most of whatever other breathing mods you do.

[Asimo]

Interesting stuff.

Why the antipathy to an electric cooling fan?  An electric cooling fan  is the first mod I would do. 'Twas even a mod back in the day...

Good to be rid of that horrible whirring noise for a start. (Although I will allow that a more modern plastic fan will be much less of a drag and quieter than the "steam-punk" StanPart)

[spartacus]

What he said.

Less parasitic drag from an electric fan, less noise, improved fuel consumption and performance. I'm sure that fans with an even number of blades are noisier than those with an odd number too, something to do with the aerodynamics of them.

I'm not a rocket scientist though, so don't quote me on that last bit.

[Bfg]

Interesting conversation, cheers..

3 hours ago, spartacus said:

Less parasitic drag from an electric fan, less noise, improved fuel consumption and performance.

 

3 hours ago, Asimo said:

Why the antipathy to an electric cooling fan?

I simply don't see an issue with having a manual fan ..which on most older cars used to work absolutely reliably. 

What I would like to improve though is ; the massive compromises made in production, c.1950's Standard-Vanguard,  ie.  flat plates of aluminium riveted onto a heavy steel fan hub, bolted to an even heavier cast iron extension spigot which was there, and robust enough, to take the loads of a starting handle .. of a previous model of car.! 

Considering specifically - the tropical fan on my TR4 engine (x6 short aluminium blades on a steel hub) weighs approximately 0.9kg.  And the whole pulley + fan extension + centre bolt + this fan weighs in around about 3kg.  To rotationally accelerate that mass certainly takes some force,  but it would be relatively little compared to the 11kg of flywheel + the 4kg of diaphragm clutch ..especial as unlike those items ; the mass of the fan + extension assembly is very close to its rotationally axis.  

 

However, when a fan is lightweight (plastic or made in composites) and with a good aerofoil section to the blades - it actually takes very little power to drive it.   Even a battery operated, or small desk fan will illustrate this. 

A fan (such as the plastic TR6 one) which is designed to work best at modest car speeds is very efficient indeed. Indeed the engine's 100 - 150 bhp and whatever torque, wouldn't even notice its underwhelming 250g mass.    Indeed, I'm sure the load on the fan belt, with its 2" lever arm from the crank (radius of the pulley), which pulls the dynamo and water pump around, would absorbed much greater power ..both during acceleration and at any constant speed, because the dynamo and the water pump each take very much more energy to continually drive than the fan.  Then again, quite possibly just the friction in their alternator / water pump belt takes more !    It is after all ; not really a fan belt ! 

Once a constant RPM is achieved, anything above 40mph (when the air flow is already coming through the radiator due to the forward motion of the car) ..the ram of air helps offset the mechanical force needed to turn it. Then the fan blade's chord angle / angle of attack presents, at best, a deflecting sweep across that airflow ..ie, the work being done by the fan is negligible ..and so the energy used to maintain its rotation is likewise so. 

At high crankshaft speeds - the fan blades ride in the shadow of each other.  ie, each blade is in another's drag - so again very little energy is needed to turn it.  

And when going even faster still, with air flow due to vehicle's speed, combined with tall gearing - the passing air-flow would be on the back of the mechanical fan's blades ..trying to turn it.  So, although highly inefficient - that force would be conveyed to help turn the crankshaft !  

With the manual fan - there are no additional bearings, no switch, electric wires or connectors, thermo-couple sender, thermostat control, timer, fuse, motor, brushes, earthing, and not even a cowling or numerous brackets to mount it.  Beyond that, the manual fan is far less likely to be effected by driving rain or indeed by flood water. Nor will it ever lead to a flat battery ..because it 'forgot' to turn off on a hot day.  And of course (re)charging a battery which monitors cooling needs, and drives an electric fan, is not free energy.

Pete

[Bfg]

 

On 1/3/2020 at 6:36 PM, Bfg said:

From TR Enterprises

• 1              Big Ends +10 (OE : Glacier / Glyco)                 £100.00
• 8              Big Ends Bolts - x8 Stretch TR4A type              £67.20
• 1              Crank Thrust - Set of 4  of +0.005"`                      £8.48
• 4              Flywheel Bolt                                                                 £5.62
• 2              Flywheel lock tabs                                                       £1.68
• 1              Oil Pump - uprated spindle & rotor                     £59.00

                                                                                                                       £241.98

Ordered on Friday, received the following Wednesday's post  ..so pretty decent picking, packing & delivery time.  Total including £5 p&p was £246.78

 

Oil pump spindle & rotor :

^ for a such a crucial and supposedly precision part -  I cannot say I'm impressed.  Likewise were my thoughts on seeing the crankshaft thrust bearings. 

I had spoken with Revington, TR Enterprises, and the TR shop regarding these parts,  and each said they were made in India but were proven in use ..in their own rebuilds. TR Enterprises said that they were not comfortable with the quality of the actual shaft being supplied from India and so make their own. This (above) ' uprated '  set has their own shaft.

^ The original parts are on the left, the new replacement parts are on the right.  I was a little disappointed to see sharp inside corners of the forks on TR Enterprises shaft.  Their rotor has a mitre around both its top and bottom edge, so it cannot be put in the wrong way around (..or else is reversible when a little worn).

1. Checking the dimensions in the pump itself  (to compare with the measurements of the original components)..   the shaft has the same dimensions, so the new is no tighter in the body.

2. The rotor to body tolerance measured 0.005"  ..so is the same as my original (shown below). .

3. However the clearance between the new spindle and the rotor was just 0.0025" , whereas the originals (below) had 8-1/2 to 10 thou ..so the new is very much better.

4. the end float measures 0.0025" whereas the old one was 0.004".  Even so I'll reduce this to 0.002" before refitting

So, all in all - it is better, but perhaps not as confidence inspiring quality as I might have hoped for, when buying an uprated part from a reputable TR supplier.

- - -

The new thrust bearings don't look anything special, and for some unknown reason have pointed bottoms. But they are the size I require. I haven't yet checked that the squarer tabs which are to locate in the caps fit. They may require a little fettling. 

Above, I'm noting the thickness of the new versus the old.  During reassembly I will use the 0.920" & 0.925" original ones, forward of the main bearing, with a pair of new ones behind it. Loose assembling them, with the crankshaft in the block, yesterday confirmed my previous calculations were close, as measured these now gives me 0.004" crankshaft end float.  However, the back of the thrust bearing is heavily stamped with the part number (below) and I'll want to file that smooth and also check the plate is flat before installing . .

 

Pete.

[Bfg]

- - -

On 1/3/2020 at 6:36 PM, Bfg said:

And from the TR Shop, London

• 1              Core Plug Set                                                                  £5.66
• 1              Flywheel Ring Gear - bolt-on 4A                           £34.99
• 1              Gasket set - Block                                                      £18.95
• 1              Gasket set - Head                                                       £24.95
• 1              Oil pressure relief valve - spring                               £4.75
• 1              Piston + Liner set (87mm)                                    £255.00
• 1              Seal - timing cover / Fr.Crank                                   £7.40
• 1              Seal - Rr lip oil seal kit (scroll removal necessary)   £59.95      Cancelled in favour of Christian Marx (type ?) seal  

                                                                                                                            £351.7

added to order. .

• 2              woodruf key (crankshaft)                                            £3.60
• 1              Lock Tab - Camshaft sprocket                                   £0.75

                                                                                                                         £356.05

Ordered on Friday, and received this morning (Friday) from the the TR Shop in London.  ..so again decent picking, packing & delivery time.  The total  was £ 356.99 ..as orders over £250 include 'free' delivery. 

I've only had a quick look inside the parcel, and have not checked anything dimensionally or otherwise inspected the items, but here are the first impressions. . .

^ Much as one might ..expect nothing is branded.  Ain't it just lovely when a manufacture doesn't have the confidence to put his (or her) own name on their product.  The two gasket sets are said to be Made in England.

Oddly the bottom end gasket set is described as a 'conversion set' and yet is specified for the Vanguard 1941- 51, and the TR3 through to TR4A.. The delightful little TR2 doesn't get a look in.  The top end gasket set is for the TR4 : 86mm, so I'll have to check it's also suitable for the 87mm bore.  I'm guessing it would be because that's a rebore size.

^ detail.   The front timing case seal is a double lip seal with a manufacturer's mark of BTS and part number which is difficult to read but I think says 44.40 - 63.60 - 14.30. Another mark is partly missing but might read H-098.

The bolt-on TR4A ring gear, for the flywheel, is of particular interest to me as I want to fit it onto the TR3 flywheel I bought (which has a shrink on ring gear) .. so I very quickly compared them . . .

TR3 ring gear sitting on the TR4A one.  They have a differnt number of teeth and the 4A one is deeper cross section to accommodate the bolt holes.  What is not so obvious in this photo is that their outside diameters are different too .  .

This is with the opposite side's teeth aligned, it is the difference in diameter you see here (perhaps 3 - 4mm) rather than the difference in diameter.  The TR4A one is the larger.  Who knows, it may be unimportant, but personally I would have liked the hole to have been aligned with a tooth rather than being so close to the cutout inbetween.!

Below is showing the difference in inside radius (not diameter) between the TR3 ring gear (now on top) and the 4A one.

 

Moving on quickly .  .

Wet liner cylinders, with piston, pins and rings.   Pistons are said to be made in Taiwan.  Liners are said to be made in India. Piston rings for 86mm +0.040" are said to be made in USA.  And all together - Assembled in England. 

First impressions re. quality (of finish) on everything - looks great.

So that's about it for today..

I did phone TR Enterprises and TR shop to thank them, and also to ask if either had NOS,  OE-spec inlet valves or perhaps an OE timing chain. The former said not, only Indian made parts, whereas the latter - speaking to Lucas I guess,  said they probably have the OE valves, but it might take him an hour to find them ..and that it wasn't worth doing unless he had a customer who would appreciate it ..and for £40 it wasn't worth it.  I'm guessing this was a kick-back to his having Vandervell main bearings for £120 which I didn't buy. 

I did start into saying that I understood, and that if he could lay his hands on things in his shop quickly it might be a different story,  but then I cut myself short and concluded the conversation by politely thanking him for the parts I had just received  (..I didn't say so but thought.. the £360 I just spent with him).

I put the phone down feeling aggravated by his attitude ..and that I'll not use them again  ..but then realised that would be just cutting off my nose to spite my face.  Certainly though, from now on, other companies will now be my first port of call,  and have the order if there's little to choose between the pricing. 

I am not a rich man, and I do shop in Aldi rather than Marks & Spencers or Tescos ..and I will struggle to afford this car,  but if you'd kindly just wipe me off the sole of your shoe Lucas, I will go my own way.  Thanks.

 

[somewhatfoolish]

You've spent £400 with him, how much do you have to spend to qualify as an appreciative customer?

[Bfg]

^ good question.

Some customers of classic cars can afford to pay whatever price is first given, but I need to compare.  And to get the best value (though often not the cheapest) in most anything I buy - I have to spend some time in shopping around.  Most companies accept this as a fact of life.  I might emphasis that I was not shopping around for prices with the view to buying elsewhere, I was giving that - my prefered / first choice of company the opportunity to win my custom.  I would have thought that was appreciative. They don't have to be cheaper but they do need to be 'competitive'. 

The Vandervell main bearings he offered to sell me for £120 - was too much for my pocket so I counter-offered him £100.  He rejected this, so I left it.   TR Enterprise had a set of original Glyco main bearings for £90, but the size I required were sold out when I went to buy them. Hey ho that's life.  A couple of days later I was fortunate enough to buy a NOS set of Vandervell bearings privately for £45.  I'm very happy with that !

Most likely Lucas (TR Shop) had bought those bearings as part of a job lot, and they might have cost him a fiver.  He not only lost that sale, but then his subsequent attitude knocked his company off my preferred supplier list.  I don't need that sort of crap in my life.  I still have a whole car to restore ..and buy parts for.!  

My concern with using the TR shop again is that - if I do have an issue with the quality or fit of a part and need to send it back, then it will be a very unpleasant experience dealing with that man.

Anyway that's his choice.  As for me., well it's not as if there is no choice of where to shop for Triumph parts ..either new and old stock.

So, I move on..  

- - -

..a quick comic-strip report of yesterday evening's activities .  .

1. using a 6 lb hammer and a block of timber (oak, recycled kitchen chair's seat) as a hardwood drift to loosen the rusted liners out. Alternative knocking / hammering on one side of the cylinder's skirt and then on the opposite side, one by one they did (eventually) move. 

 

2. This is aged oak being used as a drift, the rear cylinder liner was particularly difficult to shift, and necessitated my chopping 3" off the end of the block to get back to solid timber again.

3.  Good upper body exercise but I was winning.   (NB. the crankshaft is in the background and is nothing to do with getting these sleeves out) 

4. a softwood block happened to (almost) fit ..to knock the sleeves further through.  The corners of the block shaved off as it went down through the casting. On a couple of occasions it got stuck in the hole and I had to drift it back out from the other side.

5. once they were a bit out they could be grabbed and wiggled out further.

6. one by one, there they go. The wood chips illustrate the gallant fight they put up.  They have after all been in there for 55 years.!

7.  there's a wider bit (being pointed to) further down the sleeve, which takes extra wiggle force to get out of the block.

8. where's there's a will ..a lump hammer and a couple of blocks, there is a way !

..and then the mud pies fun really starts .  . .

9. Surprisingly it was still wet inside the water jacket,  so after scraping out the big loose lumps - I set to with a bowl of clean water, a bottle of spray degreaser (used in the kitchen),  my old wood chisel for scraping, a pot cleaning brush, and a small wire brush in the cordless drill.  

Darn (or suitable descriptive words of your own choice) it was mucky in there.!

10. it wasn't a five minute job, but good progress was made and the original inside casting began to reveal itself.   Mind you I couldn't see this as I worked, it only becomes obvious when flushed out with cleaner water and illuminated by the flash on the camera.  In reality I was working in the dark and couldn't see passed my own hand.  Talk about shining a light up one's own . . .. .!

You might notice that four more of the cylinder head studs have been removed.  These came out by undoing them by hand ..although to be fair I did use a cloth to get a grip on one of them.

11. hung out to dry (literally) overnight, with the dehumidifier left on and its fan blowing towards the crankcase. 

Pete

 

[Mr Pastry]

53 minutes ago, Bfg said:

The Vandervell main bearings he offered to sell me for £120 - was too much for my pocket so I counter-offered him £100.  He rejected this, so I left it.

I'm sorry pal, but that fully explains why he didn't want you as a customer. 

[GBJ]

Those cylinder liners illustrate why you should always use antifreeze/corrosion inhibitor in the coolant!

[Bfg]

15 hours ago, GBJ said:

Those cylinder liners illustrate why you should always use antifreeze/corrosion inhibitor in the coolant!

Yes indeed.  And of course any car from a hot climate country might be expected to have not used antifreeze.!

[Bfg]

.

a little of today pottering around ..but not in the garage. . .

^ Checking production tolerance of the new,  together with the old pistons of the con-rods.

^ These are 86mm +0.040".   And this one was the heaviest (measured without rings). The four new pistons vary in weight by a total of 3.7g.  That's a very small percentage of 670+ grams 

^ Pistons are of course oval in shape, and so were aligned before measuring. Top piston to liner clearance is measured below the step by the third groove. The first two measured at 0.0035, the third and fourth measured at 0.0025 and 0.0045" respectively.  Swapping them over equalised things a little better so they are now 0.003 and 0.004" respectively.  I'll position those to be used as cylinder 1 (best cooled) and cylinder 4 (hottest). 

^ Bottom skirt clearance measured, again with the piston orientated, each measured has a minimum of 0.002", although what will be the forward cylinder is a rather "tight" 0.002".

All in all - Very Respectable quality control.  Thumbs up 

- - -

 

Don't know if you can read my scribbles but the bottom four rows / second column are the weights of the old pistons (with rings) and conrods (less cap and bolts), literally as they came out of the car. Unfortunately the shells were missing as I weighed conrods 3 & 4., but those shells weigh 27.1g - so after correcting those figures.. there's a difference of just 11.9g. That's less than 1% overall. I'm impressed.

My bottom four row's third column records the total weight of each con-rod, without piston, shells or cap, but with the gudgeon pin bearing still in place. As you can see, there's presently a difference of 12.7g  ..and yes I did turn the scales off and then check them again.  This coming week I'll scrub them up and do it again with the caps, shells and the new bolts, and also independently check both big and little ends.

- - -

Other (good) news is that I have been offered a set of  Standard-Triumph inlet valves to go with the Standard-Triumph exhaust valves. So when I get those in then I can get components over the the machine shop.  Things around here happen slowly but we are moving forward.

 

I have yet to go through the archives to see what has been said before,  but yesterday I learnt that my water pump does not have a bolt-on pulley. As it was locked up when I bought the engine I'm sure internal parts will need replacing.   Are the water pumps off any other Triumph the same ?   Any suggestions on how best to move forward ?

Thanks,   Pete

[Bfg]

.

Evening all. No work done yesterday and just a few hours pottering in the garage today,

I 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. 

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. .   

(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).

^ 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.  

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. 

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  . .

[Bfg]

..

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.

As is often the case.,  a whole lot of this parcel was in the double and triple packaging..  a reflection of the care put into it by Beko, who had collected some bits for me before Christmas ..and has since been waiting for the post-office queue to shorten.!    Fantastic - Thank You.

Oh yeah !  a pair of Al-fin style finned rear brake drums  ..which I'd bought through the TR Register website's classified ads. 

 

" I'm very sorry dear.   ..it was a very brief moment of weakness, soon after selling the 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  

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

 

Thank you kindly seller.  .. And a big Fantastic and Thank You to Beko1987.

Pete.

[Bfg]

 

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

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 ?  Probably not ..in the big picture of the reciprocating and rotating masses in this engine.  But I didn't know that until I did it.

Pete.

[Bfg]

. . also delivered yesterday.

^  194.2g including its hardened rubber, the four steel spacer tubes, and 3 out of 4 steel washers.  If I recall, the original tropical fan blade was 910g, so I'm happy with this plastic one and its refined aerofoil blade shapes. 

 

Positioning is different to the original in respect that the new would mount onto the end of the extension piece, whereas the the original blades sat further back towards the engine.  Not having a car here, I don't know if the 20mm difference will position it too close to the radiator ?  If so, then someone has suggested using the shorter extension piece off the TR6.

 

Different number of blades but very similar in diameter.  The perspective from it being in front of the original fan makes it look bigger in comparison, but its radius / each blade length may be perhaps 1/4" (6mm) more.

Pete

[Bfg]

Question .. regarding crankshaft balancing. 

I've spoken to the machine shop recommended to me ;  J.D. Robertson, in Colchester, about this and they say they only ever balance the crankshaft in isolation, and with the flywheel  ..and they don't even need to know the weight of the con-rods, big ends, pistons, etc.   This was a surprise to me because I understood their mass, balance, length and the crank throw was an important part of the dynamics.  I had assumed these factors along with the compression ratio and perhaps other aspects like intended RPM target, and camshaft would have been entered into the computer program of their balancing machine.  

Perhaps someone here may advise me what is usual for 'fast road use' ( ie., sports cars), and what do the racing fraternity do ?  ..And whether I'd be wasting my money to have this specialist work done  ..assuming of course I could find someone to do it, and could afford their services !   Or should I just be content with Robertson checking and perhaps slightly altering the balance of the crank after the big ends have been re-ground.

. . .

Later I was given the number of another engineering company who happen to be not too far away from me ;  Coltec Racing, just the other side of Woodbridge  ..as I was hoping to find someone to do this aspect of the job.  

I spoke to Richard Coles about this, who was very friendly and helpful, and he says that ; with a straight four or six engines, where equal numbers of pistons are going up as coming down, then there is not the need to account for the weights of conrods big-ends, crank throw, etc, etc.  He assures me that's already accounted for in the crank's original design. 

In short, it would seem as I'm worrying about nothing.  I would be right if we were talking about balancing the crankshaft on my parallel-twin-cylinder motorcycle engines, where both push-rods are always on the same crank throw. Then the con-rod's weight do need to be factored in ..but not for a four cylinder car engine.

Robertson's in Colchester can do the crankshaft, with flywheel + clutch cover, so it's only the pulley which is not suitable for their machine.  Perhaps it's time I just cut my losses and buy a narrow belt conversion and an electric fan, and then that pulley's weight is negligible

Best regards,  Pete.