Bfg

Afternoon all, it's been a few days since I last posted so I thought I'd do a bit of catching up. I had a slight delay before the new old stock inlet valves arrived, and then aside from everyday distractions in life, my efforts were to try and get my act together ..regarding what the engineering machine shop was to do. Standard-Triumph new-old-stock Inlet valves, valve guides and timing chain tensioners. One tensioner is very slightly thinner steel than the other, and also has sharp bottom corners so may have been from a different model, but both are new and from the same source. Yes there are two sets here because.. ever hopeful that one day I might get the car with its engine., I will then need these same parts for that. With those coming in on Monday, I took everything across to the machine shop J.D Robertsons, Colchester, on Tuesday. it was the same very nice gentleman on the desk, that I'd spoken to on the phone several times before, so he had a pretty good idea what was coming in. As it happens a gentleman brought in the cylinder head for a 1955 Massey Ferguson tractor while I was there, so I had the rare opportunity to compare them side by side. Talk about low compression ! phew the combustion chamber was recessed into the head by something like 45mm, whereas my TR4A head was recessed only about 15mm. That was a low port head which is designed to run on paraffin. Aside from it's extra depth it was quite familiar though.. a few changes to the water jacket holes including one which ran front to back underneath the inlet and exhaust ports. oh and those ports were half moon shape rather than round. All in all a pleasure to see and chat with the owner. The gent in the machine shop seemed equally as interested and so there was no hassling to get on with things. It's very nice to deal with such old school gentlemen. My own engine's cylinder head is in for ; pressure testing checking the machined gasket faces are flat, new unleaded exhaust valve seats, re-cutting or replacing the inlet valve seats, if required replacing the valve guides, and replacing the core plug while cleaning out inside the water jacket. The crankshaft is in for ; regrind the big end journals to suit the +0.010" shells (supplied assembled in the con-rod for their measurement) check to ensure the main journals are within tolerance to remove the core bungs and clean out the oil galleries inside. for balancing. And so then we had the flywheel(s).. The one I'd bought from a TR3 and one my friend, Rich C-R lent me from a TR4 (..this had been lightened and is still drilled for the coil-spring 9" clutch). Before I took them across I compared them . . . TR4 is on the left is heavily greased rather than rusty, and the clean / lighter coloured TR3 flywheel is on the right. The TR4 has a bolt on starter gear-ring and so the recess for that is noticeably deeper-in from the perimeter. What cannot be seen here is that the overall diameter of the TR3 flywheel is about 8mm greater, so a lot of metal will have to be removed to get the TR4 bolt-on ring to fit it. That's OK because I'm happy to save more weight from around the perimeter. From the engine side., the greased / brown flywheel has been lightened considerably. It was a similar dished shape to the TR3 one but someone has machined it flat to within a few mm of where the starter's gear-ring bolts on. According to my ancient bathroom scales, with the gear ring it weighs in at 9kg (21lb). The TR3 flywheel, as seen is I believe original aside from it's clutch side face has been skimmed back to flat. That weighs in at 7-1/4kg (15lb). The clutch side ; lookes very similar but the dowel positions are different and of a different size. I believe they are both drilled to take the 9" coil spring clutch. It's barely discernible from the photos but you might just make out the dowels and bolt holes are closer to the edge on the TR4 one ..because it is the aforementioned 8mm smaller in diameter (approx 280 versus 288mm). As I say Rich's flywheel has been packed away in dark brown heavy grease, it is not rusty. The dowel pin which goes into the end of the crankshaft is different, as you may see on the shiny TR3 one, only the pilot holes have not been drilled all the way through. The diaphragm clutch sitting on the TR3 flywheel illustrates the difference in overall diameter and the PCD of the clutch mounting holes & dowels. For those interested in doing a similar thing, here is my brief ..written out as much for me as to discuss with the engineering company . . . 1. Flywheel : I am furnishing x2 flywheels (used) x1 bolt-on type gear ring (new), x1 diaphragm clutch cover (new), x4 bolts and x2 lock washers (each new, for fastening the flywheel to the crankshaft). And x1 page copied from workshop manual regarding fitting to the starter gear. The hollowed out / 15lb flywheel is from a TR3, and the one I wish to use. The other, flat faced one, is an already lightened one from a friend’s TR4A. This is only for use as a pattern to help determine offsets and drillings - so no machining work is to be done on this part. I would like the TR3 flywheel’s perimeter to be appropriately turned to fit the starter gear ring provided and also to drilled and tapped for x6 suitably sized bolts. Triumph of this period predominantly used UNC or UNF bolts. Personally I do not mind what the thread is, only that they are high-tensile bolts and with low profile heads. The gear ring is a slight interference fit, necessitating modest heat to the ring for its fitting. The teeth of the gear ring are shaped on one side, and the starter motor Bendix gear is drawn forward ..from the gearbox / clutch side of the flywheel to engage. I would also like this flywheel to be drilled for the Borg & Beck diaphragm clutch cover supplied. Again I don’t mind what the threads are but again the bolts must be of high tensile specification. The location dowels will also need to be moved to suit this clutch cover. The mating face which fits to the crankshaft and flywheel needs to be checked for flatness, size, and run-out. Again the dowel hole needs to be altered to fit that on the crankshaft. A page (p.1.123) copied from the workshop manual is supplied. It tells me that clutch-friction-face run-out should not exceed 0.003”. The TR3 flywheel is approximately 8mm greater in overall diameter than the TR4A one, and the diaphragm clutch is 8-½” dia. so smaller than the TR3’s 9” coil-spring clutch. I would like the excess metal removed to ensure ample clearance for the starter gear and to save weight. And where practical, I’d like further excess weight trimmed off. Please see the illustration, copied from Triumph’s official publication “Tuning Triumphs with engines exceeding 1300cc” which illustrates where it may safely be removed. Personally I would aim to leave 3mm of land either side of the gear ring, but please remove as much as you feel comfortable with. Finally, the crankshaft, flywheel together with the clutch cover will need to be re-balanced Thank You. The red line indicates where (I think) Rich's TR4 flywheel has been lightened. I have read that the original weight was 31lb, with starter gear-ring, so this has removed about 8lb in weight. Pete.

My daily driver, a Chrysler Grand Voyager with leather covered seats, has very effective seat warmers. These are individually switched and have two settings. I wouldn't have thought they use very much power compared to trying to heat the volume of interior encompassed by glass. Similarly I have heard of heated steering wheels. It wouldn't be much of a stretch of imagination to have heated floor mats. And for emergency use ; to have a space-blanket with electric element. I'd guess such things are readily available in places like Canada. Pete.

^ cheers, Later today 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.

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. Thanks very much, Pete.

. . 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

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 ; 233.3 g ..as is evident in the photo above, nothing was taken off this ( lightest) con-rod. 238.6 g 237.6 g 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) ; 384.5 g & 554.8 g ..again nothing was taken off this ( lightest) con-rod. 386.9 g & 560.0 g 385.3 g & 558.7 g 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 ; 934.0. g & 702.5 g ..5g was taken out of this cap. 934.2 g & 700.2 g 934.3 g & 701.5 g 932.6 g & 704.4 g So, there we go. That's about as much as I'm comfortable in grinding away. I also feel that whatever additional time I put into them will be of greatly diminished return. Over the two afternoons, I spent about 7 hours reworking these. I'm confident that I've smoothed out lumpy and extra thick bits rather than waisting away places which are most highly stressed. And I'm happy with the overall weights now being within 1.7g of each other, and the big ends within 1.9g of each other ..which in relation to the 1.56 kg mass of each complete piston & con-rod assembly - is pretty darn close (for a road car). Was it worth it ? I'm not sure ..considering the huge reciprocating and rotating masses in this engine. But it's done now and I don't regret taking the time to do it. Pete. Edit.. for those wondering why the weight at each end were different between these con-rods, here's a quick explanation. . The con-rod itself is a piece of forged steel, where the outside shape is rough and the flash (squeezed out excess metal) has literally been ground off by hand. Before being machined there was no flat edge, no accurate corner, nor even a straight place to measure from or position it. But, two almost very accurately size holes and the split for the big-end cap have to be machined a very precis distance apart. When the con-rod's blank (this is what it's called prior to being machined) is put into the machine and clamped tight it might be it may be a little way up or a little way down the blank's length. That's because of the rough outside shape, and so it just depends on what lump on its rough outside happens to be positioning it. Similarly, the little end may be slightly to one side, and then again so might the big end, or not, or perhaps pushed across to the opposite side. However, there is enough strength designed into these to be safely a couple of mm out, one way or the other. And if it's not within that spec., then the part is rejected and the 'scrap' metal thrown back into the furnace. Those which are close enough were passed over to a skilled man who matched similar weights of con-rod assembly (now with the cap bolted on) and further ground the outside flash a little more so the set of four's overall weights are almost exactly the same. I recall reading a specification which said they should be within 7g. of each other ..but I think that was also including piston and rings etc, so the con-rod might be heavy if the piston is lightweight, or vice versa. If the combined overall weight is pretty close, does it matter very much if one con-rod's big-end is heavier than the next.? The answer to this lies in the fact that the big end rotates whereas the little end and piston are reciprocating within the tight confines of a sleeve (activated by the force of mighty combustion !). That force propels the piston / con-rod assembly downwards and the crankshaft pushes the big-end sideways. That sideways element is the cause of secondary vibration (..primary being that from the combustion), so if each con-rod big-end has different mass ..so then the secondary vibration will be different (for each cylinder). This is perhaps easiest to picture in the mind's eye as - the primary vibration being up and down, and the secondary vibration being side to side. The force of secondary vibration is very much less than that of the primary ..but it's still very much there and it's still loading and twisting the crankshaft. In brief ; the heavier (big-end) weight takes more of a push to move sideways, and the reaction to this is in crankshaft twist. And that is what I was aiming to minimize. Thank you.

Wow ! I'm sure the IVA inspector will love this one. Credit to you sir !

.. 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.. courtesy of a friend who had collected some bits I bought before Christmas ..and waited til now for the post-office queue to shorten. Oh yeah ! a pair of Al-fin style finned rear brake drums ..which I'd bought through the TR website's classified ads. I'm very sorry dear.. it was a very brief moment of weakness, soon after selling my Norton. I'm not sure how effective this style of finning is, but they're made in " Aluminium with a cast-in steel band. They not only reduce weight but improve cooling with the trademark fins and the greater thermal conductivity of aluminium." .. I particularly liked the idea of lessening the unsprung weight of these brakes on an IRS car. A quick look suggest that this pair are in super barely-used condition, the steel inserts had been greased to fend off rust while on the garage shelf, and all the aluminium fins are intact. The instruction sheet is from Peter Cox, dated April '06. I admit it was an indulgence ..BUT I'm very happy with them !! Thank you kindly seller. You know who you are. Pete.

^ thanks Colin, I do still have the old one, which may be perfectly serviceable. Problem is that I don't know without pulling it apart. However I'm sure EP will sort me out. Cheers, Pete. - - - No work done yesterday and just a few hours pottering in the garage today, Starting with removing the water pump off the block to see if its dismantling became more obvious from looking from another angle. It didn't, so I'll come back to that another time. Next I cleaned the staining off the con-rods and their caps. 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 554.5g 564.6g 562.4g 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. 554.5g 383.7 232.8 564.6g 386.4 239.3 562.4g 384.6 238.6 567.3g 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. 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. Btw., This engine's piston n' con-rod assemblies (as removed / not even cleaned up) were within just 3g of each ..so very good. I understand the tolerance is 7g. But as you see from the figures.. the difference in weight of the con-rods themselves (without gudgeon-pin, big-end shells, cap or bolts) was 13g. And their end-to-end weight distribution varied even more - with the difference in weight of their big-ends varying by as much as 15g. It was their variance in weight distribution / end-to-end weight that I sought to even up. The four new 86mm +0.040" pistons (..recently bought with 87mm liners) vary in weight by a total of 3.7g. That was with gudgeon pins, but without piston rings. Once matched to the piston rings and con-rods - I'll minimise their overall weight difference. Pete. - - - p.s. new old stock exhaust valves arrived yesterday . .

. 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

. ..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

.. 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.

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 (brand spanking new) - 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 new shaft has the same dimensions, so is no tighter in the body. 2. The rotor to body tolerance measured 0.005" ..so is the same as my original (shown below) and well within tolerance 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. - - - Crankshaft Thrust bearings .. 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.

^ Thanks Tony, interesting resource. . . . 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.

Interesting conversation, cheers.. 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. Once a constant RPM is achieved, anything above 40mph, then as Pete Lewis says "at speed the ram of air helps offset it" and Clive experienced with his Spitfire, the cooling effect of the fan is minimal compared to the vehicle's through flow of air. Then the fan blade's chord angle / angle of attack presents, at best, a deflecting sweep across that airflow ..so the energy used to maintain its rotation would be very small indeed. Conversely, I would think the tension on the fan belt, with its 2" lever arm (radius of the pulley) from the crank, which pulls the dynamo and water pump around, would have absorbed much greater power both to accelerate and at that constant speed. Of course (re)charging a battery which monitors cooling needs and drives an electric fan is not free energy. Then at high vehicle speeds, combined with tall gearing ; the through airflow would try to turn the mechanical fan ..so although highly inefficient - that force would be conveyed to help turn the crankshaft ! Pete

^ you're welcome Paul. I'm glad it's of interest. Pete. And now, for 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.

..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

. 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.

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

. 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.

.. 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

^ mine was also from Aldi, just under £20, and it's about as efficient as a two blade triumph fan ..put on backwards, I'd say. There is some radial air movement within a few inches but in respect to the size of any room, even if it were the smallest room in the house, they're pretty useless, that is aside from the entertainment factor of seeing a fan spinning when conducted heat is the only power source. From the photo you can see i have half a post-it pad sticker on one blade, so I can see at a glance what speed it's moving. The objective on my tiny stove is to have it barely turning (the fire is just ticking over so to speak) ..but when it stops I know I need to tend to the fire.

^ after breakfast, I lit the fire (first time after nine months) to warm the garage ..and then went back into the house to drink my morning coffee and write this. Last winter I designed & made this tiny stove, shaped to fit into my old boat. I then trialed it in the lounge of my home ..with the flue pipe poking out of the window. I'm not sure that was quite in compliance with building reg's ..saying the flue should be above the pitched roof height. But it's efficiency is far in excess of the multi-fuel stove in the room. It now being in the garage is a temporary arrangement only and not in living accommodation, but still I'll be careful. ^ twenty minutes later, and there's not much to see but a glimpse of the glowing coals in the tiny fire box. However the fan on top is buzzing away very quickly ..I use that as a visual indicator (like a rev counter) of how hot the stove is. ^ that's up to full temperature (575 degrees) and stable, so I then completely shut its starter valve.

. just 1 hr 35 minutes in the garage this afternoon ^ I made a bit of a hole ..and quite a bit of mess all over the floor ! ^ oh ? ^ ah ! ^ ah ha ! ^ that was last winter-months project ..a micro coal-burning stove with oven, for my boat. ^ cooler weather is due ..and then motivation to go out to the garage wilts. But I were a boy scout.

. 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.