Bfg

. Afternoon all, Getting parts in didn't quite go to plan.. I was keen to get some of the machining started, which I cannot do without having the parts for the engineering shop to dimensionally match to. So I'd hoped to get an order in to the TR Shop just before Christmas, for some of the bigger items like the piston and liners, for courier delivery inbetween Christmas and New year. Unfortunately they were closed when I called on the Monday. I sent them an email with what I wanted but nobody replied for a card payment. Hey ho., I proceeded with trying to pull together a parts list of smaller items I'd also need. My friend Rich called one day, and in conversation advised me that said shop was open between Christmas and now, so I called them again to discuss a few bit and get prices. I got answers to my questions but they asked me to send them an email list for the prices. I did that but haven't yet got a reply. Then another friend, Chris suddenly decided to visit me for a couple of days, giving 24 hours notice, so although it was great to see him - I lost four days of getting this engine stripped and into the machine shop. Now we wait until after the holidays, as the order for parts has still not been taken. All in all that's a little frustrating. While not being able to do much, I did do a quick drain down test. . ^ Aside from turning the engine over, when I freed it from being seized, I haven't touched these valves. But just out of interest I wanted to see how well (or not) the valves were seating after years of standing / rusting. Here I've simply filled the inlet and exhaust ports with parts cleaner. Gravity does the rest.The above was after 45 minutes and #1 cylinder exhaust port is already an inch or two emptier than the others. ^ two hours later the fluid level in #1 cylinder exhaust port has dropped / drained a few inches. The others have seeped a little but not a lot, which is pleasantly surprising considering the pile of rust found inside #4 cylinder. Each of the exhaust valve seats will be replaced as they are converted for unleaded petrol ..and so will be re-cut and lapped in. But unless the valve guides also need replacing, this little test tells me - the inlet valves just need a little hand re-bedding in. That's nice. - - - While my buddy Chris was here we inverted the engine on the motorcycle lift so I might remove the big end cap and thrust washers.. So here you go. Father Christmas when not on duty, with beard trimmed again and out of his long red coat . . . ^ I know.. I'm not a photogenic person .. and then look even dumber in real life ! TR engine block inverted on the motorcycle lift / work bench (with its conveniently adjustable height, and narrow width - so I might work from either side). The wire is just there for safety / to prevent the engine from toppling when undoing things like the main bearing bolts. Why not have it on the engine stand ? Well, when I removed the cyl.head I lost use of two of the mounting bolts (where the manifold studs go) for the engine stand to be mounted from the side. And I couldn't mount the stand from the bell housing flange and still access to the bolts to the crankshaft scroll seal. So this work bench works better all round. Back to the tasks in hand.. ^ Removal of the middle main bearing cap is needed to get the thrust washers out. The lower (underside) halves of these thrust bearings have tabs on them (arrowed) which locate in the slot machined into either side of the middle main bearing cap.. They are there to prevent the thrust bearings / shims from turning with the crank. The other (upper) half of these bearings / shims have no tab - so, with just the one cap off - they can be pushed / rotated around the main bear journal and easily removed / replaced ..with the crankshaft still in place. Thrust bearings limit the amount end-float of the crankshaft, which generally isn't going anywhere ..until the clutch is disengaged. The clutch release bearing is pushing against the clutch spring(s) ..either conventional or diaphragm, and that force is transferred via the pivots to the clutch cover ..which is bolted to the flywheel ..which in turn is bolted to the end of the crankshaft. The clutch release mechanism is within the gearbox bell-housing, and so it is the force applied through this that pushes the whole floating / rotating assembly, including the crankshaft, forwards. And that wears the rear thrust bearing ..because the oil (normally in this bearing) is squeezed out by the crankshaft pushing forward against the main bearing's seat & cap. The significance of crankshaft end float ? Well, an important factor here is in the alignment of the timing chain sprockets, especially as the two are relatively closely spaced and using a duplex chain. Logically, because the crankshaft moves forward, and the rear thrust bearing wears soonest - the crankshaft sprocket might be statically aligned (perhaps 0.002 - 0.004") rearwards than the sprocket on the camshaft. So, the thrust bearings / shims are consumables which wear. Replacements are available in different thicknesses, to accurately set the crankshaft end-float. The books say the end float needs to be 0.004 - 0.006" (Haynes manual). The Standard-Triumph workshop manual gives a little more information insomuch as this end float ; 0.004 - 0.006" (desirable), but the wear limit, ie. end float, is within tolerance with anything upto ; 0.015" ..and that manufacturing tolerance may be anything between 0.0048" - 0.0117". The sods.. so four to six thou-of-an-inch is correct but Triumphs might have been made with almost twelve thou end float ..and that was fine.! Way back when < here > I measured this engine's crankshaft end float to be 0.011", so it is within tolerance. However as the engine is already stripped down and it's now easy to do - I'd like it correct. So my next question was ; what thickness replacement thrust bearings do I need to buy ? I couldn't find the answer in Haynes nor the Triumph workshop manual, but thankfully Moss catalogue helps us out. p.19 item 85 tells us that the thickness of these bearings / shims (standard) are 0.0925" thick. With this information I could measure and determine the difference / wear of mine as ; 0.001" of the forward thrust bearings, and 0.0025" wear of the rear ones. So if i were to replace these with new standard thickness bearings the end float would be 0.011 - 0.001 - 0.0025 = 0.0075" ..that's still too much (but probably as this engine was originally assembled). And if I were to replace these with the next thickness which is 0.005" additional thickness (for the pair) then I'd have ; 0.011 - 0.001 - 0.0025 = 0.0075" - 0.005" = 0.0025" ..which is too tight. So what I'll need to do is to re-use the lesser worn of the old ones, and just one new thrust bearing (which is 0.0025" thicker than standard) ie. 0.011 - 0.001 -(0.0025 - 0.0025) = 0.005" end float. That'll work. Next job is to inspect the main bearings.. Pete.

. Seasonal Greetings All. I survived the dentist 'experience' and now it's time to prepare for the machining and subsequent rebuild. I haven't removed the timing chest yet nor have I touched main bearing or camshaft, but I'd like to get at least some of the following parts ordered asap, to avoid holdups as n' when I need them, not least because they will be needed by the machine shop. This is where I'm at so far ..and still trying to work through catalogues Already Bought : TR3 flywheel (approx 20 lb in weight before machining) Borg & Beck Diaphragm Clutch (drilling of TR3 flywheel necessary to fit) Ordering : Flywheel Ring Gear - bolt-on 4A (machining & drilling of TR3 flywheel necessary to fit) Flywheel Bolts x4 I freed the engine by turning the originals with a long lever. I'll not use those in the rebuild. Gasket set - Head Any advice ? Moss catalogue is misleading in its inset showing head & cover gaskets. Is the upgraded cyl head gasket required? Gasket set - Block Any advice ? Seal - Rr lip oil seal kit (scroll removal necessary) A decision had to be made ; scroll, scroll + lip seal, or lip seal on a freshly reground journal. Pros & cons with each. Seal - Fr.Crank Core Plug Set I only see two core plugs in the 4A block and one rear of the cylinder head Piston + Liner set (87mm) Big Ends +010 (Glacier / Glyco) Is it worth paying the extra for OE spec big end shells, or should I use Tri-metal ? Big Ends Bolts - x8 Stretch TR4A type The motorcycle engines I rebuild use split pins. I'm not used to stretch bolts and I guess they're OK, but for their price why risk it ? Mains +10 Trimetal Can I use Tri-metal or is it worth paying the extra for Glacier / Glyco main bearings ? Crank Thrust - Set of 4 - Std Until i remove them and compare dimensions I don't know what thickness I need, but I guess these wear rather than the crank.? Timing Chain Not pulled yet but I expect it to be well worn. Camchain - Tensioner Not pulled yet but for £5 it's got to be worth replacing ? Cam followers - Tuftrided Not pulled yet, don't know if I'll need them if I keep the original camshaft ? Cam Wheel Lock Tab Oil Pump - spindle & rotor I'll go for a spindle and rotor from a reputable supplier as recommended by Mickey, and we'll see how the tolerances are then. Oil pressure relief valve - spring I tend to change these as a matter of course, but at almost £5 it's surprisingly expensive for what it is. Washer - Head washers I know those outside the rocker cover are chewed up. I need to recheck the others. starter motor brush set Not yet pulled but I assume they'll be needed starter motor bearing / bush set - ditto - Front engine mounts - standard I can't see the need for the rectangular type ..what Moss 'failsafe' design. Front engine mounts - side I'm unfamiliar with this (p.16 item 64 in the Moss catalogue) nor with the torque reaction buffer - anyone help with a photo ? Lifting Bracket - engine - rear the scruffy used one on ebay is the same price, so I might as well buy new ? I expect to be buying most of these from either the TR shop or Revington TR. But I'd be glad for any advice, note of where there's an omission, or any other recommendation you might like to suggest. Thanks, Pete.

Finishing up from last week, and just because I want to shelve them for the time being - so need to know they work and are the right part before doing that ; I cleaned up the fuel pump and starter motor. Apart from AC cast into the top I see no part number. Moss catalogue state the same part for all the 4-cylinder model TR's so I'm hoping it is the right item. ^ it scrubbed up pretty well but there's still a fair amount of petrol staining, particularly in the top corners which is reluctant to come off. It would probably shift easy enough if I got the de-carb out, but I'm not too worried about that as I don't want a pristine car. The important thing is that it appears to work well, although by now I guess the rubberised parts inside might be due for replacement. So that, and the starter motor - which works when a battery is connected, and I've subsequently cleaned of the gritty grease in & around the bendix, can be boxed and put away. I also removed the surface rust off the casing and squirted some zinc. ^ The Lucas M418G part number checks out as being correct starter for the TR3A - 4A. I guess that's it for a few days now, as I've just had a couple of molars extracted, and it's very soon to be Christmas Eve. So for tonight I'll bid you all Wonderful Seasons Greetings ..and I'll catch up with you soon. Pete.

Good Afternoon Europe ..and all other former colonies ..and today's first special request is from Mr. Peter W. of Pinner ..down there in an overcast Middlesex, who writes in for us to play a piece by that classic composer ; Distributor Shimming . . . It seems that Peter has been practicing this little ditty himself on his bass size hole punch We are of course very glad to oblige. . So, from the sheet music by Haynes, we will begin with the chorus . . . darn.. determine this, calculate that - it's really not very clear is it. In the Standard-Triumph workshop manual, their examples confused me more., and the description makes no mention of (nor allowance for ) the gasket between the pedestal and block. This is in the parts book, but is described as a 'washer, joint, between pedestal and block' ..so I assume it should be there (..I know never assume !) But surely, unless this gasket is allowed for, its thickness would add to the end-float being set, and then the total end float would be quite massive and non-sensible. This manual instead talks of "requires packing" ..but doesn't explain further. And there-in lies the confusion - the language. To a simple-minded engineering type, like me ; a "gasket" is is a compressible membrane used to help seal between joint surfaces. And "packing" is either carrying a weapon, or rather more frequently with my lifestyle ; something a parcel has internally to prevent the contents from moving about &/or is wrapped around the outside to protect the item from getting bashed. Whereas a "shim" is a flat, non-compressible spacer with a thickness made to a tight tolerance. To lil 'ol me they are very different things. Moss catalogue describe it as a gasket/shim ..which is like saying to a pilot "over and out" And as someone who bought a scrapper engine and then ancillary 'bits' to go on it ..three of which (..so far) have proven to be the incorrect part, and otherwise expecting there to be a gasket between any ancillary and the block ..I was kinda lost I ventured on nevertheless ..for this engine ; ^ Haynes paragraph 4. A washer with a 1/2" (13mm) inside hole, to fit over the oil pump / distributor drive shaft. I measured this one's thickness to be 0.0415 ( 41-1/2 thou " ). Its outside diameter isn't important but the washer does need to be clean and flat ( I deburred this one on emery paper). ^ 5. Note the machine face on the engine block has been thoroughly cleaned. Likewise the machine face on the underside of the distributor pedestal which clamps to it. ^ 6 & 7. Fit the distributor pedestal in place (without a gasket) and with those two nuts lightly pinched up - the temporary washer holds the pedestal away from the gasket face of the cylinder block. This is the gap to be measured. On this engine that gap measured 0.033". 8. compare the thickness of the temporary washer with the measured gap. The difference represents the end float, so ; 0.0415 -- 0.033" = 0.0085" end float It should be between 0.003 - 0.007" "measure the thickness of a new gasket" but, but, but I don't have one ! ..I'm here trying to determine what thickness I'll need to buy. Hey ho, I'll do things my way ..and disregard all of the above ! ^ With the pedestal bolted in place, with no ; gasket / shim / spacer / fag packet / toilet paper / nor anything else - I simply measured down the hole - the end-float of the distributor / oil pump shaft. ie., the amount of movement of that shaft between the brass bush it sits in and the underside face of the pedestal. Although the digital vernier may not be nearly as easy to use as a depth gauge in this sort of situation - it's what I have ..and with care is accurate enough. I used a spring between the vernier's jaws ..to keep its bottom end prod pushed against the top face of the shaft's gear, zeroed the digital read-out, and held the instrument steadily in place while pushing* upwards on the bottom end of that same shaft ..to see / measure how much free-play there was. The extent of up and down movement, pushing against the spring on the vernier, is the end float. (full stop !). This measured 0.005 - 0.006", so within the 0.003 - 007" permissible tolerance. It's good. No shim is require. And no gasket will be fitted, I'll just use a decent jointing compound. * the oil pump is not fitted at the moment. Now why couldn't Haynes or the Standard-Triumph manual just say " measure the end-float movement with a depth gauge, and if tighter than 0.003" add a shim under the pedestal to increase it. And if the end-float is greater than 0.007" then shim between the engine block and the underside of the flange on the shaft's brass bush ..to decrease it." It's just one sentence ...and there's no piddling around with finding or making a 1/2" ID washer, feeler gauges in the gap, nor any calculations. Btw ; inserting shims to between the block and the brass bush is best practice, because if they were placed on top - very thin shims could possibly buckle in the rotating shaft, , whereas underneath there is no rotation - It is more work but much safer. Hope that's of interest, whatever your car ..or taste in music.! Pete

yesterday afternoon was less productive. I see a stamp on the top of this which says 25D. Is that correct for the 4A ? The number stamped on the side is 40822A Distributor is not really salvageable, and even the cap has two chips out of it. From my newly acquired Moss catalogue . . . ^ cunning little catalogue can be misleading huh ! It would be easy to read TR4A in the bottom line as being the latest.. but alas that was for the rarely optioned 83mm pistons ..to take the engine capacity below 2 ltrs - which would qualify it for different race class and/or in some countries for different insurance and tax class. I'll have to watch out for that So, I have no idea what the distributor I was sold with this engine was from ..with its Lucas number 40822A !? Pete.

oowh sounds uncomfortable. I bid you a speedy recovery and good nights sleep in the meantime. Pete.

. Postie's arrived Three piece clutch kit : TR4A-5-250. GCK6004X. £99 (inc VAT and post) was the best value I spotted this week., from Midland Sport & Classics (..and on ebay). ^ assuming I use this TR3 flywheel, it'll give the engineering company something to do - to very accurately re-drill for the diaphragm clutch cover and to balance it. Me mum's old bathroom scales are not very accurate, but indicate together they weigh in at about 26.5 lb (12kg). However with a smaller clutch the rim of this flywheel might be well chamfered, to loose weight off the peripheral. Pete.

Colin, I just asked a local company ; J.D.Robertson & Co, Colchester ..who have a good reputation and are very helpful / friendly to talk to - for a price of a rebore on a 4-cyl Herald engine. And that is £112 + VAT ..and you supply the pistons. And for my 4-cylinder TR engine they quoted £16 + VAT for each crank journal, whether for big end, mains, or oil seal. How much is it to send your stripped out engine block to them & get it back ? Pete.

. For the post-war Sunbeam motorcycles I ride - I prefer to use Morris Oils of a straight SAE40w. I have tried 20/50w but they are then discernibly noisier, and I relate rattles to not being good. As I now do not ride when temperatures drop to very low single figures I can't see the advantage of using a winter weight engine oil, in our now milder temperate climate. My inclination is to use that same oil in this engine. But, might I ask what are the forum's thoughts on engine oil, for this long stroke 4-cylinder engine ..for normal road use ?

. This afternoon I continued cleaning ' stuff '. One thing I was concern about was the wear in the oil pump. . ^ this is the oil pump and strainer before I took it off so that I might clean inside. ^ And the (external) oil filter - after a first clean, while still fitted to the block. But then put aside in a work tray. ^ After a good scrub, and with the gauze strainer removed I thought it prudent to mark which way around the pump's cap was fitted. Centre punch was hardly visible on the cast iron surface so I just opened those out with a 3mm drill, not at all very deep. Yeah OK., in retrospect ; the base of the pump points which way the cap goes ! Sometimes I just can't see the obvious for all the crud. moving on . . . ^ four 1/2" AF hex head screws secure the cap. Inside there's just the spindle and rotor. ^ cleaned up sufficiently to handle and measure ..and man were they filthy ! oil pump parts and drive in the left hand tray and the oil filter housing and can in the right. - - - The oil pump is visually assessed to ensure there's no scoring or otherwise damaged bits, and then checked for wear with four measurements. The first measurement is to place a straight edge diagonally across the case (not on the screw holes but next to those on each diagonal), and then to measure from that straight edge to the top surface face of the rotor and spindle, with feeler gauges. This should not exceed 0.004" (Haynes manual says 0.005"). Incidentally, a new pump is within tolerance with 0.0025" end float. Mine was at 0.004" on one side and 0.005" on the other. This can be corrected by ensuring the cap is perfectly smooth and then taking the top edge of the housing down. I recently did this on my Norton Commando's oil pump, rubbing the surface down on emery paper laid on a flat surface. I took that down to a little less than 0.001" clearance. The second measurement (below) is between the tip of the spindle's vane to the rotor. I did this four times ..to check each tip. ^ the maximum acceptable clearance (wear) is 0.010". Each of mine were 8-1/2 to 10 thou. ..so not brilliant and only just within tolerance. I then turned the rotor over in the housing and this reduced by 0.001". I would be interested to know what this tolerances were when new.? The third measurement, I don't see in the book but is mentioned in 'dimensions and tolerances', and that's the clearance of the spindle shaft within the body, which should be 0.001" - 0.003". It's not easy to measure accurately in the spindle versus the pump body's hole ..but the spindle can be rocked a little while doing the (above) spindle tip to rotor measurement. This one rocked by a difference of about 0.0015" as best I might measure it. ie., plus or minus 3/4 thou at the top of the spindle vane. I'll take that as being well within tolerance. Again according to the specs, a new pump might have 0.003" clearance between the spindle and the bore it sits in.! And then the fourth measurement is between the rotor and the pump housing (below) .. ^ this should not exceed 0.010" (Haynes manual says 0.008"). Mine was 0.005" so comfortably within tolerance. Oddly a new pump is within tolerance if this is 0.0075" I'm now faced with that contemporary chestnut of, sticking with the O.E. but part worn pump, or to buy a replacement quality after-market part ? I must admit.., with the tolerances possible (according to the Triumph workshop manual) within a new pump - I can't see much benefit in buying a replacement ..unless I could go to the store and measure it for size (before purchase) - and then I might buy a new spindle and rotor. But I don't suppose that would be wholly agreeable.? So be it. I'm quite sure after I reduce the end float of this pump to 0.001" or less, and then only ever used SAE40 or 50 weight engine oil and a good oil filter - this pump would give good pressure for many a year. Also it's not difficult to remove and refurbish it ..any other time the sump is off. Pete. p.s. Is it just me, or does the following from one of our best known international suppliers, not instill confidence. ?

. just a suggestion < here > because this company sell all sorts of sizes and thickness. But if you select 3mm thick, and a ' sample piece' its not so expensive ..and yet 400 x 200mm is big enough, to make washers from - for several cars.!

^ Thanks guys. I'll assume it to be a Triumph 2000 flywheel and take it along to the next TSSC club meet, in the new year, to see if that might be confirmed. For a couple of hours this afternoon, I started into the first of many dirty jobs . . ^ second scrub ^ The combustion chambers of cylinders 3 and 4. The latter being the one which had been full of flaky rust. Assuming the exhaust seats (..and the valves ?) are replaced when going unleaded, then I think only #4 inlet valve need be swapped out for one which is not pitted with rust. Perhaps I can find a good used one to save a few quid. And although the pitting in this combustion chamber will result in that cylinder have a very slightly different swirl, volume and therefore compression ratio - I'm guessing it'll not make a huge difference for a standard road car. I'll have the cylinder head pressure tested, but I wonder what will the engineering company need from me (aside from the head itself) to do this ? Might I also ask - should I use a chemical rust treatment inside the water jacket & thermostat housing. And then, after the head has been pressure tested - what's best to paint it with.? I have POR15 ..but haven't checked to see if that's suitable for this application and the temperatures involved. The same question will apply to when I pull the cylinder sleeves out and wish to treat the block's water jacket. Thanks, Pete.

Rubber washers are used to accommodate any slight angular difference between the chassis bracket and the body tub, and at the same time to help isolate vibration1 between the two and prevent harmonics, to prevent the paint from chipping around the fastening holes, and then to also to seal the holes from water ingress. Each of these purposes give a clue to where they are best used. And even if thick rubber washers are used, in let's say eight places along the length n' breadth of the chassis - the surface friction of well clamped rubber when through bolted means there's imperceptible movement between the body and chassis. Certainly, chassis flex will be very much more noticeable when you jack a car up in one corner and check your door gaps. It takes an enormous force over let's say a 4 x 40mm dia reinforced rubber washer to even compress it 0.5mm, so the backing washers, in steel or stainless, also need to be thick and of a similarly large diameter. If you want to read more < here > is a link to Fabreeka. I think you’ll find working with 3 or 4mm thick reinforced rubber sheet much easier to cut and punch the holes through. Then glue two together to give the thickness you require. BTW just last week I picked up a set hole punches from Aldi, for making clean holes in tarps rubber sheet etc. I think the set of different sized was less then £4. *1 Out of passing interest ; Rover cars were very reluctant to give up using chassis construction because a most important criteria to them was in the isolation of transmission, suspension and road noise (for overall interior quietness). Although their P5 was introduced in '58, the gentlemanly refined P4 (chassis car) remained in production through to '64, whereas Vauxhall had introduced their unitary construction in 1937. Other companies like Morris made the move with their immediately post war models, and even Jaguar went monocoque in 1955.

I was thinking TR6 but I might only guess I'm wrong. It's ring gear is 11-7/8" tip of tooth diameter, and approximately 1-1/4" thick (excluding dowels). Conversely the TR3's ring gear is 11-5/8" tip of tooth diameter. And I'm guessing the TR3 and TR4, and therefore the TR6 are the same diameter, as the 4A and TR6 clutch are the same. So I'd say you're probably on the ball. I'll take it along to the next TSSC meeting at the Sorrel Horse. I'm sure someone will confirm or otherwise. Thanks, Pete

. Out of interest, this is David Vizard's take on lighter flywheels. . Flywheel The standard flywheel is, on the 6-cylinder engines, good for giving a smooth tickover, but for a tuned motor it is unnecessarily heavy. The four cylinder engines also have a heavy flywheel. For these engines, you can have one of two different flywheels depending on the type of clutch fitted, the one being heavier by far than the other. To lighten the flywheel, it is simply mounted in a large lathe and machined as shown for the relevant flywheel in Fig.46. Practically any machine shop has a lathe large enough to tackle such a job, so there should be no problem getting it done. It must be pointed out that a lighter flywheel neither increases the power nor makes the car faster. It does, however, allow the car to accelerate faster because of the reduced mass which the engine has to speed up. To clarify the point a little, let us look at a simple example in assuming we have reduced the effective weight of a fly-wheel by 10 lb. While the car is in bottom gear the engine rpm to driving wheel rpm is 16 :1 ie. the engine turns 16 revs to the wheel’s one rev. The 10 lb. flywheel weight reduction is equivalent (in acceleration) to reducing the weight of the car by 160 lb. that is 16 x 10 lbs. When we change to second gear which, which is about 12 :1 overall ratio, the gain, because of the lighter flywheel, will be 12 x10 lbs which is 120 lbs. By the time we get to top gear, the effect of the lighter flywheel will only be about the same as lightening the whole car by 4 x10 lbs. or 40 lbs. With the exception of one of the TR4 flywheels the effective weight saving (in its machining) will not-be as great as 10 lbs. A more likely figure is between 6-8 lbs., but this is enough to make a noticeable difference. By way of a bonus, the lighter flywheel also enables snappy gear changing when going down the box.

. Today I had a parcel arrive through the post.. upon opening it seemed as if the mice had nested in it.. Thankfully no furry critters scampered out ..and once the packaging was swept up I was left with a very nice looking . . TR3 flywheel, with resurfaced clutch face and new starter ring. This weighs in, on my vintage bathroom scales, at (about) 8-3/4 kg. So what's that ¬ 19 - 20lb +/- couple pound. That's said to be about 10 lb lighter than the standard TR4A one. In fact it's actually very similar in weight to the flywheel which was sold to me with the engine (below left) but which is wrong one . . . ^ unknown flywheel (above & below) left. TR3 flywheel (above & below) right. The starter ring supplied with the TR3 one is a slightly small diameter than that of the unknown one. And as you can see the mounting hole pcd is very different. The unknown is about 2-1/4" whereas the pcd on the TR3 flywheel and my TR4A's crankshaft are both about 3-1/4". The bolt-holes match but the dowel size is different dia. (but same place) so that flywheel needs to be drilled a little. I understand the TR3 one will also need to be drilled for the diaphragm clutch, but otherwise I hope it and the starter ring are good for the TR4A. I'm guessing the unknown flywheel is off a six cylinder. But can anyone definitively identify it please ? Pete

In general ; metal body washers are generally used where the fastening holes are slotted for adjustment. Thicker or thinner rubber washers are used to shim the mountings to an appropriate height, so the body sits flat. They tend to vary from one car to another because they adjust for production tolerances - which is why there is no definitive instruction. One generally needs to best guess, and then to lower the body onto the chassis to check to see which rubber washer is loose. Then add a little more thickness so they are all equally pinched in place. The rubber strips are there to prevent metal to metal contact / chafing and squeaking as the body n' chassis twist as you drive along a road. The mating surface, along the top of chassis and underside of the body panels, are never perfectly flat. So along flanges, and in other places where one plate is welded as an overlap on top of another, and/or where the weld itself stands proud of the mating surface - the rubber fills in the gaps / the spaces between the two. These vary along the length of the car, and from one side of the car to the other, & again between panels - so you need to select an appropriate thickness of rubber to fill the voids and make things relatively flat. It's a matter of taking your time and not worrying too much about what was original. After all you often find two seemingly identical cars feel different when you drive them. One feels taught and doesn't squeak while the other is somewhat loose and rattling. On the last car I did (admittedly not a Triumph) - I used rolls of sticky-back neoprene bought off from an ebay shop. Different shore hardness, different widths and different thicknesses are available. It's easy to mark and then use a punch to make holes through it for bolts, before the paper over the sticky back is peeled off. Fabric reinforced rubber body washers are also inexpensively available in different sizes. I use them a lot on the vintage motorcycles I restore, as spacers between the fuel tank and the frame, and also under the mudguard bracket's screw fastenings. Hope that helps, Pete.

. Yesterday was a bit of a wash out. It revolved around a set of TR4 fibreglass wings. . . The basket-case TR4A (..I’m still hoping buy in America) has GRP wings supplied & fitted in 1965 by SAH. These had slightly wider flared arches to accommodate the magnesium alloy wheels, likewise supplied by that company. In subsequent years ; one rear wing had been smashed and a replacement (without the wider flare) had been found but never fitted. And those wheels have been sold off and replaced with a set of Mustang alloys, also of wide profile but styled rather like a minilite. I’m happy to have fibreglass wings on my car, not least because I want a driver which is less precious to drive as a daily or in a spirited way ..and also because I also value the weight savings in each corner of the car. I used to build kit-cars with fibreglass panels ..so GRP doesn’t worry me. However the wide minilite-style alloy wheels would (imo) look better on a TR6 or 8. For the TR4 I’d be happier with the original skinny steel wheels. There was a scruffy but otherwise good set of standard TR4 wheels on ebay ..but they were up in Barnsley, Yorkshire. So, before I bought them, I asked around on another car forum to see if anyone might convey them south for me. Very kindly a chap living in Barnsley, Simon, said his parents lived in Lincolnshire and that he could bring them that far when he visited. And another equally generous gentleman, Keith, said he worked up in Lincolnshire a couple of days a week, and otherwise lived just 10 miles from myself here in Suffolk. And he too would gladly bring them down for me. Excellent ! ..with that arranged I bought the wheels and let the parties get together for the exchange and conveyance. Simon collected the wheels from the seller, but since then (8 months ago) the conveyance didn’t managed to happen. Communication issues, illness, a change of job for Keith, and so forth. So I said ; no problem I’ll drive up and collect them myself from Lincolnshire. Then recently, a set of fibreglass TR4 wings also came up for sale on ebay, which I thought would be useful as repair panels ..because those on my car were mismatched and quite probably damaged after all these years. The seller was in Lincolnshire, but that was less of an issue because I need to get up there to collect the wheels anyway. I ‘won’ the set of four panels for £41. Great. I was happy with that. However, it turned out the wheels are still up in Barnsley, and Simon is very poorly ill and not driving. I had thought the wheels were left at his parents. Expletive - This wasn’t going to plan.! It’s not economical for me to drive all the way up to Barnsley for a £50 set of scruffy steel wheels. And so unless other arrangement might be made they can be scrapped. I really ought to collect the grp panels. Never mind I thought “look on the bright side.” I’d not been to Lincolnshire since the 1980’s when I exhibited the kit cars at Newark, and so this ought be a pleasant drive in the Norfolk and Lincolnshire countryside. Sunday was forecast to be beautiful sunny day, so on Saturday I dropped the seller a note to ask for a collection address and if it would be OK. Unfortunately I didn’t get a reply until midday Sunday ..which was then too late. And the address was another 25 minutes further away, so now some 3½ hours drive away. Still the weather forecast was dry for yesterday (Monday), so I rescheduled to drive up then. That was a mistake. Here in Suffolk we sort of joke about “Norfolk time” being slower than anywhere else. Lincolnshire drivers appear similarly inclined. And the road network north from the A14, at Newmarket, to Lincolnshire is founded in the agricultural 1950’s. Of course nowadays the amount of traffic and number of HUGE lorries is quite contemporary. And then there’s a flood basin around the ‘ Six-Mile Road’. Apparently it’s there to protect Cambridge. The flood gates had been opened and the flood plain was well.. flooded.! It was only a ten mile diversion (..either way) but in that stream of traffic, at that pace .. wasn’t part of my idea of a pleasant drive in the countryside. And of course ; those panels weren’t worth the additional cost of £50 in diesel. Hey Ho !

. I've never been to Ireland but it's on my list to visit in the TR. I've read in a biking magazine there's a great coastal road in your corner of the green Isle. I've generally got on very well with the Irish, so I very much look forward to getting across there for a month or two touring around. Your issue is an awkward one. I must admit I'd be loathe to spend £2000 on a Herald's motor, unless it was a a special car to me. I probably be looking for another motor to drop in for the time being. Things have a way of sorting themselves out ..and your original family concern might come back into play after a few months.? Pete

. Colin, Sorry for the family of your original engineering company. It can be tough on small businesses. I guess Comiskey got it wrong.. They perhaps ought to have said "the price is £xxx for the rebore including piston, rings, etc". And then you say you already have those parts, the company would just have given you the larger price for the rebore. That way you'd not have known that one subsidized the other. You don't say how much more expensive it is now. Very likely they'd want to do the same with other engineering services - like regrinding the crank .. ie., they'd also supply the bearings / shells + new bolts + anything else. If it's too much then you have a choice. Surely there are other companies within traveling distance. One company I spoke to said they couldn't guarantee the engine rebuild unless they also installed it in the car. While I understand the viewpoint that an engine needs to be appropriately tuned for it to survive in good order, I did not proceed to ask them to also rebuild the carburettors nor distributor, re-core its radiator, nor even to run the car in for me ! ..each or all of which might possibly have been a (similarly logical !) condition of their guarantee. I simply concluded our conversation and phoned someone else. More often than not, I'm led by the tone of conversation. And if I'm not very comfortable with a company, or something doesn't ring true - I take my money and walk away. In short ; I expect to be treated with a mediocre of respect - but need to trust them both as engineering professionals and as businessmen of integrity. There are many of us, who ask for a quote from a number of companies - but only one gets the job. That means all the others, who have likewise spent their time n' trouble working through the quote (..and getting the latest most competitive prices ..ha !) have lost that time.. but it is a usual business 'overhead', and like that in any industry. My friend who's a self-employed builder spends many an evening working up quotes. However hard he tries - he doesn't win all the contracts. And if he did - then his prices would be too low ! The difference is that he also spends his own time and money on fuel driving around to people's home to see each job in person. Only commercial contract engineering companies do this. All of those dealing with private customers expect you to do the hauling ..because once on their counter top - you're less likely to pick it up and walk away again. Commit ..before you know the price. They are simply trying to pressure you into making the commitment with them ..which to me implies their pricing isn't so competitive &/or they really can't be arsed to deal with customers. Btw., it's probable that "final price" will be an open-ended estimate and not a fixed-price quote. ' Engineering / Engine rebuild ' companies almost always estimate their prices for rebuilding tasks. Because without cleaning and thorough examination and some testing - they simply couldn't know what work is actually involved. The exception is a fixed and all-encompassing price ..for a complete job. I received one of those for this TR engine it was £4000 labour and £3000 in parts and machining. I thought I might possibly rebuild a Triumph 4-cylinder engine for less than that.! Conversely ' Engineering machine shops' very often have a set price-list, for example a local shop's price is £16 + vat for each crankshaft journal to be reground. To this company it doesn't matter whether that journal is for big end, or mains, or for an oil seal. Bar something extraordinary being found - it's a fixed price. I didn't ask them how much a re-bore was because the TR engine has wet liner cylinder sleeves, where it's often cheaper just to throw away worn pistons and cylinders and fit brand new ones. " but then it's the original engine, which I want to keep with the car " The engine I'm doing here is an engine I bought to keep me and this project moving along through the winter months. Likewise I want to keep the original engine with the car, so will most likely restore that another winter, once this one is installed and the car is being enjoyed ..albeit as a rolling restoration. Thereafter I can swap engines over and either keep this as a known-to-be-good spare, or else sell it along with a pile of receipts. As long as I'm not silly with glitzy bits I don't think I'll loose anything. I gather many owners of the earlier side-screen cars would like a nicely rebuilt 4A engine at a sensible price. Who knows, perhaps I'll never get around to restoring the original engine. But does it matter as long as I keep it with the car ? There again it may not be as good as this one to restore. Or else I might re-build it to a different spec. This one is to be soft tuned but with bags of torque for comfortable long-legged touring, and so perhaps the other might have a peaky camshaft, high compression and twin Webers ? Pete.

. . In the meantime I've been pulling together a list of parts, and also a list of engineering services I might require to recondition this engine. That may seem not so difficult ...you think ! Perhaps I'm going about it the wrong way, but most suppliers & engineering companies do not freely offer such a list. Whether a deliberate policy or not., it does make comparison rather difficult. I guess the average customer chooses a supplier and basically works through their website, or calls them up for prices and to order. Personally speaking I don't have a prince's budget ..so like my grocery shopping - I need to compare prices. Furthermore I'd rather like to know what I need and the brand I'll be buying (as an indication of the quality i might expect) before I buy. After all, whose not been there before ? Where you've bought a bundle of stuff and then find you need a few more ' little bits'. Aside from the hassle and delay ..just as you were ready to put things together again, the postage on those small items is always disproportionate to their value. So, unreasonable as I might be - I'd like a list, either printed out so I can scribble across it, or else one which is compatible with the Microsoft programs on my computer. Tom at TR Revington was kind to help me out with such a list and their prices. That was in picture .jpg format which would have been fine to print out, but tbh I'd much prefer a spreadsheet. Online I translated their two page .jpg to .txt and then I formatted that. I had to individually select text and change those from upper to title case (because my dyslexia struggles with everything being in upper case Ariel font). I then copied that into Excel and corrected the cell spacing, changed the order of the words in many listings - so items might be appropriately grouped together, and finally I coded and sorted that into listings - such as ; fastenings, gasket, engine block, camshaft & timing, cylinder head, and such forth. I also added columns to include VAT and to multiply number required by the price. I systematically pulled in other parts listing from other suppliers and engineering company's ..which I'd taken over the telephone and hastily written on the back of envelopes or across a journalist's note pad. Naturally, the terminology used was different, as was the methodology in listing, so they were changed. Hey ho.! The following list is work-in-progress, and is just the parts list with the engineering services. So far, there are figures from one engine re-builder and two Triumph parts suppliers (differentiated by colour of text). It was a fair amount of work, but now at last - I'm beginning to see what might be need ..and how much it all adds up to. Also I can begin to prices compare side by side. Now that I have the bulk of the list, adding any other item or prices will be easy. My next edit will be from Moss's excellent on-line buying website, referring to the exploded diagrams to hopefully pick up on any minor bits which are otherwise missing. It's a very good resource and I'm sure why Moss have been so successful in business. Of course it doesn't copy easily into a spreadsheet ! Their customers just scroll down the pages and tick the boxes ..and then pay by card. For many I guess it's just too time consuming to compare prices, so Moss wins the whole order. Talking about which I found similar with the engine re-builders. The price of their parts and engineering services are on the whole carried across from their previous job's prices, plus a little ..just in case. In fairness, the engine re-builder don't have the time to chase around for the best prices anyway. One company in effect said '"this is out (total) price for a 4-cylinder TR engine rebuild ..bar any infrequent issue. We don't have the manpower to provide quotes with a breakdown." Another instance of this, from another engine re-builder, was the price for pistons & liners @ £522. These were 89mm dia but I had found them on offer for £255, for 87mm dia, from one of the suppliers. Had I accepted his quote and given him my engine to rebuild then I doubt if I'd have seen that £267 difference knocked off the bill. This was a biggie but the little items all add up too, which is why I'm obliged to shop around. Most obviously missing from my own list - is the prices for valves and valve seats. It seems as if these are usually priced as a whole by the engineering service ..and their price includes the valves and seats. That of course tells me nothing about the brand / quality of parts being used, nor does it tell me if all are being replaced or only the exhaust valves (for unleaded). And does that including new valve guides ? I guess knowing this will take further conversation &/or is otherwise taken on trust ..according to the reputation of the company involved. It's all rather hit n' miss though. I'll let you know in a couple of weeks what the breakdown is and of course the total. Pete.

. This afternoon I did a drastic thing .. I stripped off in the cold I started at the bottom and worked my way up... ^ the figures on the card below the row of big-end shell was the torque required to undo each. So the slackest was 62.5 lb.ft and the toughest was 77.5 lb.ft. Torque setting to do them up is 55-60 lb.ft. ^ the other big end journals were all in slightly better condition (visual assessment only) than #3 which is the one I pulled first because it felt slackest. Thankfully no deep scoring on any. Then it was back to working from the top . . ^ i do wonder if that was the original water hose.? (its part number is printed on the upper side). ^ rocker shaft lifted off easily. Push-rods pulled and poked through cardboard (..old school :) Sump temporarily back on (..just four bolts) so that the engine might rest on the m/c lift. And the winch used to raise the head As is my way I had also recorded the torque required to loosen the head bolts. These ranged from 65 to >115 lb.ft. (which is as high as my larger torque wrench goes). The tightening spec is 100-105 lb.ft. One stud was missing when I got the engine, but of the others x6 released at 90 lb.ft or less. ^ as soon as the nuts were released the head lifted freely over its studs. That is very unlike the aluminium motorcycle engines I'm used to working on. As I have not lifted one of these cylinder heads for 25 years I couldn't recall how heavy it was going to be. As it happens I could have managed without the winch ..but using it did make life very easy indeed. The head gasket is the Stanpart copper composite, and when wiped of oil looks as bright as a new one. ^ inside., first impressions was a shock. ^ this is #4 cylinder. It was #2 and #3 cylinders which had their valves open. I assumed it was the latter which was locked with rust in the bores. But this is the one full of rusty crud. Btw it's all pretty loose, and most likely it looks even worse because it's soaked in my pinkish coloured penetrating-oil mix. ^ first impressions but after just a minute or two scraping and wiping it off ..it looks better than most I have seen for sale . . ^ with a decent clean up and those exhaust valves replaced for unleaded ones, I'm hoping it will be a decent engine. That's its. three hours in the cold garage was enough for me today. Pete.

Thanks John, I had searched for 'digit scales' without putting in 2kg, and found a whole lot of offerings for jewelry scales upto 200g.

not home made, but for home use . . Any recommendations for what or where to buy digital scales for balancing the weight of con-rods and pistons etc. I'd guess 1/10th or 1/4 of a gram would be accurate enough for a road car, but what's the weight of forged steel conrod, with cap + 87mm piston, rings and gudgeon pin ? Thanks Pete

. I'm suffering with a bad tooth at the moment and spent a lot of time on the phone yesterday trying to get immediate care. That was not successful ..but a call again this morning to my own dentist, which had given a 3 week waiting time, has now fitted me in tomorrow morning. This is pertinent to our conversation only insomuch as I got very little done yesterday, but did speak with The TR shop. Fyi., their sale is on until the end of January, and also before the end of December they offer free shipping on orders over £120. So I am in haste to get the discounted prices, at last on the bigger items. I also spoke to Enginuity who were very generous with their time and advice. As a consequence., and if my own are not re-useable with a new set of piston rings, then I'll go for the 87mm piston size. Enginuity suggested they prefer not to machine the scroll off the rear, but prefer to assemble it very closely, and then they have no issues with it. I had otherwise read that sometimes the rear rubber seal, because it is split, can still leak a little - but generally I got the impression that most owners appeared in favour of that mod. Have I misinterpreted this in-so-much as many of you do in fact prefer the scroll.? The company I'm otherwise talking to to have the engine rebuilt says they have no problems with the Landrover type seal, not least because the crank is freshly reground to take it so there's no corrosion. Any way, today I checked the end float. Using feeler gauges might not be the most accurate way but it's a certainly a very quick n' easy way to do things . . End float in the crankshaft should be 0.004" to 0.006" and this engine is at 0.011" so new thrust washer will be required. Not a biggie as those are just £7.58 + VAT as set. I also visually checked all the cam lobes, and they seem to be in remarkably good shape. . . I don't know that I need to change that, but in case spoke to Newman Cams - and to regrind this to their very popular for torque / road use PH1 profile will cost £100, plus another £40 for new cam followers. I then moved on to check the big end shells. I wanted to see the state of the journal and also check to see what size they were. . . ^ this is much better than I might have hoped for from a 1965 engine, not least from a car which clearly hadn't had frequent oil changes. ^ Standard size and if I'm not mistaken the boxed in [G] is for Glacier which was OE spec. So although I haven't measured for oval wear on the journal, nor have I yet checked the other caps - I'm hoping for no more than a 0.010" regrind. That's all very pleasing. I also spoke with Simon @ TR Enterprises to see what they have on offer, their prices and recommendations. All in all very helpful. And I'm compiling a spreadsheet so I get a better picture of what machining and parts are likely to be required. Pete.