Here we go again...

[Roger]

Here we go again…

Seasons greetings to you one and all! I have not been active on the forum for a while (long story, topic for another thread I think…) but Christmas Holiday and sick leave due to hernia surgery finally gave me time to start thinking about my Vitesse project again.

This summer I made some progress by mating my original early Vitesse gearbox to an MkI 2000 engine (more abot that HERE). I even managed to drive it out in the Nordic sunsine for a while! Happy days. However, there was a disturbing sound from the clutch which I could not ignore. So out it came again… Youngest son helped me since I left the gearbox attached to the engine. Don’t need the WSM anymore when taking out the engine…

I found some interesting things when I removed the gearbox. There was indeed a lot of small metallic swarves in there. Shiny copper colour, turned out to be from the bush, see pictures. I also found some dents on the carriers / sleeve.

I know that early six pot engines (HC-engine) where different in many ways and crank shafts and blocks being different compared to later models, but I have no idea how (if?) gearboxes changed too (?). Obviously, you can’t mate an early gearbox to a later 2000 engine without modifications.

I don’t know what options I have a the moment, is there any chance I can modify the bush or the gearbox axle and solve the problem without too much costs? Or should I give up the idea to mate these two units and use the MkII gearbox I have? I know I have to modify the chassis then since it’s much bigger than the Vitesse gearbox. What do the brain thrust here recommend? Anyone here that had the same issue and solved it? How? I would prefer to use my Vitesse gearbox if possible. As always, thanks in advance!

Greetings from a small and dark island,
Roger

[johny]

First, one of those dents on the carrier is standard and is to stop it spinning along with the bearing. The other wear dent is because the first keeps the carrier always in the same place! Some people put a second dent in further round so that the carrier will be held in a different place and the arm operating pins will push on fresh metal.

Then Ive been reading elsewhere about the same job of installing a 3rail gearbox to a 2000 engine and one comment is that the flywheel is thicker (and heavier) than the Vitesse which could explain the problem youve had....

[Pete Lewis]

The input shaft and clutch hsg is the same for  1600 /Mk1/ Mk2 2ltrs  the lengths all remain identical 

It does look like the flywheel spigot bush has bottomed on the input shatf shoulder creating some end thrust loads 

I "guess"  all down to the crank  flange thickness   of the ME engine 

if you cant make a new dimple drill and fit a split pin in a new place as the anti rotation stop

if the throw out lever does not have a even see saw angle  add a washer under the spherical post to extend it a little.which helps the wear effect on the lever geometry 

Pete

 

[Roger]

Thanks @johny That expains the dents. I tried so many combinations of flywheels to make it fit that I don't remember which flywhell I used. Must check that....

[johny]

Sorry cant help you with the difference between flywheels but maybe the manual has dimensions...

[Pete Lewis]

there are different crank ends and flywheel  you have made a combination of the mixtures but somewhere its a bit ..tight 

Pete

[thescrapman]

MK1 2000 saloon engine will be a “long back” crank and has the phosphor bronze bush in the flywheel.

Vitesse engine is a “short back” crank ISTR. So will,have the bearing in the end of the crank I think.

I wonder if your mix and match has given a wrong setup.

how close is the flywheel to the backplate?

 

[Roger]

10 hours ago, thescrapman said:

how close is the flywheel to the backplate?

Thanks @thescrapman I suspect that some kind of machining is required on either gearbox shaft, bush or both. I will do some measurements but first I have to recover from hernia surgery. My gut feeling is that regardless of which flywheel I use, this problem will remain. To be continued....

[johny]

You could be right Roger but the contact cant be huge as the gearbox fitted so maybe you can get away with a slightly shortened bush?

[Roger]

13 minutes ago, johny said:

you can get away with a slightly shortened bush?

Thats my plan! We have a small lathe at work, I might be able to make the bush a few mm shorter there. But first I have to do some measurements and a "sanity check" to see if there is any hope that such a simple thing could solve this. The bush has a purpose and a job to do so I don't want to make it too short either. I think I have seen some posts where someone solved this by making the splines shorter on the gearbox axle. I would rather modify the bush. I can't find that post (don't remember which forum...)

Br Roger

[johny]

Yes the bush supports the input shaft mainly when under load and the gears are trying force themselves apart but fortunately thats when the clutch is engaged and theres no relative movement between tip and bush. This means that I think the shortened bush will not be any problem👍

[Pete Lewis]

yes  agree    a shorten bush seems the best and simplest  way forwards  

the preload may have had some wear effect on the input shaft bearing worth a look see while  its apart 

Pete

[Steve P]

Can`t tell you about differences but i can tell you what i did when putting a 2.5 in my Vitesse with a saloon box.

I used the Vitesse flywheel to save weight as the Saloon one is thicker and the same weight as the moon.

The spigot bush had to be machined into the Vitesse flywheel.Then the issue was the length of the bearing carrier,with the Vitesse one there was too much travel,i had to experiment with the shorter one but ended up with a mid size one,not sure what it`s from but i can probably find a picture.Obviously this involved hoiking the box out several times.A pain.

All good but it only lasted 10k miles before the clutch was worn out so now i have a paddle clutch.

Steve