Jump to content

Extra washer L hand front diff mounting


Unkel Kunkel
 Share

Recommended Posts

This was discussed recently, at some length  I know ,but  since then  I came across this

In the  Practical Classics Restoration Book p 48,

In mentions that the extra washer L hand  side only “ to counter attack torque and prevent knocks“

It is shown and listed (part no51) in the Moss catalogue.

At least this shows where it is supposed to go

This  perhaps suggests not original spec but  it is an “Add- on” .

- Mk1V did not have one.

365C1FB0-3860-4323-8C4B-8EB875C05F97.thumb.jpeg.34b4f526ba99da89ee7cde56e2af56a1.jpegD758B822-7F95-4F69-9610-0BBCD1A27076.thumb.jpeg.84b1f012341aac7bf35bba3d085086e3.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's interesting.

I have just refitted the diff to my Vitesse Mk2 replacing all the existing rubbers with Poly Blue.

The mounting sequence on both sides is upper poly - diff unit - lower poly - large washer (corresponding size to the lower poly) - Nyloc nut. I would add that the washer is probably a good 2mm thick on each side.

The washer shown as 51 in the diagram appears to be the correct one, if you compare its diameter to that of the lower bush diameter. I would say that washer 50 is the extra item being sequential in reducing dimension towards the nut.

In essence the set-up is the same with both cars and I had no idea that such an "add-on" was in existence. I can understand the rationale behind it, but just relying on another washer to counteract the torque (when moving forwards, not reversing) is odd I have to say.

I'm intrigued to read other replies concerning the point.

Regards.

Richard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there a whole debate on here a while ago

odd they did some attempt at neutralising torque on the 1500 but not on the 2 ltrs.

the only difference  there that comes to mind would be  1500  having a swing spring 

and the 1300 having less torque than the 1500 didnt have a problem ??????

just some ramblings 

Pete

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say Pete, that I have never experienced any negative issues with the set-up I have mentioned above.

Agree with your view on the lower cc models compared to 2Ltr vehicles.

Is this really an issue pertaining to torque or is it a symptom of wear on other components leading to such ??

Regards.

Richard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, classiclife said:

That's interesting.

I have just refitted the diff to my Vitesse Mk2 replacing all the existing rubbers with Poly Blue.

The mounting sequence on both sides is upper poly - diff unit - lower poly - large washer (corresponding size to the lower poly) - Nyloc nut. I would add that the washer is probably a good 2mm thick on each side.

The washer shown as 51 in the diagram appears to be the correct one, if you compare its diameter to that of the lower bush diameter. I would say that washer 50 is the extra item being sequential in reducing dimension towards the nut.

In essence the set-up is the same with both cars and I had no idea that such an "add-on" was in existence. I can understand the rationale behind it, but just relying on another washer to counteract the torque (when moving forwards, not reversing) is odd I have to say.

I'm intrigued to read other replies concerning the point.

Regards.

Richard. 

Strange, isn’t it ? 

 But ......part 50 is quoted  as “2”

               part 51 “ one,   Left hand side only”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to stick my neck out here.

My belief is that when "50" was quoted it eventually proved to be unsuitable for the job required. In essence the washer was not wide enough nor thick enough to deal with the torque placed upon it. As a result the washer started to cut in to the lower rubber mounting - in effect weakening the properties of that rubber bush and over a period of time starting to cause the knock as movement became more apparent due to the wear.

To compensate this, an additional washer "51" was identified that reflected the width of the lower rubber bush and also thick enough to absorb any distortion via the effect of torque. 

It appears that most of the torque occurred on the L, hence the addition of the washer - whereas the R did not show such signs and was probably not considered worthy of having an additional washer. To deploy 1x washer only was probably cost related, which to be honest is quite bizarre if that was the only rationale behind that.

I may be completely barking up the wrong tree and way off radar (or just completely barking !!). But when you consider the effect of the torque on the L bush and the diagram above showing the varying washer sizes, I believe that there may be an element of fact to it.

Regards.

Richard.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked the question a while ago as I was convinced that it had been left off my '80 Spit 1500. Believe me, I've tortured myself over this washer... I got one through Moss 

Fitting it physically compressed both the upper and lower mounting rubbers; the various manuals I have clearly state that when everything is correctly tightened up it should be possible to rotate the lower rubber mounting. To me, this isn't positive location of the diff.

The mounting stud that this washer is fitted to is stepped and the internal diameter of the washer dictates where it goes, order-wise. The effect it had on my car was to alter the ride height side-to-side (if I remember correctly) by 1/4". When you see the distortion it causes to the mounting rubbers (blue polybush on mine) it is quite worrying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you leave it in place,Derek?

 - I could better understand it replacing  rather than adding  to the standard washer perhaps. 

To further perplex, the official Triumph SpitMk1V  Repair  Manual makes no mention of the “extra” washer but  for some reason refers to the pair of standard washers as”special”  though they just look like flat  washers to me.

 It also mentions that when fully torqued up it should be possible to   rotate the lower rubber  bush with one’s fingers  which ,as Derek points out,  you won’t be able to do.

 

A57654BB-7A6B-47EF-92BE-77B99100E123.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is just a flat washer, 1/4" in thickness and yes, I took it back off. I started thinking that if it altered the position of the diff it must alter the alignment relative to the gearbox which wouldn't do the gearbox, diff or propshaft any favours. I was thinking along the same lines regarding it replacing rather than in addition to the original one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The torque setting is the same as the Mk2 Vitesse and I set mine to 33lbs.

Only 1x washer each side and that is the washer that matches the width of the lower bush perfectly and about 5mm thick (thicker than I originally quoted).

I doubt vey much that I can move the lower bush let alone twist it around.

The set-up for the Spitfire and Vitesse appears to be mirrored as one would expect.

Regards.

Richard.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes,  someone must  have known , Pete.

They are  probably  , well  err...” not contactable by normal means”now, unfortunately.

The only thing  a thicker  washer might be useful for,I can think of,would be if the bushes became squashed/worn/slack, and the L side would take the torque,then a thicker washer could  be a simple way of taking up the slack without the need to dismantle a lot (as t’other end of the bolt is welded to the chassis frame )?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...