Pete Lewis Posted March 3, 2021 Report Share Posted March 3, 2021 BOTH REFS ON THAT PAGE ARE MK 2 ENGINES !!!!!!!!!!!! Aidan you have a MK1 engine youre looking at MK2 engines SPECS you have 3/8unf studs all MK2 have bigger 7/16"unf studs ALL mk1 engines and thats 2000/Vitesse/GT6 /all 4 cyl have the smaller stud diameter with a torque of 42/46 lbft so flip the pages till MK1 appears .......... any mk 1 ( thats engine not a model series MK ) Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NonMember Posted March 3, 2021 Report Share Posted March 3, 2021 9 minutes ago, AidanT said: Not that one the 7th from the bottom in the picture DanMi is still on the right track as that is clearly marked "Mk2". GT6+ is US for Mk2. You need to go up the page past the "where different from 1600" and look what the head studs on 1600s are, because 2L Mk1 is the same as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanMi Posted March 3, 2021 Report Share Posted March 3, 2021 actually looking at the cylinder head at the start of the thread, it doesn't have the push rod tubes of the early cylinder head, so it looks like a mk2 head so 7/16 studs and so the mini nuts are no use we need to know exactly what engine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AidanT Posted March 3, 2021 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2021 Please see the change in title! Have mentioned this previously 😄 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Lewis Posted March 3, 2021 Report Share Posted March 3, 2021 aha , sorry we are on assume mode so yes 7/16" it is i thought you were rebuilding a MK1 lump Dans right mini nuts of no use covid lockdowns at work Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Lindsay Posted March 3, 2021 Report Share Posted March 3, 2021 I fell foul of that with my MK1 and the Mk1 saloon engine it originally had, and torqued it to Mk2 spec.... stripped three studs before I realised. It's a very confusing way of writing things. Now with the Mk2 engine I usually get it right... And the Mini nuts I mentioned are for the Heralds... Mini nuts in name only, as I bought them from James Paddock, who sells them as uprated head nuts suitable for cars up to GT6 Mk1, but doesn't seem to list them for the Mk2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanMi Posted March 3, 2021 Report Share Posted March 3, 2021 8 minutes ago, Colin Lindsay said: I fell foul of that with my MK1 and the Mk1 saloon engine it originally had, and torqued it to Mk2 spec.... stripped three studs before I realised. It's a very confusing way of writing things. Now with the Mk2 engine I usually get it right... And the Mini nuts I mentioned are for the Heralds... Mini nuts in name only, as I bought them from James Paddock, who sells them as uprated head nuts suitable for cars up to GT6 Mk1, but doesn't seem to list them for the Mk2. they were original equipment on late minis hence the term mini head nuts, but yes now sold as upgrades for our engines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AidanT Posted March 3, 2021 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2021 No probs, ah well, back to a set of nuts and washers from Canleys! Still, an earlier discussion here was discussing just hand tightening studs! Or is that the mk1 block once more?? How the fudge do you torque up studs?????? Confused of Lincolnshire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanMi Posted March 3, 2021 Report Share Posted March 3, 2021 the studs don't need torqueing on any as far as I am aware only the head nuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Jones Posted March 3, 2021 Report Share Posted March 3, 2021 Ah.... if mk 2 head, forget the Mini nuts..... too small..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger K Posted March 4, 2021 Report Share Posted March 4, 2021 11 hours ago, AidanT said: So looking once more And yes I read it wrong but Cylinder Head stud middle section at the bottom 65 to 70??? Is that right? From the conversations above it can't be Am I misunderstanding ???? Is that a workshop manual you're using? Doesn't look like mine... I don't think the factory book refers to a stud torque. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NonMember Posted March 4, 2021 Report Share Posted March 4, 2021 17 minutes ago, Roger K said: Is that a workshop manual you're using? Doesn't look like mine... I don't think the factory book refers to a stud torque. It's the Haynes one. The factory ones don't cover the 1600 Vitesse (they group that with the Herald) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteH Posted March 4, 2021 Report Share Posted March 4, 2021 Can I just make an observation?. Using "mini" (for want of the better description) Nut`s. Gives just one sliding (frictional) surface when torqueing, Using a Separate washer, gives two. Whilst it will be marginal the actual applied torque will be very slightly different. That difference especially on the 3/8" studs could make a difference to the actual force applied to the head?. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AidanT Posted March 4, 2021 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2021 Hi - Yes it was Haynes, now checked my factory one and there is no listing for the studs, just "Cylinder Head attachment" - still 65-70 lbft So just to confirm Mk2 GT6 Engine, studs to block - shall we say "firm hand tight" AND Nuts with washers 65-70 lbft I just want to be sure on this Aidan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johny Posted March 4, 2021 Report Share Posted March 4, 2021 Dont know about the number of sliding surfaces making a difference Pete but certainly the area of the load bearing contact (washer incorporated into the nut) could do.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanMi Posted March 4, 2021 Report Share Posted March 4, 2021 2 hours ago, johny said: Dont know about the number of sliding surfaces making a difference Pete but certainly the area of the load bearing contact (washer incorporated into the nut) could do.... I think if either of these had been a concern then Rover would have changed the torque specs when they changed the Mini engine to the washer incorporate nuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Lewis Posted March 4, 2021 Report Share Posted March 4, 2021 3 hours ago, AidanT said: I just want to be sure on this yes thats fine Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AidanT Posted March 4, 2021 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2021 Cheers Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AidanT Posted March 12, 2021 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2021 So quick update Block and flywheel skimmed Bores honed Crank polished Bearings and rings ordered Now starts the re-construction 😊 Aidan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain T Posted March 12, 2021 Report Share Posted March 12, 2021 Good luck and have fun! Iain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AidanT Posted March 22, 2021 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2021 Yet another Novice question! I notice that my cylinders have been lined / Sleeved. Does this infer that the engine had a hard life prior to my ownership? Aidan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve P Posted March 22, 2021 Report Share Posted March 22, 2021 Could mean it was rebored enough times to make it hard to get pistons for,or maybe they thought the block casting was too thin for another one(not sure how they would know this). S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Lewis Posted March 22, 2021 Report Share Posted March 22, 2021 i would say you bore and fit a liner/sleeve if its already been bored and close to its maximum what size was on the old pistons + something ??? so they fit a sleeve to bring back to tolerance Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger K Posted March 22, 2021 Report Share Posted March 22, 2021 I've just taken my XK140 motor to the machine shop for sorting. It's an early SE engine - it has a 'C'-type head - and it's important because it is matching numbers to the car, a 1955 DHC. The head has the engine number stamped on it too, so it's important to keep them together if at all possible - it makes a big difference to the value of old Jags. It had only done 70k miles (shut away in a Sacramento garage since 1982), so the block was standard bore throughout, and when dismantling I was hopeful of just needing a hone, perhaps - but no such luck as a broken ring had dug in and taken a 0.75mm chunk out of no.6 cylinder wall. So the plan there is a sleeve in no.6, and to be safe a 0.020" rebore. Sleeves done properly are not a problem. How were your thrust surfaces on the block? I seem to remember that's a problem area on the Triumph 6-pot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AidanT Posted March 22, 2021 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2021 11 minutes ago, Roger K said: Sleeves done properly are not a problem. How were your thrust surfaces on the block? I seem to remember that's a problem area on the Triumph 6-pot. All the bearings have been replaced, possibly needn't have been done but least I know it's all good now. I don't know the engines history so it's a new start for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now