|
Post by steve4487 on Mar 28, 2019 20:15:32 GMT
I know rad flush has been used but I have it on good authority from a very picky friend of mine that the flush made by this company is the best there is. I know it's on the other side of the world and it's expensive compared to what is available here but it does do the job so might be worth a try. liquidintelligence.com.au/products/engine-cooling-system-cleaning-kitSteve
|
|
|
Post by steve4487 on Mar 9, 2019 18:07:17 GMT
I've fitted one of these manifolds on my last Morris S. I found the curve of the centre branch is not as sharp which means the centre branch runs closer to the carb float chambers, this resulted in the fuel boiling. To get round this issue I used insulated spacers with longer carb studs which moved the float chambers just far enough away to stop the fuel boiling.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by steve4487 on Nov 28, 2018 20:53:56 GMT
David.
I've always found a simple way to stop a car being driven away is to put a hidden switch in the LT lead between the coil and distributor. I find this better than doing the same to the feed to the coil as this can easily be bypassed by supplying another 12 volt feed. Steve
|
|
|
MOT
May 20, 2018 17:03:50 GMT
Post by steve4487 on May 20, 2018 17:03:50 GMT
In reply to Davids comment regarding oil drops and its the MOT tester's opinion as to whether or not to fail a car. My understanding is that it is not for the tester to decided whether he thinks a car should fail or not but for him to apply the regulations as written. If it was left to the MOT testers opinion then he would be able to make up the rules and not apply them as intended. That would be the same a s a Police officer making up the law to suit himself as he saw it when in fact he is there to apply the law and not do what he thinks is right. I can see these new regs producing no end of issues. One thing to remember is that is a car fails you can appeal and have the reasons for failure reviewed. Anyone that thinks a few drops of oil is an environmental issue is frankly mad when you consider what else is produced by a car.
Steve
|
|
|
MOT
May 18, 2018 16:19:19 GMT
Post by steve4487 on May 18, 2018 16:19:19 GMT
David
This is a copy of the new regulations. You can see from the 3rd line down that the fail criteria regarding leaks is that a car will fail the MOT if the leaks pose an environmental risk and NOT if there any leaks at all. You can see the stupidity of these new regulations by reading the 4th line down where a reason for failure will now include if the brake discs or pads are missing. So presumably prior to these new regulations a car could have passed the MOT with missing brake discs and or pads.. Obviously this isn't, and wasn't the case but it just goes to show that idiots are now in charge of the asylum.
Regards Steve
Some new items will be tested during the MOT.
They include checking:
if tyres are obviously underinflated if the brake fluid has been contaminated for fluid leaks posing an environmental risk brake pad warning lights and if brake pads or discs are missing reversing lights on vehicles first used from 1 September 2009 headlight washers on vehicles first used from 1 September 2009 (if they have them) daytime running lights on vehicles first used from 1 March 2018 (most of these vehicles will have their first MOT in 2021 when they’re 3 years old)
|
|
|
Post by steve4487 on Sept 16, 2017 15:27:28 GMT
I'm obviously rowing against the tide here but I have no objection at all if the requirement for not having an MOT test on cars over 40 years old is brought in as it would suit me down to the ground. I look after all my cars correctly and don't skimp on servicing or maintenance and I am qualified to do so. If I want to purchase another car I am capable of inspecting it and deciding if it is ok or not so if it is old enough to be exempt form needing an MOT that's not a problem for me.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by steve4487 on Jul 17, 2017 21:08:13 GMT
Hi Andrew
The noise when starting will no doubt be the ring gear teeth being badly worn. I assume that the original starter motor was an inertia type which would have needed a leading edge on the ring gear where as the ring gear for a pre-engaged starter doesn't. Using a pre-engaged starter on a ring gear which should use a inertia type starter will wear the ring gear as the bendix makes contact with the ring gear teeth. Another cause would be if the new starter bendix doesn't have the same amount of teeth as the original bendix which would do the same thing but obviously for a different reason.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by steve4487 on May 29, 2017 10:01:41 GMT
David
You have got it spot on with regards to modifications from standard. The Mini inveigled in that horrific had a few more modifications that nitrous and LED lights. there were suspension and exhaust changes as well. With regard to LED head lights they can't be retro fitted to cars that are not fitted with head lamp washers and automatic height adjustment as that should result in an MOT fail.
Going back to the displacers my first recollection of a displacer failure was in 1989. The normal causes for low ride height was always a leak from one of the joints or valves. In all the years that i have worked on hydrolastic suspended cars '89 was the first time i had seen a failure. That's not bad when you consider how many springs and dampers failed over the same period.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by steve4487 on May 27, 2017 20:51:14 GMT
David
As far as I am aware when a manufacturer alters a production car such as when the MGF was changed from Hydragas to coil suspension the changes would have had to be re-homologated. What constitutes re-manufacturer is a point an insurer would need to define.
From a car owners point of view any changes from a standard specification would have to be notified to an insurer no matter what that might be. Not notifying any changes can have very serious consequences see (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4544528/Harlee-Pendergast-jailed-ploughing-pedestrians.html)
Though this is an extreme case this basically involved not disclosing modifications and this applies to any car when it comes to insuring. I was involved in this case and I inspected this chaps Mini following the accident. Though some might view having to inform an insurer of any modification from a standard specification nit picking it is when sometime terrible happens such as the above an insurer will use anything they can to absolve themselves of a responsibility to pay out.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by steve4487 on May 26, 2017 20:11:51 GMT
Hello Dave
I served my apprenticeship at a BL dealer from 1971 to 1975 and I worked on Landcrabs on a very regular basis. As far as I can remember there was never a change period for the hydrolastic fluid.
When a Landcrab came in for a suspension retrim which a mechanic was allowed 1.5 hours per side the correct method was to depressurize each side in turn, evacuate and re-pressurize, checking for leak, which involved pumping up to maximum height and "scragging", which was basically shaking the fu*ck out it, letting the car settle and then re-trimming to the correct height.
When a Landcrab came in for a retrim they only ever got pumped up, and let back down to the normal trim height, run up the road and checked again. When mechanics were on bonus these jobs were good earners.
With regard to re-manufacturing hydrolastic displacers a way round this issue would have to be found as without this type of suspension system the cars would be worthless, as to use a modern expression the hydrolastic suspension system is a Landcrabs unique selling point.
Trying to adapt another suspension system would entail all sorts of issues with regard to insurance and claims should any such systems fail. This would also apply to re-manufacturing the standard units.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by steve4487 on Apr 3, 2017 19:13:17 GMT
Hi Andrew
If you add up my time he did get a bargain but I don't do it to make a profit, if I did I'd go bust. The solid driveshafts were from an auto and make absolutely no difference at all. I had the original rubber jobbys, then the quinten hazel plastic things and then the solid driveshafts and I couldn't see any difference at all other than the solid driveshaft U/J's would last for much longer if kept greased.
Regards Steve
|
|
|
Post by steve4487 on Apr 3, 2017 14:29:34 GMT
Just an update on my Morris. I have now sold it to a chap in Preston for the princely sum of £7500. Over the 3 and a bit years I had the old girl it cost me the equivalent of a pint of beer a week.
|
|
|
Post by steve4487 on Mar 15, 2017 18:47:15 GMT
Hi Andrew
The source of you noise, if welding related, could well be to do with the quality of the welding itself if the welding on your car is like some of the other welding I have seen on these cars. If there is a bad weld then it could easily be the cause of the noise. Also having your front wings bolted on is not a good idea when you consider that they are designed not only to be welded on but with a lot of welds at that. The best way to try and trace the cause of the noise is to see if you can locate any "witness" marks that might give an indication as to the location of the noise, the best indication would be a clean contact patch between to surfaces or a rusty stain indicating movement between 2 repaired areas.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by steve4487 on Feb 28, 2017 18:22:38 GMT
Hi Andrew
When a displacer lets go it will result in a sudden deflation of the suspension on the side where the failure occurred and the car will drop onto the bump stops. If your car has standard bump stops you can still drive it very slowly and if you have competition bump stops you could drive slightly quicker but still not very quick at all. Really you would be best advised to have the car recovered home as driving with a failed displacer may well draw the attention of Mr plod. I had my right rear displacer fail and it gave the following car a nice shower of hydrolastic fluid. I was only a short distance from home so drove back slowly. My car has completion bump stops and it wasn't nice to drive or to look at. Best place to source another displacer is from Tony Wood, I think mine was £100 though it had failed completely. It might be worth a good look underneath to see if there are any witness marks such as fine rust deposits that might give a clue as to the source of your noise. If I remember rightly your front wings are now bolt on so it might be worth a look to see if there are any fret marks around the wing retaining bolts, also it may well be worth taking the tie bar mountings off to see if the metal washer at the front is touching the tie bar housing.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by steve4487 on Feb 21, 2017 17:06:55 GMT
|
|