crabmaster
Member
Posts: 44
Attribute: http://www.austineighteenhundred.com.au
|
Post by crabmaster on Mar 2, 2016 11:57:51 GMT
Not sure what you mean by the terms "feed" and "nothing". Do you mean "voltage measured at the white wire"?
With the engine not running, if the BRY wire is not connected to the alternator because of a break or poor connection at the alternator (or control box), or you holding it in your hand, then the light will never come on. If you hold the BRY to earth, the light should come on since then there is a circuit and current flows through lamp through from the white wire.
By the sound of it, your problem is probably in the regulator control box (or internal regulator on the back of the alternator) - but I am not sure what type of alternator is fitted to UK cars. (In Australia, there is a small regulator control box mounted in the same place as the older generator regulator relay unit). Inside this box is a mechanical relay which switches in the earth connection when there is no alternator output. This relay may give trouble. Some alternators have a built in regulator that performs the same task.
Note, if the relay is stuck open, the light will not come on, and the alternator may not excite and produce charge.
Tony
|
|
crabmaster
Member
Posts: 44
Attribute: http://www.austineighteenhundred.com.au
|
Post by crabmaster on Mar 2, 2016 9:47:10 GMT
One side of the warning light bulb goes to +12V (white wire). The BRY wire goes to the alternator which, when the engine is not running, is at earth potential, and so the bulb lights. When the engine is running, the alternator provides voltage to the BRY wire, and so the bulb has +12V coming from both sides, and so the light goes out. If the output from the alternator drops a little below battery voltage (say because low idle speed), the bulb has a small potential across it and so glows weakly. Tony
|
|
crabmaster
Member
Posts: 44
Attribute: http://www.austineighteenhundred.com.au
|
Post by crabmaster on Jan 17, 2016 6:54:01 GMT
Chris, you've highlighted one of the most significant characteristics of Austin 1800 ownership. A lot of people like to read the news, but very few want to make the news. With the demise of the Australian club, I thought I would carry on in a different way with the 1800 Australia web site. Having done this for about three years now, I am amazed that Daryl Stephens last 20 years as editor of the old LOCA newsletter with one every month. Now that I have produced only 12 newsletters (one every quarter), I can count the total number of contributors on three fingers, yet I have 150 or so signed up as readers!
I think the Landcrab proboards forum is excellent as it is and should not be associated with a particular club. It makes it more open and available to anyone who wants to either enjoy the excellent posts, or contribute if they want to. The forum layout is quite good, and it is fairly easy to find and read past articles, plus the never ending rust work in your part of the world is a source of constant amazement and inspiration for us in Australia. Keep up the good work all of you.
Tony
|
|
crabmaster
Member
Posts: 44
Attribute: http://www.austineighteenhundred.com.au
|
Post by crabmaster on Nov 21, 2015 11:46:48 GMT
In the factory, power units were fitted from underneath at the "body drop station". The L shaped lifting lugs were attached to the rocker cover studs for transporting the power unit around the factory (see attached photo) and should not be used for engine removal or installation. Having tried both ways, I prefer to remove the front wheels, remove top hub attachments to allow drive shafts to be disconnected, remove gusset plates, take the weight of the car with a chain block hooked to the cut-outs in the front cross member panel just below the grille, and then lower the whole thing down so that the power unit is resting on a flat trolley with castors. Once the top items are detached, raise everything up leaving the complete power unit on the trolley which can be then wheeled away. When it comes time to replace, the body can be lowered back on to the power unit and everything reattached from the top, then the body lifted up and the lower items replaced. What is particularly convenient with this is that because the wheels are removed, the body and power unit are sitting much lower to the ground, which is easier on the back when leaning over the engine bay; the weight of the power unit is always on the ground; and the suspended body can be shoved around a bit to make holes for things like engine mounts line up more easily. Plus, when you are doing this on your own, the bonnet is a difficult thing to remove and replace and can now be left in place. By the sound of the previous posts, it seems everyone has their own preference and probably comes down to available head room and lifting equipment that works best for you. Tony
|
|
crabmaster
Member
Posts: 44
Attribute: http://www.austineighteenhundred.com.au
|
Post by crabmaster on Nov 20, 2015 10:12:41 GMT
Very well said Chris. I am glad to say I am in contact with Matt via the Australian 1800 web site. I do have available for members a parts list for the Kimberley. The parts list is important because you can check what is common with the 1800 - there are many differences that you would think they wouldn't have bothered to change.
The E6 engine for this car was designed at Longbridge and locally made in Australia. At 2227 cc, I think this must be the same as a UK Wolseley 6, but those with a Wolseley might like to know that this engine went to 2623 cc for the 6 cyl version of the P76 and Marina (but for North South fitment). I do not know if this larger engine can be fitted to a FWD transmission.
It's a handsome car, and a pity Haynes was not satisfied with it, but at that time he was under pressure from the management to conform to the new way of doing things.
Tony
|
|
crabmaster
Member
Posts: 44
Attribute: http://www.austineighteenhundred.com.au
|
Post by crabmaster on Nov 18, 2015 12:04:51 GMT
The Kimberley (MKI version) had twin carbs, but the MKII incarnation dropped the second carb and so Matt's car might be actually standard. Indeed, on one factory road test, a single-carb Tasman is reported as having a higher top speed than a twin carb Kimberley.
The Kimberley/Tasman was designed by Roy Haynes (who also designed the Marina). Haynes fell out with Webster during the Leyland merger and departed the company to set up his own design studio, with which he was hopeful for landing the job of designing the P76, but this was not going to happen with Webster at management level and this job went to Michellotti.
Haynes (who also designed the MKII Cortina) had an excellent record and the sharply sloping nose of the Kimberely was considered a master stroke of making the car look lower and sleeker. The enclosed C pillar hides the metalwork for the small rear opening windows of the 1800 which still exist inside. Even though the design found favour within Leyland, Haynes described the car as "highly priced, over-weight, and under-sexed". It was a case of too little and too late. Tony
|
|
crabmaster
Member
Posts: 44
Attribute: http://www.austineighteenhundred.com.au
|
Post by crabmaster on Nov 3, 2015 10:06:30 GMT
Light machine oil as suggested is the accepted lubricant. The bush itself should be made from bearing bronze, not brass (as you sometimes see on other forums for lesser cars). It is possible to avoid an overnight soaking by forcing the oil into the bush by squeezing with thumb and forefinger. If you press hard enough, you can see the oil seeping out the sides of the bush through the pores. Then you know you have got it fully soaked. For clearance, a "just noticeable" suction effect is about right. Too tight and it may seize if you have a tendency to sit at traffic light with foot on the clutch.
|
|
crabmaster
Member
Posts: 44
Attribute: http://www.austineighteenhundred.com.au
|
Post by crabmaster on Nov 2, 2015 10:03:56 GMT
It's probably too late to mention this now, but I've found it useful to check the crankshaft bush when one has the clutch in pieces. A worn bush puts a lot of undesirable load on the clutch shaft ball bearing and causes it to wear, and even turn in its alloy housing. A new bush makes the engine run much smoother since the clutch plate will be more central with the axis of rotation. That said, the bush should have enough clearance so that the shaft can slide in and out without a significant piston suction effect - that is, the clearance should not be too tight but a loose fit. How loose? good question. Tony
|
|
crabmaster
Member
Posts: 44
Attribute: http://www.austineighteenhundred.com.au
|
Post by crabmaster on Oct 17, 2015 9:37:22 GMT
Official information for many engineering standard components such as nuts and bolts, washers, and even pipe fittings, are all written down in the extensive BMC Standards documents. The picture here shows the standard that applies to the type of pipe flare that Chris is wanting to achieve. In the absence of a tool to do the flare, perhaps try finding an compression olive that would slip over the pipe and then compress it with a nut - but then you would have to saw the nut off of course to maintain the original appearance. regards Tony Attachments:
|
|
crabmaster
Member
Posts: 44
Attribute: http://www.austineighteenhundred.com.au
|
Post by crabmaster on Sept 30, 2015 7:02:29 GMT
There are two types of release bearings and three types of clutch covers. The new strapless cover, 13H3534, uses the old release bearing (chamfered bore) 13H3176. But then there was a new, new, cover 13H3888 which uses a new bearing 13H3889 (flat face, no chamfer). The first type of strapless cover 13H3888 has stepped taper on the cover thrust place, and by the look of your photo, this is what you have Chris. The new, new cover has a smooth taper on the outside of the thrust plate (which is thinner in cross section) and has to be used with the 13H3889 bearing. According to our Australian service bulletins, the part numbers are: 13H3534 (B&B 75615/11) 13H3176 (B&B 75598), and 13H3888 (B&B76082/11) 13H3889 (B&B76080).
Failure of the bearing is most likely due to over-stroking due to clutch pedal travel - puts excessive pressure on everything (including crankshaft thrust washers). Service Bulletins go on at length about measuring the stroke, and eventually (here, anyway) a new clutch pedal with reduced leverage was introduced. Main trouble is that the clutch travel depends a lot on the thickness of carpet under ones foot and is not precisely controlled, nor can it be easily adjusted. Tony
|
|
crabmaster
Member
Posts: 44
Attribute: http://www.austineighteenhundred.com.au
|
Post by crabmaster on Aug 26, 2015 13:33:35 GMT
Please note (at least for Australian cars) that there are two types of head studs - the later ones (that require 50 ftlb) have a dimple in their ends to distinguish them from earlier ones. The earlier ones should not be done up to 50 ftlb. Keep in mind that the head studs act in tension along their length to maintain clamping action. There are supposed to be close fitting thick flat washers under the nuts to prevent the nuts from being squeezed down into the rather large hole through the head. If the nuts distort by sinking into the hole, then the tension in the stud will be reduced, perhaps to nil. The threads on the nuts and studs do wear out and it is worth obtaining new items if they have not been replaced recently.
|
|
crabmaster
Member
Posts: 44
Attribute: http://www.austineighteenhundred.com.au
|
Post by crabmaster on Apr 4, 2015 8:28:34 GMT
I, for some years now, have had the pleasure of writing up a book in conjunction with Peter Davis (ex-BMC Australia Product Engineering Administration Manager) which provides details of all the identification codings for Australian produced BMC/Leyland vehicles. We are nearly finished, but we need some knowledgeable person to decipher some Leyland transmission/ancillary codes for us. Can you help?
860 889 902 905
For those who do not know Peter, he was the person responsible for allocation of the "YDO" numbers in Australia, as well as many other coding schemes for engines and what-not at the factory. Unfortunately, Peter left Leyland just before the above codes came into use, and so our documentation is incomplete for those codes.
Thanks, Tony
|
|
crabmaster
Member
Posts: 44
Attribute: http://www.austineighteenhundred.com.au
|
Post by crabmaster on Mar 21, 2015 16:43:43 GMT
Chris, I would like to add my congratulations to your magnificent effort in what must be the restoration of the century. Whenever I have felt life was getting too hard, I've often come to your thread to find nothing but good cheer in the face of continued challenge and I have come away feeling that things aren't so bad after all. Not just a restoration, but a wonderful inspiration for everyone. Tony
|
|
crabmaster
Member
Posts: 44
Attribute: http://www.austineighteenhundred.com.au
|
Engine
Feb 1, 2015 9:39:19 GMT
Post by crabmaster on Feb 1, 2015 9:39:19 GMT
Some more interesting photos. This must have cost the company a fortune: one-off castings for bell housing and transmission, totally reworked body from A pillar forward. Work on the car began in mid 1968 and took about a year to complete. It was never shown to the UK management. Tony
|
|
crabmaster
Member
Posts: 44
Attribute: http://www.austineighteenhundred.com.au
|
Engine
Jan 31, 2015 12:16:53 GMT
Post by crabmaster on Jan 31, 2015 12:16:53 GMT
Nick is quite right to mention the Australian V8 Austin 1800. This was a mock-up vehicle that was intended to demonstrate what BMC thought would be the optimum configuration for a large car to compete with local products from Ford and GMH. North South V8 engine with 4 litre capacity, front wheel drive, and hydrolastic suspension were the key design points. The engine was a Rover 3.5 with a modified single-plane crankshaft to give a 4.2 litre capacity - it became known as the "Viber8". The transmission was a Borg Warner 35 with custom castings and drop gears so as to drive the normal 1800 drive shafts. The whole front of the car had to be reworked with a new firewall, suspension displacers positioned vertically, and 4 inches added to the length of the bonnet and front guards. It also had a different steering column and rack. Its performance was reported to be outstanding, but when costed against conventional rear wheel drive, was noncompetitive and so the idea did not go any further than the demonstration vehicle. I asked Barry Anderson, what became of the car. It was last photographed in the mid 1970's about the time of the factory closure. It is said that the car was supposed to be shipped to Rover UK but no one would pick up the cost. Most of those who were involved say that the power unit eventually made it to Rover, but the body was broken up - it not being rotodipped and did not remain roadworthy for very long. So, if anyone in UK could ask at Rover if they have it, some information about its location would be much appreciated in Australia. Tony Attachments:
|
|