RUMCars Forum
General Category => Unusual Microcar Discussion => Topic started by: steven mandell on May 18, 2016, 12:21:43 pm
-
Just getting started attempting to fit my mystery boxett (#2) Excelsior triple engine to its correct engine / trans and differential carrying cradle (subframe).
Ran into this apparent paradox, likely the first of many, not covered by the manuals with extensive hand written notes in it that came with the car.
The engine / trans unit does not readily fit into its proper cradle. This is shown in the photo showing the whole power train tipped onto its face, and the cradle poised vertically, but like an inflexible shoe trying to be squeezed onto an over sized foot, just not possible without unlasing a tongue of sorts.
You can see part of the problem in the close up of the rear mount at the top. It shows a floating stud that readily slides sideways within the confines of its cross drilled home at the back of the trans case. It is shown slid fully to left register in the first pic, and fully to the right in the second pic.
However unless the clutch housing were to be removed, it cannot slip completely out of this confining arrangement, and therefore blocks the proper fitting of the cradle's side plate holes in alignment with its self.
I'd take off the clutch housing if I knew that this was necessary, but do not wish to open another potential Pandora's box if not.
I did something similar on my Petite's power train once, and got promptly rewarded by an oil bath.
The whole problem could have been easily avoided if the creators had seen fit to simply tap threads into the very amply endowed thick walls of this studs housing, thus allowing short non captive bolts to be fitted from both ends. So I hope that there is some redeeming mechanical value to this otherwise needlessly painful arrangement.
In addition, I cannot even be sure if the front of the engine will then be able to swing onto it's triple rabbit ear flanges when I get past this impasse, as the clearances look almost impossibly too close from this point of the time line. Be not deceived, despite the front engine cradle's mounts looking to be very close to the hole in the engine casting bottom of overall picture) - this hole in the casting is destined to fit in the cross drilled hole in its cradle's side plate a few inches away.
Anyone who has removed either the Excelsior 328, or 492 has certainly had to discover the answer to this obvious apparent paradox, and will hopefully chime in right away.
I'm amazed that I saw no mention of it in my manual.
BTW - what's with the nuts retaining the cradle mounts sheet metal flooring pieces to the side plates?
Their bolts have a perfect 7/16" dimensioned hex head, but their nylock nuts are just the tiniest too large to be squeezed into a 7/16" wrench or socket, and any other size wrench, be it imperial or metric is too loose, or won't fit on at all. I ran into a similar problem with apparent 5/16" nuts / bolts not fitting into wrenches previously in the fuel system.
-
Steven, when you talk of wrenches being "imperial or metric", which types of imperial have you tried? Both AF and Whitworth?
-
I have heard of but do not possess any devil's scorn Witless worthless sized wrenches.
They are typically not available stateside.
What does AF refer to?
Was it typical to share thread pitches with "normal" inch measured sizes, or to use the awkward off sizes only at one end of a nut bolt combo?
-
AF normally means "across flats" when referring to spanners. So an AF 3/4" spanner measures 3/4" across its jaws. Whitworth sizes are less obvious, and less handy, as they relate to the diameter of the threads on the bolt, not the width of the bolt head.
I understand that Whitworth threads are deeper than most imperial threads, so perhaps stronger and more able to put up with repeated undoing? My two Bonds use them, and I've so far been very good in keeping to them.
But, whatever, you don't expect a particular single bolt or other fixing to have nuts in different systems. Different sizes, sometimes; different systems, no!
-
American fine ? (AF)
-
American fine ? (AF)
Quite so - when it relates to threads.
-
BTW - what's with the nuts retaining the cradle mounts sheet metal flooring pieces to the side plates?
Their bolts have a perfect 7/16" dimensioned hex head, but their nylock nuts are just the tiniest too large to be squeezed into a 7/16" wrench or socket, and any other size wrench, be it imperial or metric is too loose, or won't fit on at all. I ran into a similar problem with apparent 5/16" nuts / bolts not fitting into wrenches previously in the fuel system.
My first guess is the problem is not the bolts or nuts, but your tools.
Are you using cheap Chinese wrenches?
-
Found this chart quite handy when working on my Bond. Particulalry useful when you're looking for a spanner to fit the nut rather than an official spanner size that should fit the nut had it been in perfect condition.
http://www.dbtc.co.uk/index.php?module=Content&func=view&pid=180 (http://www.dbtc.co.uk/index.php?module=Content&func=view&pid=180)
-
No Jim, been using Sears Craftsman for many years.
Besides, the bolt heads fit perfectly, but the nuts are just big enough to be a problem.
-
Whitworth often used for castings where a coarse thread is required.
I was working on the Velocette over the weekend and found normal threads being used with Whitworth heads.
Steven, you should get a set of Whitworth spanners / sockets because you will need them.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Precision-Reference-Drawing-Toolroom-Workshop/dp/B0000CLZUO
-
Ah, the joys of a Berkeley, and a tool box. In my experience you need to be aware of Whitworth, the British Empire was bolted together with it, AF and you will probably find some cyclethreaded stuff too, BA, why not. The only thing that should not be on there is Metric. The confusion occurs as some threads are the same, but the spanner size will be different. So you either sort out the fasteners into sets, or you need all the spanners you can find to do simple jobs. A botched Berkeley is a nightmare for tool requirement. Yours should not be to bad.
I was under the impression the engine cradle came apart and was then bolted to the engine. But then I never had a triple. Its a job to remember after all these years. The front has two outriggers going onto mountings in the front of the frame. The rear onto a big mount shared with Austin J2 or some such. I have had those two sections bolted together. But I do recall having to tilt one engine into a frame that was different. It was a tight fit and the front went in at an angle, was rotated and slid into place, then the studs put in. More than that is lost to 20 years or so.
-
I believe that you are right about the front needing to go in first, and at an angle, then rotated / slid into place before attempting to bolt in the unwittingly captive but loosely sliding stud between the outrigger plates in the rear trans section.
After calling several members selected from the Vintage Microcar Club's roster that revealed them to be Berkeley owners, I hit the jackpot. A Berkeley guru in Arizona who even has spares.
Through talking with him I was able to learn that there was a variety of transmissions, and engine cradle designs. I believe that cradles were often 2 piece units that bolted together at mid length.
However, mine is a proper one piece 3 cylinder variant with three rabbit ear engine mounts in the front - 2 of which that are extensions of the side plates that you refer to that continue towards the rear to pick up the troublesome rear captive transmission stud. (Reference to camperman van style of mount considered an appropriate insult.)
Trouble came from inability to separate these full length plates towards the rear to become enabled to stab them over said captive horizontal transmission stud. This is due to my models one piece full length design, with the plates welded to a cross tube at the front and bolted together at the differential housing at the rear.
The front cross tube incorperate rubber mounts at its ends, and thus suspends the whole overhanging engine / trans and separate differential unit.
SOLUTION is to unbolt the differential at the rear, so that you can flex the plates out just enough to get them around the loose rear trans captive stud slid into a centered position.
This should be just possible at the rear of the cradle even though these massive full length side plates are fully welded to the cross tube in front.
-
once (if) up and running keep a eye on the U/J's . any slop/wear will give trouble to the front axle/hub/nut/split pin arrangement , the front n/s will gave most problems . ( normal right hand thread ) , this could also transferred to the wheel nut's.
-
Not good with acronyms. What is the n/ s that you are referring to?
What kind of problems am I likely to run into with the diff?
-
Not good with acronyms. What is the n/ s that you are referring to?
OK, we're into transatlantic confusion territory here ...
(If you can have territory in the middle of an ocean??)
In British English, n/s is an abbreviation, not an acronym (we're a bit nearer to Greece, so we use acronym only when the short form is a name or word in itself, like radar, laser or NATO). Even then n/s is going to get slippery: it stands for "near side" (the side near to the kerb) ... but then whose near side! ???
On a Berkeley (pronounced BAR-clee!), it'll be the left side as you look forwards.
-
U/J is a universal joint, meaning a cruciform running in paired bearings, like a Hardy Spicer joint, as opposed to a C/V, or constant velocity, joint. The issue is that on a Berk these drive shaft are off offset lengths. The shorter the length, given the steering lock, the more the two bearings can wind up, especially if they are not mounted opposing each other on a shared shaft. The play is designed to be taken out of the system by a sliding spline on the drive shaft. All well and dandy when used in something deflecting like a drive shaft from engine to rear axle. The technology is over its limit on the Berk front suspension, really.
Many small cars had to deal with this problem on rear suspensions, and often a cushdrive coupling was included. Likewise on front wheel drive, which test the system further than most rear drives, the joint play take up is more important. Saab and such had rubber joints. Even the Mini had rubberised cruciform initially, before finally switching to CV joints after experiments with Hardy Spicer to take the excess power demands of the Cooper S.
Not content with that there is a tendency for the drive shaft nut to undo. This has ended in a wheel disappearing on private tour down the road on more than a few Berks over the years. All rather embarrassing. Its easy to see why Berks get modified, as the cheap production is great, in that it uses basic parts bin resources, but the package is not as good as the sports car image suggests. Hence a change of engine, front drive, disc brakes, or imp stuff, steering rack, move of fuel tank to rear with pump and a stiffen up of the body. A production car turned into a kit car, really. The ultimate, and normally no way back mod, was to dump a caste iron 4 pot Mini engine and subframe into the front, with some bonnet blimps, or extra chassis to raise the car. By this time much of the Berk is actually residing in the bin. But its part of Berk history whether you like them, or not.
-
Thanks AL. but please further define "wind up".
Is it simply the effective length change to the car's front track imposed by the degree of road wheel deflection causing an increase of angle of the drive shafts away from being parallel with the road surface?
If so, I suppose that king pin axis inclination would also compound this length change by virtue of its effect of raising and lowering the front end of the car whilst turning the steering wheel from lock to opposing lock.
I am a bit confused by the implication of "winding up" here. Does this refer to a drive shaft wanting to flail increasingly out of parallel to the road surface when accelerating, or any other conditions?
Your reference to rubber driveline bits included for isolation of driveline vibration leaves me doubly confounded, as I am aware of the use of rubber doughnuts in the rear suspensions of Lotus Elans, and possibly Triumph Spitfires.
These can tend to to wind up and release sequentially in a pulsatile manner, giving a sort of bunny hop character to less precisely modulated balancing acts betwixt clutch and gas pedal during more aggressive attempts at acceleration. So "winding up" may, or may not have an additional implication here.
in any case, does the Berkeley tend to loose its wheel more often on the shorter drive shaft side due to its greater functional length change o this side of the car imposing greater strain on the front hub retaining nut?
Any other good fixes for all of this?
-
U/J's or cardan joints as they are known are not constant velocity joint, in other words they accelerate and decelerate when run out of true.
This puts a lot of strain on the joint and surrounding components, and also creates vibration. CV's don't have the same problem, which is why they have been universally adopted by the automotive industry, but back in the '50's they were still a fairly fresh idea.