For what it's worth, I presently have apart a Ferguson TEA20-85 engine, built
in the Standard Motor Company factory in Banner Lane. It has many similarities
to the TR3 engine, one of which I rebuilt over the Christmas holidays. Indeed,
many parts interchange.
Why is this relevant? Well maybe it isn't but I mention it because one of the
differences is that the TRactor engines used a "normal" seal rather than the
scroll type found on the TR, and they are famous for leaks. (It's less fun to
fix than on a car because you have to first split the vehicle into two rather
heavy halves.) My bell housing is covered with oil inside, and you can imagine
what my clutch friction disk looks like. Only thing that benefits that I can
think of might be the throwout bearing...the fork for which by the way has TWO
bolts through the shaft - none of this taper-pin baby stuff...
But, two extra 3/8" holes in a main bearing seems excessive to me alright. Who
said this about the conversion? Is there anyone around that can say "I put
(large number) miles on my Land Rover since doing the conversion and drilling
the holes, tore down the engine, and that rear bearing wasn't worn any more
than the others"?
It would make me nervous. Wouldn't that also reduce the supply to the already
thirsty rocker train?
Jim "anybody need some 85 mm sleeves?" Wallace
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rob wrote:
Has anybody fit the Land Rover conversion rear oil seal? I just bought one
from TRF and the "Revised Instructions" call for drilling two extra 3/8 inch
holes in the bottom of the rear main cap. This is supposed to relieve
unnecessary oil pressure from the back of the seal. I'm not so sure this is a
good idea as it might starve the rear main of oil. Any comments?
/// triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|