> Someone correct me if I'm wrong (like I need to ask), but
> shouldn't the ring
> gear be turned around to accomodate the gear reduction starter's opposite
> engagement method?
IMO it's not necessary, and may even be detrimental.
Perhaps worth noting that some TR6 came this way from the factory, with the
bevels on the ring gear facing away from the starter pinion. My _guess_ is
that by providing more engagement, this lengthened the life of the ring gear
and maybe even the starter.
> Normally, the beveled side of the ring gear faces toward the rear
> of the car.
> That's correct for the original starter, but the opposite of what
> you'd want
> with a gear reduction starter. Right?
As I mentioned this morning, the gear-drive starter is also a pre-engaged
design. I believe that obviates the need for the bevels on the ring gear
teeth.
In any case, I have a TR4-style ring gear with the bevels facing the rear,
and the gear-drive starter seems to work just fine (other than sounding like
a jet engine turning over instead of a TR <g>). Since it ain't broke, I
sure ain't gonna fix it !
Randall
|