<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=content-type></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>As it relates to the new seal design where you don’t need to grind the
scroll; check the flywheel bolt length and protrusion as even the stock bolts
can interfere and contact the seal. I just installed one and had to grind a
small amount off the ends of the stock bolts. I understand the ARP bolts must be
ground as well. Otherwise a good improvement.</DIV>
<DIV>JVV </DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=dlhogye@comcast.net>Dave</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 14, 2018 9:22 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=auprichard@uprichard.net>auprichard@uprichard.net</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=triumphs@autox.team.net>triumphs@autox.team.net</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [TR] rear oil seal conversion</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV>The stock crank is good beyond regular 6000 revs. 6500 on the over
rev, if it is machine with the correct radius on the journals, balanced and
nitrided. I have good experience with this and learned the facts from
experts. The rods are the weaker link, but if they are crack checked and
balanced, they should be good to 5500. They are designed for 5-5500
stock. Kas Kastner used all factory parts in his factory team cars for
years, because those were the rules, and his drivers certainly revved them well
beyond 5500. The rods are known to break at the oil hole in the middle of
the length of the rod. The hole provide lubrication to the piston skirt
and liner. In the past, for racing, the holes were welded up to prevent
failure there. Carrillo rods, or something similar from a quality
supplier are great insurance for a performance build.</DIV>
<DIV id=AppleMailSignature>The seal shouldn't need to be changed, unless during
set up or other reasons it is leaking badly. Of course, if the engine is
apart, always replace. </DIV>
<DIV id=AppleMailSignature>The newer seal design is superior and the scroll
doesn't need to be machined off the crank. It combines the original crank
seal design, with a groove machined for a Viton radial oil seal. So far,
they have excellent results eliminating rear seal leaks. </DIV>
<DIV id=AppleMailSignature> </DIV>
<DIV id=AppleMailSignature>Rev on,</DIV>
<DIV id=AppleMailSignature>Dave H.<BR><BR>Sent from my iPad</DIV>
<DIV><BR>On Mar 14, 2018, at 2:45 PM, <A>auprichard@uprichard.net</A>
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<DIV>List: what is the general consensus about <SPAN
style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">replacing</SPAN> rear oil seal
conversions?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have a smallmouth TR3 which is pulling well way past the 5500 rpm mark,
so rather than risk a failure of a 60 year-old cast iron connecting rod, I
think I will pull the engine and install steel rods. I had thought about
a steel crank, but the 4-cylinder engines have a remarkably robust crank (and
money does become an option). The car has many upgrades, and I really
should have gone with steel rods originally.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Anyway, the engine has the Moss rear oil seal conversion (with the
machined crank). Should the seal be replaced as a matter of
routine? The engine only has about 2000 miles on it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Andrew Uprichard</DIV>
<DIV>Jackson, Michigan</DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN></SPAN><BR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>