Radiator Top Hose

Post by **Leo** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:04 am

The thermostat housing outlet and the radiator top connection do not seem to line up on my 1098cc Traveller. The standard top hose seems to be to short and only slides on about 1/2'' either side.
Are they all like this or is my thermostat housing or radiator the wrong one?
I have a feeling it is the radiator which was replaced just before I aquired the car

Leo 69 Traveller

Post by **downsey** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:15 am

Your thermostat housing is wrong, the one you need is flatter.

Post by **tortron** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:02 am

is the radiator the earlier "humped" type from a series II?

Post by **mike.perry** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:07 am

Wrong thermostat housing, the correct housing should have a level outlet not sloping like the one in the photo

Post by **bmcecosse** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:50 pm

Yes - should be a flat housing. Yours does seem particularly high !

Post by **Kevin** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:44 pm

The base of the housing is too thick also what are the extra washers on the rocker cover for.

Post by **bmcecosse** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:18 pm

The rocker covers collapse with over-tightening, and then additional washers are needed to get a good seal !

Post by **Kevin** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:04 pm

bmcecosse wrote:The rocker covers collapse with over-tightening, and then additional washers are needed to get a good seal !

Never had that happen must have been lucky I guess

Post by **alainmoran** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:22 pm

I use my old tie-bar bushes cut in half with a penny-washer on top

Post by **Onne** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:40 pm

It's not a Series II radiator, they are far rounder.

Post by **Leo** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:12 am

No wonder it got through top hoses, this is the third one in about 2 years.
New housing is now on order. It was fitted with the bellows type thermostat which seems unusual, exactly the same type that I have in my old Rover.
Never ever noticed those washers on the rocker, maybe when I fit a new gasket they may no longer be needed.

Thank you all once again for your advice

Leo

Post by **bmcecosse** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:47 pm

Original engines had the lifting eyes on the rocker cover - and so the washers may simply be taking up the distance left by the absence of the lifting eyes.
If your rocker cover hasn't collapsed Kevin - you must have been very careful when tightening it down !

Post by **Kevin** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:29 pm

bmcecosse wrote:Original engines had the lifting eyes on the rocker cover - and so the washers may simply be taking up the distance left by the absence of the lifting eyes.
If your rocker cover hasn't collapsed Kevin - you must have been very careful when tightening it down !

Ah but I do have the correct spacer washer on top of the cup washer which I would have thought was around the same thickness as the ones fitted to Leo's rocker cover.

Post by **bmcecosse** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:41 pm

Yes - I have these Kevin - thick and small diameter which replaces the lifting eyes.

Post by **Kevin** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:29 am

bmcecosse wrote:Yes - I have these Kevin - thick and small diameter which replaces the lifting eyes.

So you don't have any extra washer either then Roy

Post by **bmcecosse** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 2:39 pm

On some engines - yes, where the thick washers have gone walkies! I have 4 engines in total at the moment! 2 x 1098 and 2 x 1275.

Post by **newagetraveller** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 6:55 pm

In the photograph the edge of the rocker cover does not look parallel to the top of the cylinder head to me. The gap at the front looks greater than the gap at the back. This would be in keeping with the idea that it has been tightened down too much.