Engine number ID?

[ericthered]

Hi all,

I just got a new (excellent used) engine for my traveller and wondered if someone could identify what it was originally fitted in and how old it is?
I know its a 1098 as it has the 1100 tag on the side and the correct head and bore size etc etc, the engine number is.......
10V/189E/H 7130

Thanks and regards,
Eric.

[bmcecosse]

10V one of the later ones i think. Does it matter? The spec never changed!

[ericthered]

I just wondered if it was out of a van or something like that, but you are right it does not matter really I'm just happy to have an engine thats not banging its bearings out and has almost no oil pressure! lol

[bmcecosse]

Don't scrap the old engine -plenty on here looking for engines to recondition.

[chrisryder]

i was under the impression 10V meant 'low compression 1098'.

somebody do correct me if i'm wrong.

i'm unsure as to how the reduced compression is accomplished, whether it's by deeper crowned pistons or a deeper combustion chamber.

[ericthered]

But its got the "H" so thats means high comp does it not??

Please tell me its not low comp!

I dont want to put a low comp in, my old ones a high!

Regards,
Eric

[bmcecosse]

Low comp engines have pistons like soup bowls........I'm confident this is NOT Low Comp.

[ericthered]

it does have "soup bowl" pistons! but it is standard and has the "H" in the number, and I just found this site page with loads of info and if it says "H" it is high, the "V" seems to stand for a closed circut crank breather (I thinK).

http://www.mgcars.org.uk/mgccz/technic/codeseng.pdf

[brucek]

The engine is almost certainly high compression - as denoted by the 'H' or 'L' letters in the identification number. My first Traveller (mid 71) was engine type 10MA with engine number 10V/189E/H60016

Later 1098 engines - from about late 1968/early 1969 onwards (some G but most H reg cars onwards) - had a different type of breather system than their predecessors. This is easily identified by the tubular breather assembly attached to the forward tappet chest cover. A rubber pipe attaches to the top of this assembly and connects it to the carb. I know the High comp engines had this arrangement but not sure about the low. Anyone with a late LCV will be able to confirm.

From experience, this was a very good engine and would certainly be worth keeping. Even if it is a low comp unit, I would still keep it and put High comp pistons in. It's not a massive job and well worth the effort. Good luck

[RogerRust]

I knew I had a link to engine numbers took me a while to find it.
Here it is

http://www.mgcars.org.uk/mgccz/technic/codeseng.pdf

10v means 1098 vertical ie in line as distinct to minis which were 10h horizontal or transverse

[ericthered]

Hi,

Yes it does have the cylinder type front tappet cover, I will take a pic of the pistons today and try to post it on this thread, so someone can tell me if they are low comp or not, they are dished but they are not that deep.

It would be a shame to have to put new high comp pistons in as the engine is in such good condition with almost no wear at all, there is no wear on the bores whatsoever and its all standard!

Will try to post pics later.

Best regards,
Eric.

[brucek]

I don't think you have anything to worry about really. All the signs point to this being a standard high compression engine. A 'mildly dished' piston is a high comp piston so, all being well, you shouldn't have anything else to do to it.

[ericthered]

Hi,

heres a pic of number 1 piston, the dish is 6mm deep, so is it low or high comp?

Although the bores have no wear I have just checked the ring gap when fitted and it is 0.90mm the book says the gap should be 0.178mm to 0.305mm so I am going to get new rings and may as well get pistons too so the job is right, would I be right in thinking its only the pistons that dictate the comp (and cyl head) and if I order std high comp pistons with the std rings the job is done and it will be a high comp engine?

Having said about the ring gap being large I have fitted new rings in the past with new rebores (not on minors) and the gaps were no were near what the books said, and all was fine?
The head is the 12G high comp head so that is correct for high comp too.

Thanks and regards,
Eric.[frame][/frame]

[bmcecosse]

High compression. If it had been Low compression you could just have popped a supercharger on it........

[ericthered]

Thanks for that!

I have been looking at the rings and checking for wear in the piston grooves and they are WELL within the limits.........

top comp ring play 0.015mm
all lower rings 0.010mm
the book says 0.051 to 0.102

I still have a bit of a large gap between the ring ends when fitted but as I say there is NO wear on the bores (not even the slightest wear lip!) so if the pistons are high comp I should be able to just clean up and put them back in? (it would save much needed cash for other bits and a bit of hassle)
Whats your thoughts please?

Best regards,
Eric.

[milliethemoggy]

Hi all,

Have seen the thread on the 10V/189E engines. As I understand it, on these later engines the tappet chest has been closed off by casting thus eliminating the need for the two covers. The crankcase breather pipe, which used to exit the front tappet chest cover is then via the timing chain cover at the front of the engine. Is this correct?

Would appreciate any insight on this subject.

ThanksI.

Ian

[brucek]

No Ian , sorry -I don't think that's right. Only the 1275 engine has the tappet chest removed in order to ensure the block is strong enough to deal with the additional stresses on the bigger engine.

All 1098, 948 and 803 in line engines have tappet chest covers. On the 803 and early 948's the breather was a straight down pipe from the forward chest cover, later 948's and most 1098's had a pipe in the same place but it took a loop upwards before heading downward, and late 1098's had a breather chamber attached to the tappet cover.

The timing case breather was fitted to the 1275's to make up for the loss of the ability to 'breathe' via the tappet chest.

[milliethemoggy]

So, its more about strength of the block than breathing arrangements.

Appreciate the clarification.

Many thanks.

Ian.