Engine identification.

[olonas]

IMG_0004.JPG (133.04 KiB) Viewed 1969 times

IMG_0003.JPG (162.97 KiB) Viewed 1969 times

Thanks again Phil.I have had a look inside the bell housing again, with pictures. This time through the release arm/fork opening. It's definitely, or looks very much like a 1098cc arm. The release bearing clips are of a "coiled" spring type and not the recent flat spring steel. The carbon has little wear.
One thing it revealed is the nut is missing from the pivot bolt! The bolt is fully in place. I wonder if it's that nut rattling around in the bell housing with the engine running and increased revs?
A question, if you know the answer please. With the gearbox removed and the engine in situ, is it possible to remove the flywheel? The Haynes manual states that the flywheel and backplate can only be removed with the engine out of the car. Of course that could be incorrect and they haven't tried to do it?
Do you suggest, as in your last post, leaving the existing (incorrect) backplate but fitting the correct flywheel(1098cc), 1098cc clutch assembly, 1098cc release bearing and release arm? In spite of the backplate it has to be a better arrangement and hopefully the clutch will adjust correctly, i.e. pedal free play and full disengagement.
1st picture shows the release bearing "clip", 2nd the pivot bolt sans nut!

[philthehill]

As the arm has the coiled carbon thrust retaining clips you have a 948cc release arm fitted.
The coiled retaining clips will not fit the 1098cc release arm. The 1098cc arm has the flat spring clips.
Fit the thick engine rear plate and then everything will be in the right place.
The flywheel can be removed with the engine in place with the 1098cc gearbox removed. Just jam the flywheel with a large flat screw driver inserted and held through the starter mount hole.
The release lever bolt will nor come free even with nut missing but replace the missing nut with a self locking nut.

[olonas]

Thanks again Phil.
Contrary to what Haynes suggests, is the backplate removable too, with the gearbox removed and engine in situ?
I thought it strange, their comment re the flywheel, after all the clutch assembly can be changed with the g/box removed.
Some backplates look to have an oil pump cover fitted, others only a hole. Should there be a cover?
I could have got it wrong but the release arm, as fitted, bends/cranks the same way as a 1098cc arm. The 948cc arm cranks the opposite way. Those spring clips look different to those supplied with a 948cc release bearing too.

[philthehill]

Support the engine with a plank under the sump. The rear engine plate can then be removed.
Both the 948cc and 1098cc rear engine plates have a metal cover over the oil pump.
The 948cc oil pump cover is soldered to the rear engine plate.
The 1098cc oil pump cover is loose fitted in the rear engine plate but is sealed by the rear engine plate gasket.
The oil pump cover must be fitted for both the 948cc and 1098cc engines. If the cover is not in place the oil pump can leak, letting oil get to the clutch.
You must have the correct release arm and release bearing to suit the gearbox. All explained in the link I posted above.
The release lever for the 948cc and 1098cc both crank the same way.
You must use the correct release bearing retaining clips to suit the release arm fitted.

[kevin s]

rps20230411_191141.jpg (59.39 KiB) Viewed 1877 times

With the gearbox out there is plenty of room to take the flywheel and backplate off as you can see above. I think I've got a 1098 release arm somewhere you can have if it's any use.

Check any backplate you get for cracks between the oil pump hole and crank area as well.

[olonas]

clutch arms 1.jpg (89.66 KiB) Viewed 1864 times

That's good. Thanks to both. Haynes aren't always correct.
I really couldn't think of any reason why not because the bell housing attaches to the periphery of the backplate and that, along with the gearbox, may be removed separately from the engine. The cover will be removed from above the gearbox which should make access even easier.
Thanks for the offer of the release arm, I have a n.o.s. 1098cc arm.
Unless these are incorrect, the nearest is 948, the other 1098.

[philthehill]

The nearest is 948cc and the one at the rear is 1098cc.

Whilst you have the rear engine plate off it would be expedient to check the condition of the core plug fitted into the rear of the block. If rusty replace. It is not a hard job to replace that particular core plug.

[olonas]

Core plug is o.k..
Not finished yet but, the correct backplate, flywheel, clutch kit, n.o.s. lever/fork with new correct pivot bolt and "nyloc" nut are now fitted.
The missing nut from the pivot bolt was nowhere to be seen. That's a mystery.
The carbon release was considerably worn. The friction material was almost down to the rivets. The friction outer disc is loose and turns slightly each way relative to the centre possibly not long before it separated!
Strangely the oil pump cover was not soldered to the thinner backplate.
One thing, that I don't know could be a problem, is the relay shaft. It was at 90 degrees to both the gearbox and chassis rail. Now, with the thicker backplate, the gearbox is further back by the difference in thickness of the plates. As a consequence the gearbox end is slightly further back than the chassis rail end. That means it is slightly offset by that plate thickness difference.
For removal of the cross member it was necessary to remove the brake master cylinder. A nut and bolt were fitted at each end along with bolts only. The captive nuts must have sheared off at some time in the past.

[philthehill]

As regards the relay shaft - there is sufficient flexibility and articulation in the relay shaft bushes to cope with any deflection from 90 degrees to compensate for the difference in thickness between the rear engine plates.
I would suggest that you fit it all and see how you get on.
With the correct parts there will not be a problem.

[olonas]

Yes, thanks Phil. It's all finished except for refitting the brake master cylinder and some loose ends (not literally!).
It's not me doing the work, but a local person who restores Classic cars.
He asked me to go to his workshop Saturday afternoon because of his concern re the relay shaft. I did suggest that it should be o.k. because of the spherical bearing at the gearbox end and the bush mounted in rubber the other end, which should compensate for any slight differences. Without measuring the thin plate's thicknesses, I guess the offset is about 5mm? The thicker plate is just under 8mm (5/16")
He phoned me early Saturday morning advising that everything was released underneath, but "How is the bonnet opened?"

[olonas]

clutch and flywheel.jpg (89.73 KiB) Viewed 1783 times

backplate 2.jpg (96.17 KiB) Viewed 1783 times

backplate 1.jpg (90.54 KiB) Viewed 1783 times

New clutch feels much better. Lower biting point with correct free play and smooth take up.
I measured the thickness of the old backplate, it will be Imperial, but just under 4mm compared to just under 8mm for the thicker one.
I need to see how it goes now with that offset of the relay shaft.
The old backplate, along with the remnants of the gasket, had what looked and felt like white bathroom silicone sealant! I suspect that when the 1098cc engine and gearbox were fitted the used clutch assembly was used?
Although it doesn't appear to have made any difference, the fitted starter motor had a 10 teeth pinnion. Now fitted with a 9 teeth pinnion, which I believe is correct.

[olonas]

Quick question for suggestions/recommendations.
Gearbox interior cover plate, secured by 1/4" BSF brass screws.
Any suggestions/recommendations for which sealant to use/is best between the bottom edges and the floor?
Thanks.

[geoberni]

Having had to scrape off loads of pale grey, sticky, putty like sealant, which got everywhere and I had to be very careful not to touch anything else as it was a total swine to remove (you can still see some residue in the photo); on refitting, I used draught excluder tape that I already had in the shed...
.

20220214_103749.jpg (1.47 MiB) Viewed 1735 times

[olonas]

Thanks for that. Possibly the grey "stuff" was DumDum?
I did the same after scraping off a mixture of similar grey putty like material, and what was possibly black roof/gutter sealant, from both the cover and floor.
Looks to be very much the same type of draught excluder, self adhesive, but I fixed it to the cover. I also used some not hardening butyl sealant where the cover meets the shaft tunnel because of the larger gap there.