triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 3a head questions

To: a Wallace <wallaces@superaje.com>
Subject: Re: 3a head questions
From: "James A. Ruffner" <erl@virginia.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:58:48 -0400
Cc: triumphs@autox.team.net
References: <4.3.2.7.0.20000716110100.00a8f8d0@mail.superaje.com>


a Wallace wrote:

> Well it poured rain in the afternoon here yesterday, so I couldn't keep
> fixing the back porch. Drat. So I got the engine w/tranny out and on the
> bench, and the head off the motor, and now I have a few questions for you
> experienced folk:
>
> **this is a post 60K ~Dec. 1960 car**
>
> 1. Was the original head gasket copper both sides, yet a laminated type?
>

          Yes, it is copper on both sides, with an asbestos core.

> Just wondering how to tell if this engine has been rebuilt before (the car
> was registered in 62, and has been sitting since 70, with 50,000 on the
> clock, which could be real...kind of rusty though).

      Only real way is to check the diameter of the pistons (original TR-3A is
83mm, TR-3B is 87mm), or look at the crank and see if it has been stamped as
having been re-ground.  (The crank will have something like 0.010, or 0.020
stamped.  There will also be either an R for rods, or M for mains.)

>
>
> 2. In several places the coolant holes in the head gasket seem like they
> are much smaller, or even slightly in the wrong place, compared to the
> holes in the block. The most obvious example is the two holes just inside
> the front two head bolts, which partly cover the coolant passageways in the
> block.

     This is as they should be.

>
> a) Is this the way it's supposed to be?

> Yes.

>
> b) Would there be a benefit to having those holes enlarged in the (next)
> head gasket, or were they actually trying to restrict the flow this way?

Yes, there would be, but don't do this with an original gasket.

> c) Are the holes in those solid copper replacement gaskets the same as
> original?

I've never seen the solid copper replacements, so don't know.

>
>
> 3. Now I have the struggle of deciding how far to go with the rebuild. So
> far it looks like the cylinders are good; there's no scoring or anything,
> but it is 83mm....
> a) should I replace the pushrods

Originals are hollow.

> with the hollow ones I've heard of?
> b) how can I tell if the valve springs are up to snuff? I guess I could put
> a weight on them and measure the change in height - anyone know the spring
> rates for the 5 springs involved?

Best with an engine this old to replace all the valve springs.

>
> c) unless they seem really perfect, I think I will replace the valve guides
> - are the upgrades bronze, or some other alloy, and what's the good source
> - BPNW?  Bronze are best.  Try TRF
>
> 4. There are all kinds of things I could do of course, but I have to hold
> the (fiscal) line to some extent. What I really want is long-term
> reliability, even ruggedness, out of the engine. I would therefore
> appreciate a bit of guidance on where to direct my money - for example, if
> all is well with my 83mm pistons and liners I may not spend the $ to
> automatically move up to 87mm, if the same money could be invested in such
> a way that I could have enough confidence to take the car on a very long trip.
>

Both the 83mm and 87mm's are equally reliable.  If you do a full rebuild, and 
wish
to spend the money, the cylinders/pistons are $400-500 a set, I believe, but you
better check.  However, I would also double check all the front suspension 
first!
Cheers.


>
> I guess I really have 8 questions. Apologies in advance for the length.
> Regards,
> Jim Wallace
> TS81417L


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>