| Author |
 Topic  |
|
DickMorbey
United Kingdom
3677 Posts |
 Posted - 01/03/2010 : 12:11:11
|
Terry
When you mention lubricating them with petroleum jelly,do you mean the individual faces?
Regards
Dick Morbey, PA/B 0743 |
 |
|
|
Terry Andrews
United Kingdom
546 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2010 : 14:59:47
|
Hi Dick,
I clean the “crud” off of brasses and woods with white sprit. When clean, I put a little smear on the brasses and rub in more onto the woods. I re-assemble and wipe of any excess. I tighten the pointer nut and get both to feel about the same and put the pointer on the same number. I then adjust as above in the “drop axel test”. Hope that helps….  Terry
|
|
|
|
Rodney Collins
United Kingdom
424 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2010 : 15:24:58
|
When I bought my PA from BW it had telescopic rears, as you know I am not one of these people who wanted to keep to original (i.e as it left the factory)I was happy to fit a volumex blower and a preselector gear box,all non standerd to an original PA but there is no way I could keep telescopic rear shocks. You don't see the rears but you just know they a wrong!
Rodney |
|
|
|
powerplus
United Kingdom
599 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2010 : 21:19:19
|
I believe the original lubricant for Hartford shock absorbers was lanoline.
Powerplus. |
|
|
|
Gordon
United Kingdom
691 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 14:31:25
|
Rodney,
I don't understand your phrase "they just seem a(ll) wrong". Both the Luvax and the telescopic use the principle of a piston forcing oil through a small hole so the basic principle to my mind is the same - it is just that the outside form is different!
Which is less original a preselector gearbox or the standard gearbox with an overdrive added? How original is a reproduction blower made with the advantages of better castings better machine tools and modern seals and the same can be said of new blocks and heads.
Personally as long as you are happy with it then that is absolutely fine with me and if it means that you enjoy the car more, and so use it more, then that is even better. I understand those who say we are custodians of our cars and by ensuring that any alterations you make are reversible then that aspect is looked after.
Where it gets more difficult in my mind is in the competition field and the often brutal fact is that those with deep pockets and /or their own engineering facilities often have an advantage. Thats the way life is! I am very pleased to see those developments because they do feed down to all of us in a miriad of ways.
Rant over!
Gordon
Gordon |
|
|
|
Rodney Collins
United Kingdom
424 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 18:55:34
|
Gorden,
Preselector gearbox's were fitted to T MMM car in the 30's so were Blowers and the volumex is not dissimmler in looks as those used in the 30's. If you want to fit luvex rears that's fine, but I did not want the reacuring leak that luvax seem to offer, plus i don't recall any T MMM cars being fitted with telescopic shocks, I am not sure but did anyone even make telescopics in the early 30's?
Silly maybe but that's how my tiny mine see's it.
Rodney |
|
|
|
bahnisch
Australia
674 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 22:03:09
|
| I have long puzzled over the effectiveness of "friction" shockers. I have them on my prewars as they were standard equipment. However, the system seems all wrong to me because once they come off the static position their resistance to movement reduces markedly. In contrast, hydraulics work somewhat in reverse and surely must be more effective? I can understand Hartfords being tightened to the point that they "lock up" movement but in normal use the hydraulic would seem vastly superior? Am I missing something? |
|
|
|
Colin McLachlan
United Kingdom
990 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 23:01:44
|
No Barry, I don't think you are missing anything. My school physics master would agree with you.
Colin. |
|
|
|
Gordon
United Kingdom
691 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2010 : 15:57:13
|
Rodney,
Thanks for your reply. To sum up if it was fitted to another MMM then this is fine and if it is modern and looks like what was fitted in period then that is also fine. I don’t have a problem with that. However my own view is that I like to stay true to the engineering intent of the original PB design as well so I view fitting friction dampers in place of hydraulic shock absorbers as retrograde and not appropriate. The first hydraulic shock absorbers were I think those made by M.Houdaille of France (and I think that later versions as used by early Ferraris are still available). One of the earliest vertical piston telescopic units in production was on the Lancia Lambda and a complete Lancia independent front suspension features on a well known K type special (Parnell was the builder I think?) whilst the first separate telescopic shock absorbers was fitted to the Hudson from about 1933 as original equipment and by the late thirties they were double acting tube shock absorbers and in wide use on cars made in the USA.
So they are an in period fitment! And a modern one is no different in principle to the fitting of a Volumex!!
It is also the case of the antiroll bar first patents in 1919 and widespread use in the 1930’s so is an in period component.
Hydraulic brakes are another example - after all the MMM brakes on the P type were basically from the Wolsley parts bin and converted from hydraulic to mechanical by MG! Of course this is a good example to justify the retrograde fitting of friction Hartfords in place of the hydraulic Luvax!!
So the personal choice is one of function versus form and what one personally regards as acceptable – is the object to deceive the casual observer into thinking that it is “original” or to say the technology was used in period, is traceable to the design intent of the particular model of car and if it doesn’t accord to some peoples views then that is their problem!
Gordon
Gordon |
|
|
|
BobRichards RIP
United Kingdom
238 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2010 : 16:19:59
|
I have come across a problem when trying to fit Hartfords on the rear of a PA using the S & V cross member. The problem is that the oil filler on the rear of the diff casing fouls the cross member.
I have tried in vain to obtain a plain rear diff cover (ie one without an oil filler).
I wondered about cutting away part of the additional cross member or perhaps removing the oil filler and having a plate welded across the hole. (The axle does have a dipstick and filler on the nosepiece.)
Any suggestions please? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
