Update please.

[Tony Fearn]

Hello Alan,

One of our Northern section members also had this problem. Perhaps the inside rail as you call it is the wrong way up. Just think about swapping the off side and the near side as the slides are rivetted to the rail and are able to hang down either way.

Anyway, I think that somewhere in the garage I have a sketch of which way up they should be, so I'll try to find it in the morning.

Tony.

[Tony Fearn]

Hope this helps Alan.

bonnet fastener.jpg

Tony.

[AlanBartlett]

Hi Tony,

Yes that does clear things up mine were not the right way around the flick tick as it were at the end of the car was the wrong way up on the wrong side, have switched one side around and this has appeard to create a much better action on the handle and now locks both ends of the bonnet securely. Is it adviseable to fit a rubber seal strip along the bottom of the bonnet as I still see vibrations could cause paint damage to the wing, although it already has, when i go to make the repair would like the stop it from happening again.

[Tony Fearn]

Glad you've sorted out the fastening Alan.

The bonnet on 'Mary Ellen' rubs on the wing and through the paint. Perhaps a rubber strip will help, but I'm not sure as the two rubbers on the edge of my bonnet sides are where the paint is rubbed off the wings.

I was thinking about this last night. Somewhere in JowettTalk there is a post about raising the whole body up to sort out panel gaps. Perhaps this is what's needed. The 1934 wings are fixed to the chassis and I don't think they can be adjusted (unless someone knows differently). But I'll bet it's a bit of a **** -ache if the whole car is together and the body has to be raised a few mm, as the steering, foot-board, radiator position and other considerations have to be addressed.

Tony.

[AlanBartlett]

Thinking on that, perhaps my wings are too high, I know there are only about 8 fixings of the wing to the chassis (the front bumper mounts, the steady bracket in between the two wings, one or two bolts directly to the chassis, and the two attached to the running board)
The reason I think this is because where my starting handle goes, it used to scrub on the front apron scoring the paint, though it had obviously doing this a lot longer than I have had it as its actually scored the metal beneath.

I rectified this by just undoing the lock nut on the handle and moving it out slightly on the shaft, so its still mostly on the shaft but has been moved out a few mm to miss the apron. Which maybe suggests the front end of my wings are too high? as also this is where the bonnet scrubs on the wing is in the middle of the arch on the wing. But at the rear I also have large gap between the running board the body (big enough you can put your fingers through) Yet all the body is flat on the chassis rails,

Thinking of another thing about the running board mounting, as it is mounted one end on the handbrake cross tube assembly, I wonder why jowett never made it to come all the way out to the end of the running board, would have provided greater support for the wooden board, and I would imaging stop it from splitting on the end which mine has done, on the bit which is not quite supported by the bracket.

[ian Howell]

Alan: -

With regard to the bonnet fitting problem, I am sorry I can't help with a picture as I am away from home, but there should be a stay rod between the top of the radiator and a odd shaped bracket fixed to the bulkhead. (At least that's how mine is set up). It runs parallel to the centre hinge rod.

The stay is a rod flattened and drilled for a 1/4 " bolt at the radiator end and threaded at the bulkhead end with nuts and locknuts for adjustment.

I hope this helps and that yours should be similar! If not I am sure I will soon be corrected!

[Tony Fearn]

Hi Ian,

The single radiator stay is on the early pre-wars. The 1934 set-up uses two radiator stay rods with similar ends to what you've mentioned, and they finish up at the bulkhead just either side of the battery box. This of course messes up a quick battery change if you're still using a battery of pre-war dimensions and the bonnet's in-situ.

However, the adjustments at the bulkhead end only allow tilt of the radiator in the vertical plane, with the mounting brackets as the fulcrum.

Perhaps a few 5/16" washers below the mounting brackets of the radiator and above the strap brackets on the cross tube will give a bit of leeway up and down to the starting handle hole. This of course will raise the bonnet slightly at the forward end, the rear being governed by the bulkhead position.

Back to the raising of the whole body, did Chris S mention this somewhere?

Tony.

[ian Howell]

Ah. Misunderstanding on my part. I thought you meant front-to-back movement.

I have had a similar problem but I solved it by putting thick rubber pads under the radiator mounting bolts/studs/fixings and above the 'P' shaped brackets on the cross tube. I also had to bend these slightly differently to get a bit more 'lift'.

I made the pads up to suit but I believe that there are replacement items available from JCS.

I also at one time - and may have to again - tried raising the front of the body to get a better bonnet fit. In the event it just led to more problems so I am persevering with 'fine tuning' of the panels WITHOUT CUTTING ANY!

After all, they (presumably) fitted when the car was built!

These things are sent, not to try us but to give us something to do to work off the Christmas excesses - aren't they?

[AlanBartlett]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9llCLJ5cA0&list

Well another update, I thought Id post, I picked up the engine from the engineers about a week ago, after having the mains done, and spent last weekend building it back up this video posted was taken tonight, after a few carburettor issuesm and timing issues, she is now back up and running again, and sounding even better that before. Am very pleased with how she is sounding now, few more tweaks to do, but overall progress Im quite happy with

[Tony Fearn]

Well done Alan, the engine's sounding great, and a few minor tweaks as you say, perhaps with the dizzy and the air screw, should produce the fabled tickover, although it sounds as though you're not too far off.

Does it rev freely on pressing the accelerator? This is of course where the power is.

Don't forget to run it in properly.

Tony.

[AlanBartlett]

Hi Tony,

I do believe its got a slight misfire which I think is something electrical, coil or condensor, you can hear it miss a beat slightly then carry on, As for reving up its alot more responsive on this carbuerttor than the brass one, revs on two, dies down, idles doesn't cut out or pop splutter around when you rev it which im also quite pleased about. I just like the sound of idle, as got me hooked into getting it nice and even running, I like that sound of just tick tock on tickover which is what im eventually aiming for, Its been four months since it was last on the road, and luckily im still in mot so I should be out no the road very shortly perhaps this weekend for a gentle pootle around. Any tips on running in? I know your not meant to go over half throttle for the first 500miles, according to one of the books, and to keep an eye on everything.

[george garside]

Hi Alan, Sounds good & will no doubt tik over slower once it loosens up a bit.

A few thoughts ( not recommendations) on the matter of running in.

The half throttle recomendation is a very good one but is probably fairly impratical on a pre war 17bhp engine in todays traffic unless you wich to form a mobile traffic jam, as acceleration ,speed up hill etc would be very poor in comparative trms.

The recommendation used pre war by Jowett and most other makers was to run in over 1000miles gradually increasing speed in gears and maax speed over the latter half of this, However in todays circumstances it would takemany owners quite a long time to do 1000 miles and so this could become impractical.

In the vintage period Jowetts ran in engines before fitting to car as follows.
1 hour belt driven at 1500 rpm followed by running on GAS for an hour at quarter throttle. This was then followed by a third hour at half throttle and a 4th hour at 3/4 throttle (2,250 rpm. I have no idea whether this practice continued into the thirties but it may well have done and could well have had a lot to do with thelong life of a JOwet engine.

This is leading me towards thinking in terms of the possible benefits of running the engine in with the car not going anywhere eg perhaps an hour at the slowest reliable tickover followed by a furthur 2 hours at progressively increased revs. Cooling may or may not be a problem dependingon condition of rad and the water jackets particularly in the heads being crud free. leaving the bonnet off would help by allowing hot air to esape. Other thoughts would be perhaps a domestic mains electric fan in front of the rad


If the engine was run in as above the car could then be used at normal "speeds" as traditional running in of 1000 miles applied not only to the engine but to to the rest of the moving parts and so would not be required.

george

[AlanBartlett]

George, Ive also been thinking about the practicalality of the half throttle on the road, and I would imagine it would be more a slow crawl getting anywhere. Though very advisable for running in. I wonder what others have done in this situation, but your thoughts on the running in when stationary would be quite easy to carry out and better to watch out for possible problems, you can keep an eye on it without having to worry about driving it.

[george garside]

Furthur thought! - At an average running speed of 25mph it would take 20 hours of running to do the prescribed 500 miles so maybe quite a bit more than the 3 hours of 'static' running in that I suggessted would be required - perhaps at least 10 hours = to 250 road miles.or better still a bit more.

george

[Forumadmin]

The amount of running in required is a lot less now due to improved accuracy of machining and honing. Thus if your bores have been done on modern machinery and modern rings employed running in to this extent should not be required. Clearly care in scraping the bearings and use of good lubricants on assembly will also reduce the running in. I do not see why a pre-war car is different to a post war one in its needs for running in. Indeed the piston speeds and bearing loads of the post war car are a usually higher so, in theory, more care should be taken with post war cars.