Engine Oil Leaks
-
Forumadmin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 20648
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 5:18 pm
- Your interest in the forum: Not a lot!
- Given Name: Forum
-
David Morris
- Posts: 837
- Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:23 am
- Your interest in the forum: Jowett Javelins since 1964. Now a Jowett Stationary engine owner and club member since 1964.
- Given Name: David
- Location: Sunny Bristol
Engine Oil Leaks
Hi everyone,
Previously in this post, I mentioned that John Airey and I had fitted the 'O' ring gasket under the rear timing cover on both our Javelin engines. We ran with these gaskets down to Bideford and back. John has covered well over a 1000 miles on his new gasket, with no problems.
However, I experienced a slight leak from the rear timing cover when the engine was really warm and 4-up in the car over the Devon hills!
Home again, and time to look at the problem. Looking at the 'O' ring data shows that the nitrile rings that we have used are not supposed to be used for fluids temperatures in excess of 105C. This could have been the cause of my seepage problem when really hot?
Anyway, John and I yesterday changed the 'O' rings on my engine for viton rings in the same size. These are specified at around 205C max, so should be OK. A first test run yesterday has proved fine, so it's fingers crossed from now on! We also checked carefully for any mis-alignment between the cover and the block with engineers blue and smoothed-out any high spots. Many thanks again John.
If anyone is tempted to try using the 'O' ring gaskets, I would recommend trying the viton rings, instead of nitrile. They are twice the price, but we are talking pence here, so it would be well worth going for them, rather than having to swap them later.
Hope this is helpful,
All the best,
David
Previously in this post, I mentioned that John Airey and I had fitted the 'O' ring gasket under the rear timing cover on both our Javelin engines. We ran with these gaskets down to Bideford and back. John has covered well over a 1000 miles on his new gasket, with no problems.
However, I experienced a slight leak from the rear timing cover when the engine was really warm and 4-up in the car over the Devon hills!
Home again, and time to look at the problem. Looking at the 'O' ring data shows that the nitrile rings that we have used are not supposed to be used for fluids temperatures in excess of 105C. This could have been the cause of my seepage problem when really hot?
Anyway, John and I yesterday changed the 'O' rings on my engine for viton rings in the same size. These are specified at around 205C max, so should be OK. A first test run yesterday has proved fine, so it's fingers crossed from now on! We also checked carefully for any mis-alignment between the cover and the block with engineers blue and smoothed-out any high spots. Many thanks again John.
If anyone is tempted to try using the 'O' ring gaskets, I would recommend trying the viton rings, instead of nitrile. They are twice the price, but we are talking pence here, so it would be well worth going for them, rather than having to swap them later.
Hope this is helpful,
All the best,
David
-
PJGD
- Posts: 380
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 3:58 am
- Your interest in the forum: A Jowett owner since 1965; Javelins, Bradford, and Jupiter (current). Interested in all things Jowett.
- Given Name: Philip
- Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
- Contact:
Stop Press !!!
David, I don't know if you were following my directions, but now that I am actually reducing my theory to practice on the engine that I am building up for David Cleavinger I have discovered some problems. As a result, I will be submitting a revision to my gasket plate article.
There were one or two minor typo's in the text which I will correct, but the biggest problem is with the o-ring specification. Specifically my o-ring recommendation is incorrect on two counts; firstly o-rings are specified by ID and cross-section, not by the OD as I gave in the article and this could lead to confusion; secondly and more importantly, the o-ring section is determined by the crushed dimension which in our case is determined by the gasket plate thickness. For a 0.047" thick plate the o-ring section should be 2.00 mm for the axial crush we are imposing on it, not the 1.6 mm section which is correct for a radial crush installation.
This reduced crush of the o-ring could be the cause of your observed oil weep.
Philip Dingle
David, I don't know if you were following my directions, but now that I am actually reducing my theory to practice on the engine that I am building up for David Cleavinger I have discovered some problems. As a result, I will be submitting a revision to my gasket plate article.
There were one or two minor typo's in the text which I will correct, but the biggest problem is with the o-ring specification. Specifically my o-ring recommendation is incorrect on two counts; firstly o-rings are specified by ID and cross-section, not by the OD as I gave in the article and this could lead to confusion; secondly and more importantly, the o-ring section is determined by the crushed dimension which in our case is determined by the gasket plate thickness. For a 0.047" thick plate the o-ring section should be 2.00 mm for the axial crush we are imposing on it, not the 1.6 mm section which is correct for a radial crush installation.
This reduced crush of the o-ring could be the cause of your observed oil weep.
Philip Dingle
Philip Dingle
aka, PJGD
aka, PJGD
-
David Morris
- Posts: 837
- Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:23 am
- Your interest in the forum: Jowett Javelins since 1964. Now a Jowett Stationary engine owner and club member since 1964.
- Given Name: David
- Location: Sunny Bristol
Engine Oil Leaks
Hi Philip,
Many thanks for your reply. We are using Viton 'O' rings with 13.1mm ID and 1.6mm dia. The Brammer stock code is OR13.1 X 1.6V175 and they cost £10 + VAT for 50, here in the UK.
We had thought of using some 2.4mm dia. rings and these would then have to be 11.6 ID, to keep roughly the same OD inside the Al metal gasket.
However, it looks as though these thicker rings would be subjected to too much crush, when using the 0.047" Al metal gasket?
From the data sheets, the advice on crush is :-
BITE/CRUSH: For an 'O' ring to seal effectively, crush is applied to the cross section. The amount of crush depends on application parameters, but in general terms, this should be 20% of the 'O' ring cross section in static application and 10% in dynamic. The crush is applied or reduced by varying the depth of groove.
We have 1.6mm dia rings which are the same as 0.063". These sit inside a 0.047" thickness Al plate, so I think the crush we have is (63-47) = 0.016". This equates ( I think) to a crush value of around 25%, which exceeds both the requirements above. If we used some 2mm rings, these would be the same as 0.079". The equivalent crush figures would then be 0.079-0.047 = 0.032, which for the 2mm rings gives a percentage crush of over 40%. This seems far too high, and the 2mm rings would, I believe, be given too much crush.
I must admit to not really understanding the difference between axial and radial crush and the data sheets seem silent on any advice. I would welcome your thoughts on this.
However, until we find that the 1.6mm Viton rings are failing, I think we shall stick with these rings. Also, digging into the internet further, it seems as though any additives in our engine oils might be attacking Nitrile rings, if these were used instead of Viton, as the following extract advises:-
"Constant demand for longer life and higher operating speeds from machinery has led to the widespread use of synthetic lubricants, this is causing a serious problem with existing Nitrile seals, as synthetic oils weaken the material structure of these products.
The result is a premature seal failure that can cause extended down time due to leaks, product contamination and lost production.
Nitrile seals are still being used in preference to higher performance sealing designs, using Viton lip elements, because of their comparatively low initial cost.
Viton offers excellent resistance to both mineral oils and advanced synthetic types - such as high-alloyed hypoid oil - and to ozone and weathering, providing longer operating life and reducing the chance of machine failure".
As for the design of the metal gasket, John Airey is better able to advise on this, as he has now made several. However, his experience is showing that we can use a 'one size fits all' plate, with roughly elliptical holes and the same size 'O ring in each of the three holes. These holes and their position is set from a 'best fit' from several sets of crankcases and rear timing covers. On mine, there was still a good 2mm 'land' of crankcase showing through the elliptical holes, before we fitted the 'O' rings. When I fitted my Viton rings a couple of weeks ago, I used a smear of Blue Hylomar gasket 'goo' over the metal-to-metal surfaces, but I know that John has fitted his 'dry'. Also, to aid location of the metal plate assembly, I have replaced the near-side 5/16" rear timing cover bolt with a stud and replaced the original top 1/4" stud which sits just behind the oil filler tube with a bolt. This enables the rear cover to be dropped down onto the gasket more easily, and reduces the risk of misalignment of the 'O' rings.
Philip, I do hope this helps and good luck in the engine rebuild. If you want to use Viton rings and find your supplier does not stock them, please do let me know and we can send some over the pond.
All the very best,
David
Many thanks for your reply. We are using Viton 'O' rings with 13.1mm ID and 1.6mm dia. The Brammer stock code is OR13.1 X 1.6V175 and they cost £10 + VAT for 50, here in the UK.
We had thought of using some 2.4mm dia. rings and these would then have to be 11.6 ID, to keep roughly the same OD inside the Al metal gasket.
However, it looks as though these thicker rings would be subjected to too much crush, when using the 0.047" Al metal gasket?
From the data sheets, the advice on crush is :-
BITE/CRUSH: For an 'O' ring to seal effectively, crush is applied to the cross section. The amount of crush depends on application parameters, but in general terms, this should be 20% of the 'O' ring cross section in static application and 10% in dynamic. The crush is applied or reduced by varying the depth of groove.
We have 1.6mm dia rings which are the same as 0.063". These sit inside a 0.047" thickness Al plate, so I think the crush we have is (63-47) = 0.016". This equates ( I think) to a crush value of around 25%, which exceeds both the requirements above. If we used some 2mm rings, these would be the same as 0.079". The equivalent crush figures would then be 0.079-0.047 = 0.032, which for the 2mm rings gives a percentage crush of over 40%. This seems far too high, and the 2mm rings would, I believe, be given too much crush.
I must admit to not really understanding the difference between axial and radial crush and the data sheets seem silent on any advice. I would welcome your thoughts on this.
However, until we find that the 1.6mm Viton rings are failing, I think we shall stick with these rings. Also, digging into the internet further, it seems as though any additives in our engine oils might be attacking Nitrile rings, if these were used instead of Viton, as the following extract advises:-
"Constant demand for longer life and higher operating speeds from machinery has led to the widespread use of synthetic lubricants, this is causing a serious problem with existing Nitrile seals, as synthetic oils weaken the material structure of these products.
The result is a premature seal failure that can cause extended down time due to leaks, product contamination and lost production.
Nitrile seals are still being used in preference to higher performance sealing designs, using Viton lip elements, because of their comparatively low initial cost.
Viton offers excellent resistance to both mineral oils and advanced synthetic types - such as high-alloyed hypoid oil - and to ozone and weathering, providing longer operating life and reducing the chance of machine failure".
As for the design of the metal gasket, John Airey is better able to advise on this, as he has now made several. However, his experience is showing that we can use a 'one size fits all' plate, with roughly elliptical holes and the same size 'O ring in each of the three holes. These holes and their position is set from a 'best fit' from several sets of crankcases and rear timing covers. On mine, there was still a good 2mm 'land' of crankcase showing through the elliptical holes, before we fitted the 'O' rings. When I fitted my Viton rings a couple of weeks ago, I used a smear of Blue Hylomar gasket 'goo' over the metal-to-metal surfaces, but I know that John has fitted his 'dry'. Also, to aid location of the metal plate assembly, I have replaced the near-side 5/16" rear timing cover bolt with a stud and replaced the original top 1/4" stud which sits just behind the oil filler tube with a bolt. This enables the rear cover to be dropped down onto the gasket more easily, and reduces the risk of misalignment of the 'O' rings.
Philip, I do hope this helps and good luck in the engine rebuild. If you want to use Viton rings and find your supplier does not stock them, please do let me know and we can send some over the pond.
All the very best,
David
-
PJGD
- Posts: 380
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 3:58 am
- Your interest in the forum: A Jowett owner since 1965; Javelins, Bradford, and Jupiter (current). Interested in all things Jowett.
- Given Name: Philip
- Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
- Contact:
David,
You have provided a lot of information here! I will try to respond.
Radial crush is the compression applied between OD and ID and is typical of an o-ring in a groove on a shaft which then seals against the bore that the shaft sits in. This is the most common installation, but it does not apply in our case. Axial crush is applied from side to side of the o-ring and is the case where the o-ring is in a take-apart joint as it is for our case (also known as a face seal).
Axial installations can accept more crush than the radial installation. Dynamic applications are different again, and we can ignore them for our situation. Certainly, the o-ring catalogues that I have recommend a slightly fatter cross-section than 1.6 mm for a face seal having a ~.047" depth. They suggest using a 1.78mm [0.070"] or 2.0 mm [0.079"] o-ring which you might have to go to if you still have a weep issue.
I have no problem with oval holes in the gasket plate so that only one size o-ring is needed, it is just that round holes can be made without the additional fettling needed to get the oval shape. I agree that it is essential to use Hylomar or similar on both sides of the plate since it is virtually impossible to get a good seal everywhere across the plate the further from the clamp bolts you go.
The Viton material is definitely the premium way to go, and thanks for the offer, but they are readily available over here too.
Philip
You have provided a lot of information here! I will try to respond.
Radial crush is the compression applied between OD and ID and is typical of an o-ring in a groove on a shaft which then seals against the bore that the shaft sits in. This is the most common installation, but it does not apply in our case. Axial crush is applied from side to side of the o-ring and is the case where the o-ring is in a take-apart joint as it is for our case (also known as a face seal).
Axial installations can accept more crush than the radial installation. Dynamic applications are different again, and we can ignore them for our situation. Certainly, the o-ring catalogues that I have recommend a slightly fatter cross-section than 1.6 mm for a face seal having a ~.047" depth. They suggest using a 1.78mm [0.070"] or 2.0 mm [0.079"] o-ring which you might have to go to if you still have a weep issue.
I have no problem with oval holes in the gasket plate so that only one size o-ring is needed, it is just that round holes can be made without the additional fettling needed to get the oval shape. I agree that it is essential to use Hylomar or similar on both sides of the plate since it is virtually impossible to get a good seal everywhere across the plate the further from the clamp bolts you go.
The Viton material is definitely the premium way to go, and thanks for the offer, but they are readily available over here too.
Philip
Philip Dingle
aka, PJGD
aka, PJGD
-
David Morris
- Posts: 837
- Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:23 am
- Your interest in the forum: Jowett Javelins since 1964. Now a Jowett Stationary engine owner and club member since 1964.
- Given Name: David
- Location: Sunny Bristol
Engine Oil Leaks
Dear Philip,
Many thanks for your reply and for the advice.
Hopefully, we shall not need to go to the 2.4mm dia. rings, which seem to be the next size up in this range of rings - fingers crossed at present. Another 160 miles over the weekend and still dry!
However, with one source of leaks hopefully stopped, I can now see that when the engine is really hot I can see a source of an oil leak that I hadn't spotted before, what with all the 'slosh' from the rear timing cover.
This seems to be coming from the top of the distributor pedestal, where the clamp plate sits. This slight oil slick then runs down the pedestal and on down the front face of the front timing cover. This is really only showing up after I have now been able to keep the engine reasonable clean and has presumably always been there.
Thinking about this, there is a pressure jet of oil from the pump aimed at the distributor drive gear inside the front timing cover. When everything is really hot, I can only presume that some of this oil finds its way out of the drive tube inside the front cover, under the clamp plate and away to the outside?
I recently purchased a 45D distributor ( after seeing one on Drummond's Jupiter at our recent rally at Bideford and getting his advice ). These distributors are on sale in the UK as new and are very reasonable (£37.50) - which is a small fraction of the rebuild cost of our originals. Looking at the drive shaft of this new distributor there is an 'O' ring ( here we go again! ) on the part of the distributor shaft that sits in the pedestal, about 3/4" below the clamp plate. There is no such 'O' ring on the original distributor that I have, although I believe some do have them.
Hopefully, this ring should eliminate the leak from the pedestal, as the new distributor is a very snug fit in the pedestal.
All I have to do now is find the timing marks on the flywheel. The previous owner ( Ken Lees, a past JCC Competitions secretary ) must have lightened the flywheel, as it is now almost no thicker than the ring gear! The description 'dinner plate' comes to mind! Hopefully, there will still be something left on the flywheel and visible through the bottom access plate?
All the best and many thanks for your advice.
Good luck with the engine rebuild,
David
Many thanks for your reply and for the advice.
Hopefully, we shall not need to go to the 2.4mm dia. rings, which seem to be the next size up in this range of rings - fingers crossed at present. Another 160 miles over the weekend and still dry!
However, with one source of leaks hopefully stopped, I can now see that when the engine is really hot I can see a source of an oil leak that I hadn't spotted before, what with all the 'slosh' from the rear timing cover.
This seems to be coming from the top of the distributor pedestal, where the clamp plate sits. This slight oil slick then runs down the pedestal and on down the front face of the front timing cover. This is really only showing up after I have now been able to keep the engine reasonable clean and has presumably always been there.
Thinking about this, there is a pressure jet of oil from the pump aimed at the distributor drive gear inside the front timing cover. When everything is really hot, I can only presume that some of this oil finds its way out of the drive tube inside the front cover, under the clamp plate and away to the outside?
I recently purchased a 45D distributor ( after seeing one on Drummond's Jupiter at our recent rally at Bideford and getting his advice ). These distributors are on sale in the UK as new and are very reasonable (£37.50) - which is a small fraction of the rebuild cost of our originals. Looking at the drive shaft of this new distributor there is an 'O' ring ( here we go again! ) on the part of the distributor shaft that sits in the pedestal, about 3/4" below the clamp plate. There is no such 'O' ring on the original distributor that I have, although I believe some do have them.
Hopefully, this ring should eliminate the leak from the pedestal, as the new distributor is a very snug fit in the pedestal.
All I have to do now is find the timing marks on the flywheel. The previous owner ( Ken Lees, a past JCC Competitions secretary ) must have lightened the flywheel, as it is now almost no thicker than the ring gear! The description 'dinner plate' comes to mind! Hopefully, there will still be something left on the flywheel and visible through the bottom access plate?
All the best and many thanks for your advice.
Good luck with the engine rebuild,
David
-
Drummond Black
- Posts: 448
- Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:38 am
- Your interest in the forum: Jowett Jupiter, Jowett Javelin, Rover 75 (s)
- Given Name: Drummond
- Location: Kirkliston, SCOTLAND
ENGINE OIL LEAK
David, One point springs to mind on the 45D Dizzy. Open it up and check the figure on the plate that operates the weights. It should say 10 degrees. ( Same as the 25D on Javs & Jups )
If it says more than 10 then you can suffer too much advancing of the spark. Mine says 10 degrees and runs OK.
Good Luck Drumond
If it says more than 10 then you can suffer too much advancing of the spark. Mine says 10 degrees and runs OK.
Good Luck Drumond
-
Leo Bolter
- Posts: 367
- Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:32 am
- Your interest in the forum: Proud owner of:
1 x 1951 Jowett Jupiter
1 x 1952 LE Velocette
1 x 1952 Jowett Bradford
2 x 1982 Princess 2 litre - Location: R. D. 2, Palmerston North, 4472, New Zealand.
Hello David
About your comment.
http://www.slipstreamcs.co.nz/vccbb/vie ... ?p=366#366
Cheers,
Leo.
PS. Whoops! Supplying this link may not be considered to be "kosher" by some . . . but I reckon that I "own" the content of the post.
I'll remove if it's deemed a naughty thing to do!
RLB
About your comment.
This posting I made to the Vintage Car Club of NZ Forum might be worth looking at and adapting to suit, so you can locate that elusive TDC exactly. . .All I have to do now is find the timing marks on the flywheel.
http://www.slipstreamcs.co.nz/vccbb/vie ... ?p=366#366
Cheers,
Leo.
PS. Whoops! Supplying this link may not be considered to be "kosher" by some . . . but I reckon that I "own" the content of the post.
I'll remove if it's deemed a naughty thing to do!RLB
R. Leo Bolter,
Palmerston North,
New Zealand.
JCC of NZ - Member No 0741.
JOAC - Member No 0161
Car: Jupiter (E1-SA-513-R)
Skype name = jupiter1951
Messenger name = r.l.bolter"at"massey.ac.nz
Palmerston North,
New Zealand.
JCC of NZ - Member No 0741.
JOAC - Member No 0161
Car: Jupiter (E1-SA-513-R)
Skype name = jupiter1951
Messenger name = r.l.bolter"at"massey.ac.nz
-
David Morris
- Posts: 837
- Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:23 am
- Your interest in the forum: Jowett Javelins since 1964. Now a Jowett Stationary engine owner and club member since 1964.
- Given Name: David
- Location: Sunny Bristol
Engine Oil Leaks
Hi Drummond and Leo,
Many thanks for the advice from both of you.
Drummond, I have opened my new 45D distributor and looked for the number you mentioned. Unfortunately, there is nothing immediately visible.
However, using the same rotor arm, I have compared the mechanical advance movement at the tip of the rotor arm on this new distributor and an original one. This was achieved by moving the rotor arm against the spring pressure by hand pressure and taking a difference measurement with a vernier gauge.
The results are that the new one moves radially by 0.100" and the original by 0.150". If the original distributor had 10 degrees of advance and this equates to the 0.150" figure, is it safe to assume that the new distributor therefore gives 6.6 degrees of advance?
If this is true, then can I therefore assume that the new distributor will be giving less advance than the original, and thus be 'on the safe side'. Better less than more?
I have attached a photo of the internals of the new distributor, showing that one spring is different in gauge of wire and dimensions to the other. I assume that this is to 'shape' the advance curve?
All the best,
David
Many thanks for the advice from both of you.
Drummond, I have opened my new 45D distributor and looked for the number you mentioned. Unfortunately, there is nothing immediately visible.
However, using the same rotor arm, I have compared the mechanical advance movement at the tip of the rotor arm on this new distributor and an original one. This was achieved by moving the rotor arm against the spring pressure by hand pressure and taking a difference measurement with a vernier gauge.
The results are that the new one moves radially by 0.100" and the original by 0.150". If the original distributor had 10 degrees of advance and this equates to the 0.150" figure, is it safe to assume that the new distributor therefore gives 6.6 degrees of advance?
If this is true, then can I therefore assume that the new distributor will be giving less advance than the original, and thus be 'on the safe side'. Better less than more?
I have attached a photo of the internals of the new distributor, showing that one spring is different in gauge of wire and dimensions to the other. I assume that this is to 'shape' the advance curve?
All the best,
David
-
Drummond Black
- Posts: 448
- Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:38 am
- Your interest in the forum: Jowett Jupiter, Jowett Javelin, Rover 75 (s)
- Given Name: Drummond
- Location: Kirkliston, SCOTLAND
ENGINE OIL LEAK
On all accounts it appears that you have a 7 degree advance. I agree, fit it and see how it performs. Should be very smooth.
Drummond
Drummond
-
Drummond Black
- Posts: 448
- Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:38 am
- Your interest in the forum: Jowett Jupiter, Jowett Javelin, Rover 75 (s)
- Given Name: Drummond
- Location: Kirkliston, SCOTLAND
ENGINE OIL LEAK
You could set it a degree or so on static advance !!!!
-
Drummond Black
- Posts: 448
- Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:38 am
- Your interest in the forum: Jowett Jupiter, Jowett Javelin, Rover 75 (s)
- Given Name: Drummond
- Location: Kirkliston, SCOTLAND
ENGINE OIL LEAK.
David, Pass me the distributor number ( usually six or seven digit and I will see what I can find out from my Lucas charts.
DB
DB
-
David Morris
- Posts: 837
- Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:23 am
- Your interest in the forum: Jowett Javelins since 1964. Now a Jowett Stationary engine owner and club member since 1964.
- Given Name: David
- Location: Sunny Bristol
Engine Oil Leaks
Hi Drummond,
Thanks for your offer. The 45D Distributor that I have is for a 1962-74 MGB with Chrome Bumpers. I believe the BL reference number is 12H5038 and the associated Lucas number is 41427.
I would be very grateful for any info that you might have to hand.
All the best,
David
Thanks for your offer. The 45D Distributor that I have is for a 1962-74 MGB with Chrome Bumpers. I believe the BL reference number is 12H5038 and the associated Lucas number is 41427.
I would be very grateful for any info that you might have to hand.
All the best,
David
-
Drummond Black
- Posts: 448
- Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:38 am
- Your interest in the forum: Jowett Jupiter, Jowett Javelin, Rover 75 (s)
- Given Name: Drummond
- Location: Kirkliston, SCOTLAND
ENGINE OIL LEAK
David, Not a lot of info. You are correct regarding MGB. It comes up as a 45D4 giving 16 - 20 degrees advance at 4000 RPM. I found this info on the web as my charts do not go 414-- numbers. Also says it requires a dwell angle of 51 degrees +or - 5. A bit low for a 4 Cyl. Usually 57 to 63 degrees.
No doubt we will get a few post with more info ??????????
Drummond
No doubt we will get a few post with more info ??????????
Drummond
-
Drummond Black
- Posts: 448
- Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:38 am
- Your interest in the forum: Jowett Jupiter, Jowett Javelin, Rover 75 (s)
- Given Name: Drummond
- Location: Kirkliston, SCOTLAND
ENGINE OIL LEAK
David, I have just checked to dizzy number of the 45D on the Jupiter and it is the same as yours 41427. So could be OK.
DB
DB