Early Javelin Restoration

[Forumadmin]

Note that it was Joe, our 14 year old apprentice, that dismanted the front axles that you see on the bench. Well done Joe. Peter is trying to understand the modification to rubber suspension made to the upper wishbone. I have yet to decide whether I think the mod is serviceable.

[robert lintott]

re the front suspension, worth noting that Jowetts Technical Item no 96,issued in July 1952 described the new front suspension --rubber bushed---introduced at that time . The note mentions new parts and modifications and ends with the statement that the new type suspension and damper assembly, stub axle and hub is fully interchangeable with the previous, ie the whole assembly has to be changed. There must be some lying around from scrap cars ? Bob

[Chris Spencer]

Seeing, all this work makes me wonder if it was better to just get another hulk

Beleive me this is a good Javelin bodyshell when compared to Jack's works experimental car which is rotten all the way round - even Keiths very sound and presentable Jav has evidence of much previous welding to make the shell the solid car that it is today.

Debate has been ongoing in the workshop over the last few days on the best way to remove the paint / rust from the bodyshell & panels:
I have had bodyshells blasted before today but whilst it removes rust & paint - it does not access the hidden box sections of the chassis etc - further to this blasting tends to distort the panels and it is just pointless having a bodyshell taken to bare metal to put four buckets of bodyfiller back in it to repair the blasting damage - not to mention the weeks of rubbing down.

Several companies offer a chemical dipping service, so you take the bodyshell & panels to them - they dip them to bare metal, you collect them and undertake any repairs then return the shell & panels to be redipped and then they phosphate prime everything - all sounds good until you write the cheque out for £2,855 + vat and you have to deliver & collect the shell and panels to them twice - so no change out of £3,500 then

I have had a chat to few contacts in the trade and it would appear that what most of them are now doing is having the shell & panels intially dipped to bare metal, then undertaking the repairs, 2 pack phosphate priming to all accessable areas and using a high quality cavity wax treatment to all other areas. The intially dipping process is circa £1,000 - the other process are then undertaken in house making a saving.

The final alternative is a bucket of paint stripper, poly carbon discs, rust converters for the cavities & our inhouse media blasters (both grit & soda) plus a lot of time, effort & mess.

[Forumadmin]

I do not think the rubber upper link arm would fit into the early chassis. The later chassis inner wing panels have indentations to accomodate the longer bolt.

[robert lintott]

There are some interesting points about the front suspension which can be clarified by looking at the parts manual for 1951 cars and the later edition for 1952. Also the maintenance manual page 91 deals with setting the suspension

It seems unlikely that just fitting rubber bushes to the early suspension would be acceptable . The upper link and its bracket are quite different on the later version and it is unlikely the Metalistik rubber bushes would fit the old design. There are many differences between the two designs , however the parts manual shows the inner wings on which the upper mounting brackets are set as being the same for both. Although not clear there may have been some home made mods to fit the longer pins for the later design . possibly in the factory the complete assembly with the new bracket was fitted as one piece , whereas a repairer might try to get the pin out with the bracket in situ

The shims shown in Chris' picture are a listed Jowett part and were provided to set the Camber on each side . It would not be practicable to build the Javelin body to such levels of precision and reproducibility that the suspension would line up correctly each time and after repairs the suspension should be checked again . The Maintenace manual gives a detailed procedure for setting the camber using the shims . With this or any extensive rebuild there is an opportunity to get the settings exactly right. Of course the Dash Side Reinforcements must be properly welded to the cross piece so that the suspension cannot move around on the run! good luck Bob

[Jack]

Question - if you wanted to make the Javelin stiffer, could you fit a crossmember between the insides of the inner wings where the suspension is fitted, going over the top of the engine?

Has this ever been done? Is it worth it, perhaps for competition use? Just an idea, wondered if it would be worth it really. The Jupiter seems to have a lot more steel where the suspension mounts at the front, and feels like it has tighter handling - but that could be for a hundred other reasons.

Jack.

[Chris Spencer]

Question - if you wanted to make the Javelin stiffer, could you fit a crossmember between the insides of the inner wings where the suspension is fitted, going over the top of the engine?

I think rather than fabricate something up and over the engine it would be much simplier to brace / strengthen the bulkhead between each side - readily done by welding in fillet plates and a couple of horizontal tubes between the mounting points, the tubes could then be either welded to the bulkhead or thro' bolted on welded tabs on to spreader plates

[David Morris]

Hi there,

I have put the later rubber-bushed front suspension on an earlier car that had the oil reservior metal-bushed type of front suspension, but you do have to exchange the whole top mounting, upper yoke, the swivel pin, stub axle and, ideally, the lower suspension arm. I see Keith has mentioned that there needs to be a modification to the inner wing, to clear the top horizontal pin. I am not sure about this, but I did the change-over by the kerbside many years ago, so it must have been fairly easy? By the way, the horizontal pins are captive in the cast top mounting and don't come out easily, so look after the threads on the ends of the pins!

I know that the lower suspension arms are different between the early and late types, as the lower mounting pins are different for the rubber bushes.

By the way, if you are thinking of using the rubber-bushed front suspension, then I can recommend using a set of polybushes at the bottom of the swivel pins. The original rubber ones, and those from JCS, don't last long, with the grease coming down from the swivel pin making the rubber very soft and 'squidgy'. Mine lasted only about 12 months and then made my MoT inspector frown! The replacement polybushes are great and have been there for about 6 years with no problems. If you wanted some, they are originally from the front suspension of a MGB, and are still available from Frontline Spridget, Abingdon-on-Thames, 01235-832632. They are a bit expensive, at £40 +VAT for 4 and have a part no. SPF282.

By the way, the welding looks great! Do keep the reports coming!

Hope this helps,

David

[robert lintott]

David ( sunny somerset today!) In your first para essentially you list all the major bits of the old type suspension, all of which have to be replaced, although the Technical notes and the parts lists say that the stub axle is common, same number . I suppose the bushes may be worn . There is no sign of modifying the inner wing to accomodate the pin in the mounting bracket.

In an earlier item you put in for this topic you referred to tightening 4 bolts on the chassis legs, are these the 2 each side which carry the engine mountings at the front? You also refer to a long vertical bolt " up through the chassis", but I can't find that ---is there one each side , where? best regards Bob

[David Morris]

Hi Bob,

Thanks for your post. Yes, I am sure you are right. The stub axles have part numbers 54082 and 54083. These are the same numbers that are on the late and early parts list, so I guess they are interchangable? The front suspension swop I did was about 45 years ago, so my memory must be a bit suspect! However, I am a bit puzzled about the parts number, numbers starting with 54.... usually indicate a later Jowett mod. and I may have swopped them as I wanted to keep the later swivel pins in their matched bushings in the stub axles.

Answering your query about keeping those suspension bolts tight, no, they are not the ones at the front of the chassis legs holding the engine mounts in place. They are the ones that fix the spring arm trunnion brackets, part number 50315, to the chassis legs. Depending on the parts book and while they are not actually shown in the illustrations, they are referenced as parts 831 ans 832 in the early Javelin parts book and parts 1118 and 1119 in the later parts book. They are, respectively, described as Bracket Mounting Bolts, 2 off 5/16" BSF x 2 and 7/8" FB105/23 and 8 off 5/16" BSF x 1" FS105/8. I hope this helps you to find them. They are usually covered in grease and hard to spot but MUST be really tight! The vertical bolts go through the lugs shown on the illustrations of these brackets, with the head at the top, next to the bracket and the nuts under the chassis, usually sitting in a stiffening 'trough'. This makes it difficult to get a socket onto the nut. I have seen cars where these the long bolts have been lengthened and taken through a thicker piece of steel, placed across the bottom of the chassis leg, which seems a much better arrangement.

Do hope this helps?

David

[robert lintott]

Hi David,
Thanks for the prompt reply and clarity. I will check my Javelin. there is a lot of oil and grease in that area on the off side ,mainly from a leak on the steering box I think . We have a lift in one of our sheds so access should be OK.

On the stub axle question I have found Technical Item 27 issued in Sept 1950 as part of the changeover to fully hydraulic brakes . As well as brake changes at the same time the Rear axle, transverse stay,rear propellor shaft, front wheel bearings and stub axles were all changed and the stub axles were not interchangeable . This change occurred at engine no EO/PB/10594, and the new parts are 54xxx. This seems to match with your observation on 54xxx parts.

best wishes Bob

[robert lintott]

For Chris,

Sorry to fill up this item, but the pictures you show are very interesting and show many parts which we normally cannot reach! It is a valuable archive for restorers. Just to say that the Jav you are working on is EO PB 9622, well before the changes in Sept 1950. So unless it has been modified it will have hydro/mech brakes and all the parts, axle, stub axles etc which went with that? That may mean that fitting the post July 52 rubber suspension would mean changing to fully hydraulic brakes and all the new items introduced in Sept 1950---quite a challenge ! Other more experienced Jowetteers may know more about this . regards Bob

[David Morris]

Hi Bob and Chris,

Thanks Bob for your post. Yes, it looks as though you do need to change the stub axle, if you want to fit the later rubber-bushed front suspension. However, I don't think you need to fit the full hydraulic brakes? I seem to remember just swapping the earlier hydro-mechanical front brake back plates onto the later stub axles? However, this would mean that the earlier drums and bearings would need to fit onto the later stub axles? It's a long time ago that I did this, and I would need to check that this was possible? Perhaps someone else would advise?

Another point is the steering ball joints might be a different type when you swop stub axles? The steering arms are a very tight fit into the stub axles and I would think a press would be needed to change them? It would be best to 'go with the flow' and use steering ball joints that suit the steering arms on the replacement stub axles. These would either be taper fitting or Jowett screw fitting. They are not interchangeable.

On the question of brakes, I have seen a Javelin with the later full hydraulic front brakes ( ie with the twin leading shoe arrangement ) and still retaining hydro-mechanical brakes on the rear axle. But, from a technical standpoint, I am not in favour of this, as it might upset the brake balance and cause too much braking effort on the fronts?

All the best,

David

[David Morris]

Hi Bob,

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words? Here is a shot of those bolts! Do hope it comes out and helps?

All the best,

David

[Chris Spencer]

Bob - No apologies required for filling the postings - that is why we have a forum so that we can all learn from each other - the more members involved & the more comments the better
Ok - Here is a clearer shot of the mounting

IMGP4876.JPG

And here is a shot if it in the flesh (left hand of image 4 holes) with nothing bolted to it

IMGP4851.JPG