BMC Engine Problem

[routrax]

Hi,

I'm after a bit of advice on what might be the cause of this.

 

I've been putting my cylinder head back on after renewing the gasket and it's all gone ok except for when i've hand cranked the engine to do the valve clearances.

The 3rd valve from the front is not moving and I really don't know why. I'm sure nothing fell down the pushrod hole when dismantled and am at a loss.

 

I'd have thought the pushrods could only go in the hole and sit straight on the cam rather than missing it or catching on something.

 

I'm really not looking forward to removing the head again (

 

Any one got any ideas

 

Thanks

Steve

[churchward]

Hi,

I'm after a bit of advice on what might be the cause of this.

 

I've been putting my cylinder head back on after renewing the gasket and it's all gone ok except for when i've hand cranked the engine to do the valve clearances.

The 3rd valve from the front is not moving and I really don't know why. I'm sure nothing fell down the pushrod hole when dismantled and am at a loss.

 

I'd have thought the pushrods could only go in the hole and sit straight on the cam rather than missing it or catching on something.

 

I'm really not looking forward to removing the head again (

 

Any one got any ideas

 

Thanks

Steve

if the valve is not moving at all then either the push rod is missing or has been pushed/bent out of the way of the rocker. You will be able to see if the push rod is seated in the rocker cup without taking the head off. If the push rod is actually missing (ie not in the engine) then you will be able to move the rocker back by hand. If the push rod is bent over or pushed out of the way it may be the rocker has moved over on the rocker bar. Either way if one of those is the reason the head will have to come off.

 

By the way some years ago I assembled a Friends MG 1300 A series without a push rod. I had them all in there to begin with but for some reason I can't remember I test fitted the head without bolting up and then pulled the head off again. A push rod stuck to the rocker cup and came out with the head then dropped on the floor. For some reason after putting the head on the bench I forgot the rocker under the car when I fitted the head for what I thought was the last time.

[RLWP]

if the valve is not moving at all then either the push rod is missing or has been pushed/bent out of the way of the rocker. You will be able to see if the push rod is seated in the rocker cup without taking the head off. If the push rod is actually missing (ie not in the engine) then you will be able to move the rocker back by hand. If the push rod is bent over or pushed out of the way it may be the rocker has moved over on the rocker bar. Either way if one of those is the reason the head will have to come off.

 

By the way some years ago I assembled a Friends MG 1300 A series without a push rod. I had them all in there to begin with but for some reason I can't remember I test fitted the head without bolting up and then pulled the head off again. A push rod stuck to the rocker cup and came out with the head then dropped on the floor. For some reason after putting the head on the bench I forgot the rocker under the car when I fitted the head for what I thought was the last time.

 

Can't you remove the rocker shaft to release the push rods? You can on an A series

 

Richard

[churchward]

Can't you remove the rocker shaft to release the push rods? You can on an A series

 

Richard

 

Yes you are right you can. Although if the push rod is actually bent then it will need a new one.

 

I'm getting old my memory is going!!

 

As I recall it can be a bit of a "B" to get the rocker bolted down properly with the head in place against the valves.

Edited February 2, 2010 by churchward

[OldGoldy]

I'd have thought the pushrods could only go in the hole and sit straight on the cam rather than missing it or catching on something.

 

I'm really not looking forward to removing the head again (

 

Any one got any ideas

 

Thanks

Steve

Long, long time no dismantly BMC..... but AFAIR pushrod sits in cam follower, not direct onto cam - cam follower stuck/missing?

[routrax]

if the valve is not moving at all then either the push rod is missing or has been pushed/bent out of the way of the rocker. You will be able to see if the push rod is seated in the rocker cup without taking the head off. If the push rod is actually missing (ie not in the engine) then you will be able to move the rocker back by hand. If the push rod is bent over or pushed out of the way it may be the rocker has moved over on the rocker bar. Either way if one of those is the reason the head will have to come off.

 

By the way some years ago I assembled a Friends MG 1300 A series without a push rod. I had them all in there to begin with but for some reason I can't remember I test fitted the head without bolting up and then pulled the head off again. A push rod stuck to the rocker cup and came out with the head then dropped on the floor. For some reason after putting the head on the bench I forgot the rocker under the car when I fitted the head for what I thought was the last time.

 

The pushrod is there and located properly, well at the rocker end anyway!

I'm resigning myself to the fact it will have to come off, gonna go and order a new gasket now

 

Thanks for the input though

 

Steve

 

edited because I can't use smilies!

Edited February 2, 2010 by routrax

[RLWP]

The pushrod is there and located properly, well at the rocker end anyway!

I'm resigning myself to the fact it will have to come off, gonna go and order a new gasket now

 

Thanks for the input though

 

Steve

 

edited because I can't use smilies!

 

Take the rocker shaft off first and see how many pushrods you have. Then see if the inlet pushrod on #2 goes up and down. There's lots you can do before taking the head off.

 

Richard

[gazza]

when you removed the pushrods you will most likely have dragged the cam follower out of the bore it runs in.

 

you are supposed to spin the pushrod to break the seal that is formed by the engine oil between the pushrod and cam follower. failure to do this will mean the follower will not be seated atop the cam.

having said that the bloody things do come out even with a twist!!.

 

you may not need to remove rocker shaft, heres what to do.....

 

assuming all pushrods and cam followers are present.

 

slacken off rocker adjust on vave no 3. wind it out all the way.

 

remove the cam follower cover on the fuel pump side of engine, it is the rectangular cover at the front, may have a breather attached to it.

 

locate follower, fiddle back into the bore it runs up and down.

 

reassembly is reverse.

 

if there isnt enough room with the rocker slackened off, you will need to remove the rocker shaft......

[routrax]

Excellent!

 

Cam followers, DOH! After spending my youth rebuilding minis you think i would have remembered they were in there!

 

Thanks for the help guys, that walkthrough especially Gazza.

Having another avenue of investigation has really lifted my mood!

 

I'll get on it in the morning and post my findings tomorrow.

 

Cheers

Steve

[gazza]

Excellent!

 

Cam followers, DOH! After spending my youth rebuilding minis you think i would have remembered they were in there!

 

Thanks for the help guys, that walkthrough especially Gazza.

Having another avenue of investigation has really lifted my mood!

 

I'll get on it in the morning and post my findings tomorrow.

 

Cheers

Steve

 

you must have had a tough upbringing minis and later on any form of metro have to be my most feared vehicles! if you can find yer way round an a series the diesel b series should be no probs.

 

the old b series bmc engine isnt bad to work on, removing the head can be a pain if there is a lot of corrosion build up on the head studs. the best way to get the head off is to lock two nuts onto a stud then wind the stud out.

 

i have a transplant to do for my dad soon, calcutt boats have done an extensive overhaul on a motor for his elysian. new liners, pistons, reworked head, injection equipment etc etc, all for less than the price of a new 9.9 hp outboard

 

be glad you havent got a perkins in there.....

[churchward]

when you removed the pushrods you will most likely have dragged the cam follower out of the bore it runs in.

 

you are supposed to spin the pushrod to break the seal that is formed by the engine oil between the pushrod and cam follower. failure to do this will mean the follower will not be seated atop the cam.

having said that the bloody things do come out even with a twist!!.

 

you may not need to remove rocker shaft, heres what to do.....

 

assuming all pushrods and cam followers are present.

 

slacken off rocker adjust on vave no 3. wind it out all the way.

 

remove the cam follower cover on the fuel pump side of engine, it is the rectangular cover at the front, may have a breather attached to it.

 

locate follower, fiddle back into the bore it runs up and down.

 

reassembly is reverse.

 

if there isnt enough room with the rocker slackened off, you will need to remove the rocker shaft......

Yes that's agood idea.

[Speedwell]

Admittedly I only skimmed through but I don't think anybody mentioned that you can get at the cam followers through the access plates in the side of the engine, without removing anything else.

Arthur

[gazza]

Admittedly I only skimmed through but I don't think anybody mentioned that you can get at the cam followers through the access plates in the side of the engine, without removing anything else.

Arthur

 

full how to above your post

[Speedwell]

full how to above your post

Sorry! Blind bat

[routrax]

Engine all back together and running fine, it was the cam follower(s) (there were actually 2 of them that were displaced).

Thanks again for all your help guys, esp Gazza with the awesome walkthrough

Just need some welding finished on my leaking skin tank and i'm good to go!

 

If anyone needs any welding done on the Lee Navigation, I've got a mate who's pretty good and very reasonable.

 

Cheers

Steve

[bag 'o' bones]

you must have had a tough upbringing minis and later on any form of metro have to be my most feared vehicles! if you can find yer way round an a series the diesel b series should be no probs.

What? 'Fear' I can't think of a more simplistic engine/drive chain! You want to work on a 1990's plus Japanese engine THEN you smell the fear!

 

To be fair the hardest part on working on a A+ engine installed in a Minin or Metro is the lack of working space rather than the technology.

[Grace and Favour]

What? 'Fear' I can't think of a more simplistic engine/drive chain! You want to work on a 1990's plus Japanese engine THEN you smell the fear!

 

To be fair the hardest part on working on a A+ engine installed in a Minin or Metro is the lack of working space rather than the technology.

 

Hah!

 

My first car was an Austin Eight - - 4 pot side-valve, - - that really was easy to work on!

[gazza]

What? 'Fear' I can't think of a more simplistic engine/drive chain! You want to work on a 1990's plus Japanese engine THEN you smell the fear!

 

To be fair the hardest part on working on a A+ engine installed in a Minin or Metro is the lack of working space rather than the technology.

 

i wasnt thinking of the motor, perhaps that wasnt clear, although i did go on to say the b series is nice and easy to work on.....

 

i was thinking more about everything else that goes to make up the car....

rotten subframes,

seized handbrake cable guides,

crap shoe cam adjuster,

rust,

nightmare front exhaust pipe replacment,

perished head bypass hoses

water/damp in ignition system

crap king pin set up

rust

poor build quality

rust

rust

etc etc

 

Engine all back together and running fine, it was the cam follower(s) (there were actually 2 of them that were displaced).

Thanks again for all your help guys, esp Gazza with the awesome walkthrough

Just need some welding finished on my leaking skin tank and i'm good to go!

 

If anyone needs any welding done on the Lee Navigation, I've got a mate who's pretty good and very reasonable.

 

Cheers

Steve

 

great stuff, glad you are firing on all cylinders

[RLWP]

i wasnt thinking of the motor, perhaps that wasnt clear, although i did go on to say the b series is nice and easy to work on.....

 

i was thinking more about everything else that goes to make up the car....

rotten subframes,

seized handbrake cable guides,

crap shoe cam adjuster,

rust,

nightmare front exhaust pipe replacment,

perished head bypass hoses

water/damp in ignition system

crap king pin set up

rust

poor build quality

rust

rust

etc etc

 

 

 

great stuff, glad you are firing on all cylinders

 

Ahh, happy days. Where many great contemporary engineers have learned their skills.

 

Richard

[bag 'o' bones]

i wasnt thinking of the motor, perhaps that wasnt clear, although i did go on to say the b series is nice and easy to work on.....

 

i was thinking more about everything else that goes to make up the car....

rotten subframes,

seized handbrake cable guides,

crap shoe cam adjuster,

rust,

nightmare front exhaust pipe replacment,

perished head bypass hoses

water/damp in ignition system

crap king pin set up

rust

poor build quality

rust

rust

etc etc

 

Hmm you do have a point!

[Hairy-Neil]

Ahh, happy days. Where many great contemporary engineers have learned their skills.

 

Richard

 

And many great restorers also.....

[Hairy-Neil]

To be fair the hardest part on working on a A+ engine installed in a Minin or Metro is the lack of working space rather than the technology.

 

The 'A' series is a late 1940s design, though the concept was largely plagiarised from a 1930s Bedford engine.

[gazza]

going off topic a bit...

 

i find it intresting the difference in attitudes to car design and manufactuer

 

whilst the mini was no doubt a great leap forward in small car design, it perhaps speaks volumes that the same basic components where still being used into the late 80's in the metro.

 

compare to the '89 205 i have, yes the price was vastly different, but peugeot had to do something major to save them from collapse in the early 80's. que project 205, whilst it initally used the same 104/talbot engine it soon got the motor it deserved in the shape of the TU engine.

result was a superb motor car widely held as the PSA group saviour, it was good enough to carry on into the saxo/106 range. there are lots of 205's about that dont require the same level of effort to keep on the road as a simmilar aged austin metro. what a pitty the little french car was better than the combined effort of the austin rover group.

 

meanwhile, austin rover kept turning out the same 30 year plus kit, rapidly being left behind by the competition. nothing changed into the 90's and the 2000's, hanging on to old outdated designs that nobody really wanted.

 

big shame doesnt really cover it!

[RLWP]

going off topic a bit...

 

i find it intresting the difference in attitudes to car design and manufactuer

 

whilst the mini was no doubt a great leap forward in small car design, it perhaps speaks volumes that the same basic components where still being used into the late 80's in the metro.

 

compare to the '89 205 i have, yes the price was vastly different, but peugeot had to do something major to save them from collapse in the early 80's. que project 205, whilst it initally used the same 104/talbot engine it soon got the motor it deserved in the shape of the TU engine.

result was a superb motor car widely held as the PSA group saviour, it was good enough to carry on into the saxo/106 range. there are lots of 205's about that dont require the same level of effort to keep on the road as a simmilar aged austin metro. what a pitty the little french car was better than the combined effort of the austin rover group.

 

meanwhile, austin rover kept turning out the same 30 year plus kit, rapidly being left behind by the competition. nothing changed into the 90's and the 2000's, hanging on to old outdated designs that nobody really wanted.

 

big shame doesnt really cover it!

 

These things come and go though. Peugeot put a massive effort into the 205 and got their just reward. The 206 isn't nearly the same

 

Richard

[bag 'o' bones]

going off topic a bit...

 

i find it intresting the difference in attitudes to car design and manufactuer

 

whilst the mini was no doubt a great leap forward in small car design, it perhaps speaks volumes that the same basic components where still being used into the late 80's in the metro.

 

compare to the '89 205 i have, yes the price was vastly different, but peugeot had to do something major to save them from collapse in the early 80's. que project 205, whilst it initally used the same 104/talbot engine it soon got the motor it deserved in the shape of the TU engine.

result was a superb motor car widely held as the PSA group saviour, it was good enough to carry on into the saxo/106 range. there are lots of 205's about that dont require the same level of effort to keep on the road as a simmilar aged austin metro. what a pitty the little french car was better than the combined effort of the austin rover group.

 

meanwhile, austin rover kept turning out the same 30 year plus kit, rapidly being left behind by the competition. nothing changed into the 90's and the 2000's, hanging on to old outdated designs that nobody really wanted.

 

big shame doesnt really cover it!

 

And in other situations good reliable designs are superceeded seemingly for the sake of it repaced by inferior products that break down or a downright dangerous(Toyota pedal box!!)