Barney - a 1958 Series II

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneOff

Hello folks!

.....



I have a concern about the rear one as well; I've fitted that in, but there is only about 3/4" or less of telescoping movement in it, and that's without the back being weighted. Once that all goes on it will compress further, not to mention suspension movement on the road, I'm concerned it will not have enough room to compress enough if you get my meaning. Any advice on this will be appreciated.

Attachment 126214

.....
Cheers,
Peter.

---

The situation may not ber as bad as you might suppose. As the spring compresses the axle does not move vertically - it actually pivots around the front pin on the chassis, which, from memory, is pretty close to in line with the front U-joint on the swb. In fact, it is better than that, because the axle moves back as the spring straightens, so I think you wiill find there is not much movement on the slip joint at the rear. More movement on the lwb, but not much even there. Of course, on the front, these factors work in reverse, and there is a lot more movement. Which probably explains why the slip joints on the front shafts seem to wear a lot quicker!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AJF

Peter

Looks great. Thanks for all the photos - I am a bit behind you with my vehicle and we spend some time checking out what your vehicle looks like.

Quick question - did you overhaul the diffs?

Cheers
Angus

---

Thanks Angus, that's funny... I do the same with TimNZ; happily plodding along about 10 steps behind and learning from him (and heaps of others on this forum who've done some great resto's). I hope you're not in a hurry...

I didn't overhaul the diffs. I showed them to a workmate who has restored several old Holdens and is a pretty clued up bloke. He felt they were fairly tight, and it's not a big job to drop one out and throw another in if they do fail... I thought that made sense and I went with it. Time will tell. I did do new gaskets and oil seals though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

The situation may not ber as bad as you might suppose. As the spring compresses the axle does not move vertically - it actually pivots around the front pin on the chassis, which, from memory, is pretty close to in line with the front U-joint on the swb. In fact, it is better than that, because the axle moves back as the spring straightens, so I think you wiill find there is not much movement on the slip joint at the rear. More movement on the lwb, but not much even there. Of course, on the front, these factors work in reverse, and there is a lot more movement. Which probably explains why the slip joints on the front shafts seem to wear a lot quicker!

---

Ah... of course! That makes perfect sense, thank you again John.

Peter.

In a fit of impatience last Saturday we decided we'll try and start it up!

Yes I know... there's no radiator hooked up etc, etc... but it's been a long time since the motor came back and I just wanted to hear it run - just for a second...

However, it was not to be; the old starter motor which tested ok on the bench, and which turned the motor over (sluggishly) without the plugs and fan-belt fitted refused to co-operate at all with those items back in place.[bigsad]

I have to assume it's the starter that is the problem; the battery is brand new and fully charged (plenty of sparks were flying around...), and we were jumping it directly with positive to the starter terminal and negative to the engine mount.

Attachment 128421



So now I am thinking of -
a. re-building this starter
b. buying a new (Britpart or other) starter
c. spending up and getting a High-Torque Nipponsendo one.

Any advice always appreciated

Peter.

If the starter is sluggish, as you indicate, repairing it is relatively easy. Probably just needs new bushes and possibly brushes.

You could also try freeing it up a bit by spraying some CRC or similar onto the bearings,,, might help intermittently.

I pulled the starter apart last evening; the brushes were virtually new, the bushes were pristine,

Attachment 128452


but the armature looks like this -

Attachment 128451

A lot of black marking at one end.
There were no corresponding markings on the field coil or the metal plates that hold it in, which makes me think it may have been cobbled together from a couple of different units.
What could cause this, and would it interfere with the operation of the unit?

Considering the condition of the brushes and bushes; I'd say someone has had a go at restoring this previously.

From the pictures, that looks as if it is "poling" due to wear on the bushes. They are designed to have as small an air gap as possible between the field poles and the armature for efficiency. but this means that it only takes a little bit of wear on the bushes to allow them to touch, and since in operation they are strongly magnetised, when they touch, they grab.

You can confirm this by reassembling it with the brushes removed or held back, and a drop of oil on the bushes, when you will feel it dragging as you turn it (may need to rotate the body, as it is probably worse worn in one position), but this is probably unnecessary, as simple inspection of the poles and the armature should make it clear whether they are touching.

Having the through bolts holding it together, or the screws holding the pole pieces loose can have the same effect.

Check commutator has not lost solder we're it attaches to windings also check commutator has not got hi mica we're the brushs run this can be fixed by running a snapped hacksaw blade along the mica deep as it is wide you can also get armature tested at local ato sparky on a growler which will tell if it ok just put plates on each end and wiggle to see how much moment to test bushes and make sure none of the brushes were stuck

I finally decided to pull everything out of the back of the Donor Rover on Saturday; it's only been sitting there for eight months or so, I've never got around to going through it... you can't rush these things. [bigwhistle]
I also pulled everything out of the shipping container to tidy it up a bit and reorganize it.



Good Lord! Where did all this come from???

Attachment 128615

It's amazing how this stuff just seems to accumulate...

I also re-furbished a fuel tank, I had four to choose from; the original that come with Barney, two in the donor, and another that I can't remember where I got it from...
The original has no filler tube and vent, it has an "under the seat" filler so probably an auxiliary tank from somewhere else, also it's a slightly different shape and I suspect it is from a Series 1.
The donor has two (diesel) tanks, a long range and an auxiliary.

Attachment 128617 Attachment 128618

I discounted the big tank, I know they are desirable but I didn't want to modify the chassis to fit it; I'll keep it for another project...I was going to fix up the smaller tank but them I found the mystery tank in the container. It was in much better nick and very dry and clean inside so I decided to go with that one.

After a hit up with the wire wheel in the angle grinder.
It was dry inside so I just had to blow it out with the air hose.
Attachment 128619

And a coat of primer/filler

Attachment 128620

Made a cuppa and cut a couple of gaskets and tidied up the gauge unit and outlet elbow.

Attachment 128621

That looks the goods!

Attachment 128622

A bit of superficial damage, not worth trying to fix

Attachment 128623


I used a Dulux enamel in a rattle can, it was weird stuff, it went on like a cats breakfast and I thought I would be sanding it all off again, but as it dried it smoothed out very nicely.



Happy with the weekends progress, especially with getting all that stuff stored back in the container.

Attachment 128671