On 11 Apr 1997, Paul Burr wrote:
> Hugh: I guess the thrust washer part of the motor must have been a
> budget saving design. I can imagine the managers instructions to the
> Triumph engineers-"We don't want it done good, we just want by tommorow!
There is nothing unusual or particularly cheap about the Triumph thrust
washer design.
The usual reason for thrust washer problems is that some DPO (make that P
for previous or present) have installed at least one of them in the wrong
way around. It is very easy to do, since they install just as easily both
ways, and the correct way is not very intuitive, perhaps even
counter-intuitive.
Stripping down any engine that has developed excessive thrust washer
clearances, and you'll see that at least one of the washers are in the
wrong way around (steel against steel). Unless it has already found its
way to the sump, that is.
Another reason for them failing could be very excessive use of the clutch,
although I somewhat doubt that. A third reason may be *extremely* long
oil change intervals, although I would think that in such a case the
crank bearings would probably suffer more.
> > All the others use
> > a one piece setup.
That is completely wrong. In Europe, the two-piece (or sometimes
four-piece) thrust washer design is the norm.
A one-piece bearing would be better in the sense that it is usually
impossible to install the wrong way. But for retaining the bearings - not
really. If the thrust shells have developed such an enormous clearance
that they fall out, then the problem is what have caused that excessive
clearance, not as much the fact that they fall out.
Egil
--
Email: egilk@sn.no Voice: +47 22523641, 92022780 Fax: +47 22525899
Snail: Egil Kvaleberg, Husebybakken 14A, 0379 Oslo, Norway
URL: http://home.sn.no/home/egilk/ PGP: finger:egilk@sn.no
|