Paul,
This is what I did. I had a 62 TR4 with a TR4A engine and a PCV valve the
had not worked in 15 years. The PO had put a cork in the rubber hose. Real
bad idle control and rough engine.
Thanks to some help from Ken I got back to the open breather setup. This
stopped a bunch of oil leaking from the main seal because of the positive
pressure in the engine. The standard rear seal depend on negative pressure
in the engine.
I have an extra valve cover and siphon tube from a junkyard engine I saved
from the crusher. Let me If you need it.
Brian Sanborn
62 TR4 CT16260L - Groton, MA
My TR4 Restoration Web Site
http://www.net1plus.com/users/sanborn/Home.html (Big Update on 6/13/99)
E-Mail: sanborn@net1plus.com
-----Original Message-----
From: KTRIUMPH@aol.com <KTRIUMPH@aol.com>
To: lbc61tr4@usa.net <lbc61tr4@usa.net>
Cc: triumphs@autox.team.net <triumphs@autox.team.net>
Date: Friday, October 01, 1999 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: Flame Trap Alternatives
>
>In a message dated 10/1/99 2:03:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
lbc61tr4@usa.net
>writes:
>
><< Things are moving along pretty quickly now. Fenders and hood back from
> sandblasting. Working on the body work. Still hope to have the car on
the
> road before Y2K. Still have to solve the problem of a missing flame
trap.
> I'd like to know whether anyone has come up with an alternative. I was
> thinking about using a PCV valve. Maybe fabricate something that looks
like
> the original part for the closed breather TR4 engine. >>
>
>Hi Paul
>Perhaps you should give some thought to a return to the original SU / open
>breather system? Correct for your CT133 TR4. You'd need TR3A -B carbs, a
>different valve cover and oil cap, and the breather tube on the side of
the
>engine.
>I have both setups and prefer SU over ZS, although not tremendously!
>The 3A setup should be easy to find, whereas the flame traps are seemingly
>fairly rare.
>Just my $.02
>Ken Nuelle
>58 TR3A
>62 TR3B
>64 TR4 (w/ Flame trap)
>
|