> The inference I get from Kipping's remarks are that the endfloat is not
> critical.
It occurs to me that there are a couple of reasons that John's comments may
not apply to the TR6, one is that the GT6 transmission actually has springs
to take up the clearance on the layshaft (while the TR6 does not). The TR6
motor also puts out a lot more torque than the GT6 motor, and the force on
the layshaft is proportional to torque.
> Moss's price on the distance piece is $17.90, so to have one fabricated
> the needed length form Herman van den Akker might be a little pricey
> compared to some shim stock.
Well, one has little to do with the other. It's just a piece of pipe cut to
length, and even if Herman wants $50 to cut you one, that's a whole lot
cheaper than having the shim stock break up and ruin your rebuilt
transmission.
Frankly, Herman is also the person I'd ask about how to solve the problem,
as I know he's done lots of these and I'll bet money he's never left the
clearances too large.
> The transmission appears to have been serviced sometime in the past and
> whoever did the rebuild went to the trouble of bending the front thrust
> washer to (I assume) attain the correct endfloat. One of the layshaft
> needle bearings had lost a roller and had begun to scar the laygear, as
> well as eat into layshaft, so the car probably had a few miles on it
> since the last work was done. The rear thrust washer showed almost no
> wear and the front washer only showed wear where the high spot of the
> bend occurred. This leads me to believe there is not much lateral force
> exerted on the laygear in operation.
I suspect it depends a lot on how the car is driven. Early thrust washer
failures were supposedly the reason the factory switched from recommending
motor oil in the transmission (as recommended by the OD manufacturer) to
gear oil (with it's extreme pressure characteristics).
Randall
|