Triple crankcase

Paul Marx

Hero member
Location
France
A couple of questions.
What is the size of the O ring between the 2 crankcase halves, oil pump side? I have 15.88 x 2.62. Too meaty it seems.
What is the torque to apply to the main studs? Workshop manual says 3.5 m/kg, the french manual says 2.5 m/kg.
Thanks
Paul
 
For the pendants....
Division.... Shurley shome mishtake!
9.80665 is the factor to put a smile on your torque wrench.😘
 
For the pendants....
Division.... Shurley shome mishtake!
9.80665 is the factor to put a smile on your torque wrench.😘
Dunno about pendants, but 9.81 I equate with 10, so 22 NM equals 2.2 m/kg, or there abouts.
I still don't know about the O ring.
I'll have the 15 x 2.5 tomorrow morning.
Paul
 
I use O-Ring BS114 if that helps
Thanks Red.
That would seem to be 15.54 x 2.62
I'll see how 15 x 2.5 goes.
I'm very lucky to have a huge seal and bearing outlet just up the road. They have a lot of choice and those O rings are cheap.
How do you get that O ring to stay put? A bit of gasket goo?
Paul
 
m/kg is very, very obsolete...
It's also wrong.

"m/kg" means metres per kilogram. I suppose such a unit would make sense if applied to something like rope or chain, if you wanted to know the length of a given weight. But it's bad practice to write torque units that way. Incidently, ft/lb or N/m (I've seen both) are just as wrong.

Torque units should be written as Nm (or N.m), ft.lb, m.kg, etc. The "." indicates multiplication, as opposed to the "/" which is a divisor symbol.

Call me pedantic if you like, but as an engineer, such galling errors jump off the page and slap me in the face. I'd have been given a failure mark if I'd ever used such atrocities in an engineering exam.
 
Come to the bright side of life and get rid of these archaic measurements. It just makes sense to use the same standards everywhere and the metric system is the most logical one... ;)
 
It's also wrong.

"m/kg" means metres per kilogram. I suppose such a unit would make sense if applied to something like rope or chain, if you wanted to know the length of a given weight. But it's bad practice to write torque units that way. Incidently, ft/lb or N/m (I've seen both) are just as wrong.

Torque units should be written as Nm (or N.m), ft.lb, m.kg, etc. The "." indicates multiplication, as opposed to the "/" which is a divisor symbol.

Call me pedantic if you like, but as an engineer, such galling errors jump off the page and slap me in the face. I'd have been given a failure mark if I'd ever used such atrocities in an engineering exam.
Ditto Cam, engineering exam, i used upper case "M" in place of lower case "m", cost me dearly in repeating the subject ( same course and trade course, repeated basic electronic theory for 3 years ). Argued my case with the teacher, hard to see his point that i had just made an error of some orders of magnitude, 1000 times 1000 ie a million... hard lesson and was marked for life in my engineering exposures.

* had new tyres fitted to a car yesterday, requested the tyre fitters to no more than 80ft/lb on the wheel nuts.... quizzical refrain from same... "108Nm" may have been more elucidating... perhaps. Gas struts are sold as N, i ordered 1000N not bothering to check the unit of measure in Kg, the boot lid would not shut... not even close, no wonder 2 by 100Kg lift support capacity. Did have a severe word with myself for being a dill... rightly so i have to say, careless jonny... naughty... must not make assumptions...a smile. j
 
Last edited:
Structures subject in the Building course I did has an interesting measurement for live loads, apparently, if I remember right the equivalent of 1 kilonewton per square meter was described as the same as One Arther Beetson per square meter.
 
15 x 2.5 is still a tad too big. Unless stuck in with cyanoacrylate but I'd be afraid of it popping out when the cases were mated. The original O ring was a figure of 8 in the recess when the engine was first dismantled.
So I've ordered 14.5 x 2.4 and 14.5 x One of those should do it.
Paul
 
Back
Top