Forum Replies Created
-
You might find it possible to continue with your application online despite no MoT. If I recall correctly, DVLA haven’t updated their site in so far as old cars are concerned regarding MoTs; hence it states MoT required…when we and they know it isn’t. In practice I’ve found you just continue, and the system “forgets” it wanted an MoT.
Might be there is some reason your new application isn’t progressing other than this, in which case hope it gets resolved soon. Perhaps a letter from the Club archivist might help.
Laurence
As Colin states, a good dismantle and clean should be your first move. In particular, make sure the commutator is shiny bright copper where the brushes bear. Degrease if necessary first, then remove tarnish with an ink rubber, or if stubborn, some fine emery paper…blow or vacuum any dust away. Check for worn brushes, or brushes sticking in their holders. Take care to ensure (if there is a possibility of alternative fitment) that brushes are fitted in their original positions. Attention to these areas will resolve 90% of charging issues with the dynamo itself. Poor output could of course result from poor connections in your wiring, or of course, the voltage regulator itself. To edit folllowing Colin’s correction below…wasn’t sure when voltage regulators started to be fitted! At least the 3-brush arrangement has the virtue of simplicity, and reduces the number of items to check when faults occur.
Laurence
Barry,
Might be worth checking to see if “RG 7” or similar appears on your CAV regulator. Not a typical Lucas designation, and it could be that Lagonda needed to find an alternative supplier, as Lucas had refused supply until outstanding invoices were settled. It looks period in your photo.
You could also search for any apparent date codes; larger Lucas items were always so stamped, but less obviously pre 1939. From around 1939, 639 or 6 39 would indicate June 1939. Pre 1939 you might find for example, 6 6 meaning June 1936. CAV I don’t know if dated; my V12 has a Bosch starter, but it carries no obvious date code.
If you find a date in the period just prior to your car’s build, that unit is likely to be original to your car.
LaurenceI’ve heard of the “long arm of the law”, but it looks like long legs must have been necessary, to drive a car standing up!
Chamfers on one face only, on my V12’s nuts. It might be a tad anorak-y…but all the original plain washers have a chamfer, again on one face only (they’d be a bit sharp to handle if both faces chamfered!). I haven’t come across such washers elsewhere, so wonder if these are Lagonda own manufacture.
Have to say I was a trifle annoyed when I had my V12’s engine rebuilt. I had removed the lower sump plate previously. This is literally sewn on with a myriad of various size bolts and nuts. To aid the rebuilder, I cut out a sump shaped piece of cardboard, and pressed through each nut and bolt with their chamfered washers and locking washers, in its matching location. Yes….I got the cardboard back with the engine, still with all the original fastenings attached!
A small point perhaps, but what is wrong with re-using original fastenings, especially in low stress areas? Yes, the new fastenings look nice and shiny, and evidence work done…but I’d have preferred the originals used…not as if they were rusty or damaged. Ho hum, can always swap them over.
Laurence
On my V12, which thank goodness has survived largely unmolested, the original bolts are generally plain on top, or have a small “C” (I wonder who the manufacturer was?) embossed top centre.
Your M45 is two models away and several years earlier, so knowing Lagonda’s (often debt prompted!) propensity for changing suppliers, would not be too concerned at the difference.
GKN are undoubtedly a quality manufacturer, and prolific….so many garages etc would have had stocks of GKN fastenings. That means there is a possibility that they are later replacements. Easiest answer I think is, are ALL the chassis bolts GKN? Unlikely someone would have changed all of them….unless your car has previously had a “nut and bolt restoration”….which could sadly infer that, indeed, every fastening has (often completely unnecessarily) been renewed.Laurence
Hi Colin & Tim,
Now back home. Well, 384 is well into LG45 territory. The earliest engine number I find in an LG6 is 418, in a 1938 saloon 12324…..but 418 may be spurious. A safer guide is that the prototype LG6 short chassis E3007 has 437, and the first long chassis, 12510, has 439.The latest engine number I can find in an LG45 is in chassis 12269, and that is 433. The latest S3 engine I can find in a quick search is LG45/405/S3. So 384 is definitely an S3 engine….unless later uprated to LG45 spec.
There are at least 7 LG6 engines fitted to M45s and LG45s, so it follows that this may originally have been LG45 carefully ground out and restamped LG6, to suit an LG6 to which it was later fitted. That said, all the LG6 engines so fitted remain stamped LG6…so unlikely.
An alternative is that the number stamped is in fact completely spurious. My quick search just now revealed that LG45/384/S3 exists, in chassis 12192! Furthermore that could well be the original engine to that LG45 as it ties in well for an early-ish 1937 registration.
Baffling. I’m not sure if Lagonda stamped internal components with the engine number, but that might be the next step to check. As Lagonda were not above producing two different cars carrying identical chassis numbers, anything is possible. Could even be a more recent replacement block deliberately stamped incorrectly, to warn that it is not original.
Absence of a chassis number is not necessarily an issue; my V12 is fitted with one of the three engines it had between 1939 and 1945 according to the works record; but there is no chassis number stamped in the usual place.
Might be worth a word with Arnold Davey.
Laurence
Not sure that the “float” engine theory works. My LG6 has engine number LG6/515/S4. I’ve done a lot of research correlating LG6 engine numbers, to the extent that I can be pretty certain that it (chassis 12360) would originally have been fitted with engine number 499 or 500. The engine is stamped 12360….but you can see that the block has been hammered to obliterate a previous chassis number…probably 12527.
So….I think Lagonda would have stamped the eventual chassis number on this block. The “typeface” of both sets of numbers is identical, so I can be reasonably certain that Lagonda changed the chassis number.
Perhaps this was an engine held in reserve, but sent outside the works for local fitting.
I have at home in France my records for LG6 engine numbers, so on return will check to see how 384 sits with S4 and LG6 engines.
Colin….the number here is Lagonda’s own engine number; Meadows had their own entirely different range of engine numbers, and I believe that earlier model Lagondas were indeed stamped (in different locations) with both Lagonda and Meadows engine numbers. Certainly by the time the LG6 appeared, this practice had ceased and LG6 engines have no Meadows engine number.
Laurence
Tetraethyl lead was apparently introduced during the 1920s, so it would not be safe to assume engines built then or later would run unaffected by no-lead petrol. That said, metallurgy doubtless improved over time. Consider how long it takes a modern engine to need a rebore, compared to those of “our” era.
The issue is valve seat recession, however the (modern) engine chosen (probably deliberately) to test the effects was particularly prone to this wear. So although it certainly proved recession could occur, it probably also illustrated a worst case scenario.
I don’t use additives in my LG6 (Meadows engine), and have note no ill effects, although I do run it on 98 octane solely because I understand that contains less ethanol.
My other car is a 1951 Riley RMB, engine very much a prewar design. Still finalising the restoration of that, but I do have friends covering prodigious mileages (one averages 24000 miles a year) in their Rileys, without using additives. They have encountered no problems.
The concensus appears to be that recession is only likely to be an issue with engines of our era where sustained high rpm is used. So perhaps a concern if you are racing.
At the end of the day, all you need to do is check your tappet clearances. If you find those are closing up unduly, then it would be an idea to try additives.
Laurence
Not familiar with the earlier sanctions, but might that cast iron water outlet at the front of the head indicate a replacement engine from a lesser vehicle?
Laurence
For some reason, my computer isn’t letting me see the “full description”.
They say the reg. is CUD494, yet the remnants of the actual number plate indicate it’s DU–9-. So why expect any degree of accuracy if they can’t even be bothered to look at their own photos?!
It is in reality DUC494, showing in the 1962 membership list as owned by Tom Pinguey in Beckenham. The entire range of DUC, ie DUC1 – DUC999, was issued in London solely in January 1937….so there you have a pretty accurate date for first registration of this LG45. Coincidentally, I bought a pair of LG45 headlamp bar mounted horns from Pinguey in the late 1970s, a strange and not entirely pleasant individual. Horns are missing in the photo…
Computer still “Connecting” to the full description, so I’m giving up on that. Going by the degree of accuracy in their basic info, I daresay they state this car needs “minor recommissioning”. With horns and much underbonnet detail missing, how can they state “complete car?”
LaurenceIt seems to me that if one were to analyse the posts on this forum pre and post-war, one would find that pre war are generally technical, and post-war are generally price and sales. Perhaps parts are easier to come by and the cars are easier to work on, post-war model-wise.
Seems odd to me that David Brown called his cars Aston Martins, when in reality, those cars were far more in the pre-war Lagonda mould than pre-war Aston Martin. Perhaps it’s simply that he bought A M first, and was therefore committed to that name. At least perhaps this accident gave him the opportunity of reviving the Lagonda name for (simplistically) the 4-door Astons.
Laurence
Hi Mike,
Wondering if you received my email, sent 6th June? Photo attachments may mean it went to your junk folder.Laurence
Hi Bill,
Hopefully your charging test will reveal that your voltage regulator needs adjusting down to a lower voltage.
Another possibility may be that internal insulation has broken down in the wiper motor leading to a partial short circuit. I do have a Berkshire motor in pieces, but annoyingly both my multimeters are playing up, otherwise I could have given you resistance readings for the field coils and armature. It does look like the field coils have 4 connections, so you could do a basic test to compare the resistance of each.
With those disconnected from the brush terminals, you could then connect an ohmmeter to those terminals; slowly rotate the armature…then that should show steady resistance readings. Also worth checking in both cases for shorting to the iron cores.
Wiper cables and wheelboxes are never included in service schedules, a major reason for them quite possibly never having been re-lubricated since new. The ancient grease congeals and undoubtedly then gives more resistance to movement than would be the case if the components had no lubrication at all. There is a remote possibility that your replacement cable is more efficient than a new Berkshire one, but I doubt that would result in a seriously higher wiper speed resulting.Laurence
Bill,
Seems an unusual problem, most complain at how lethargic their pre-war wipers are. So back to first principles….is the wiper motor the original (presumably Berkshire) one? The casings are mazak, which can fatigue badly….enough to render the motor irreparable….so I daresay some cars have replacement wiper motors.
Laurence