Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 92 total)
  • Posted in:  
  • oakley
    18 August 2014 at 14:10 #50958

    Look up the car in the members register – I don’t have it here but I remember it’s known and listed as a 16/80.

    oakley
    18 August 2014 at 14:08 #50957

    I advise you to get one of Alun and Peter Jones’s ceramic internal parts for your water pump. Easy fix inside original water pump, invisible and end of all your problems.

    oakley
    13 July 2014 at 21:38 #50935

    Actually, Hastings’ car is a 16/80.

    oakley
    6 May 2014 at 17:34 #50788

    Hello Peter, I see from the photo that you used a protractor on the front pulley for timing the valves – although it does work it’s not as accurate a doing it from the ring gear.
    I wrote a simple manual for doing the job and if you’re interested I could mail you a copy.

    oakley
    27 March 2010 at 08:01 #47791

    So there we are at last – the car is not a 2 Litre at all but a 16/80. Therefore ignore my earlier remarks about car and engine numbers.
    I still do not quite understand how this can be a “High Chassis” as claimed by Barbara – unless it is originally a HC 2 Litre with a replacement 16/80 engine. But that is a rather unlikely combination and I do not know if it is even possible. And, in that case, where does the ID plate come from?
    God knows which kind of body you put on that…….

    oakley
    25 March 2010 at 20:03 #47787

    That must be the engine number on the ID plate – can you tell me the number stamped on the side of the timing cover at the front of the engine on the near side?
    It would be very interesting to know this for the 2 Litre engine numbers file!
    As for finding a tourer body – as I said, this car is a Low Chassis and can correctly be fitted with several types; do you have a preference? I might be able to help.

    oakley
    25 March 2010 at 08:30 #47785

    As I said – I am also interested to know the true engine number on the timing case of Barbara’s car.
    If indeed it is a 16/80 this doesn’t apply but surely Barbara’s car is a 4 cylinder 2 Litre? Or have I misunderstood that?
    If it IS a 16/80 then it would need the T7 body. Not the T2.

    oakley
    24 March 2010 at 16:54 #47781

    That is a very interesting car for more than one reason. Your 2 Litre has the highest known “chassis” (actually “car”) number known so far! Could you do me an enormous favor and let me know what the engine number is – it is stamped on the near-side of the timing cover.
    Your car should not necessarily have a T2 body. It is highly unlikely that your car is “High Chassis”. If it was sold in March 1933 it must be “Low Chassis” and other body types up to T6 would be equally suitable. You could look for the body you like best – pictures of all these types can be found in Geoffrey Seaton’s “Lagonda, an illustrated history 1900-1950”. Alas the Lagonda website still doesn’t show these different models.
    I would be over the moon with that engine number!

    oakley
    24 March 2010 at 09:23 #47779

    Here is a picture of a LC 2 Litre sold by Lagonda in 1933 and originally fitted with the T7 body and cycle wings. I do not quite understand why the customer would have been “fobbed off” and that he had to be “persuaded” by a “keen salesman” to buy this motorcar with an “excellent discount” as Mr. Mallett seems to believe.
    In my opinion it is a highly attractive car, both engine and chassis were by no means obsolete and, although 6 cylinders became the fashion around this time, many preferred the sturdiness of the more sporting 4 cylinder 2 Litre – which also had roughly the same performance as the 16/80.
    Far more often than 16/80’s, 2 Litres participated for several years after 1933 in rally’s, trials etc.

    Attached files

    oakley
    24 March 2010 at 07:58 #47778

    In case anybody would like the see the car in question – here is the internet link.
    http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C132904/

    oakley
    22 March 2010 at 13:03 #47774

    I forgot to mention – my 2 Litre, sold by Lagonda in 1933 with a T7 body, has cycle wings. It may have gone out of fashion around that time but it was still available if one so desired and on my car they were originally fitted.
    Also my car is not a 16/80 with a 2 Litre engine. My car was a (un licensed) factory test car, chassis and engine date from 1930. Typical for Lagonda it wasn’t scrapped but, in 1933, slightly updated, given a new ID plate and sold with the latest T7 body (16/80 type which fits perfectly) and a new (1933) license plate.
    The bonnets for 16/80 on the one hand and for 3 Litre and 4.5 litre on the other hand are different. These cars were all sold with T7 bodies but the 3 and 4.5 L have a longer bonnet with a few more louvres. No need to shorten the 16/80 bonnet to fit a 2 Litre.

    oakley
    22 March 2010 at 09:34 #47773

    Thank you for the extensive lecture on Lagonda bodies. However, I had the idea (wrong maybe) that Barbara was talking about a tourer body that is different from the ones usually found on 2 Litres – without the bathtub rear.
    Therefore I assumed T6 or T7. I repeat that they would probably fit a high chassis Lagonda but that it is an unoriginal match.
    And by the way, my low chassis 2 Litre was sold by Lagonda in 1933 with a T7 body (also on the ID plate) which it still has.

    oakley
    21 March 2010 at 18:56 #47771

    16/80 tourers usually have the T7 body. These can be (and have been) fitted on low chassis 2 Litres. I am not sure if the T7 body can also be fitted to a high chassis – but I see no reason why not. However, this is not an original combination and I would be reluctant to do it.

    oakley
    31 January 2010 at 10:02 #47742

    I would like to say a bit more about this – hope it will be of use to you. I had to deal with this problem about a year ago when I restored my clutch and also had to put in new pins as two had broken off.
    I did actually make a device which screws into the pin and has a grease nipple at the other end (you’re welcome to have it John!) It works fine but grease, as I found out, is not the right lubricant for these pins. When I used it the clutch got semi-stuck and started to “lag behind”. Very unpleasent when you drive. I then used the “motorcycle chain lube” as described above; somebody had told that it is fluid when you squirt it into the pin and then becomes more grease-like. However, although very practical, it made the clutch stick completely. It took me half a day to get it all out and clean again. From my experience I can say that I find the best way to lubricate the clutch is to press the nozzle of an oil can against the hole in the pins and squirt in a bit of regular engine oil. It doesn’t matter if some oil leaks on the clutch lining -that is rubbed off the first time you use it and you don’t even notice it. Also it is not necessary to do it often. I have just completed a 1000+ Mile tour of the Dordogne with my car and never looked at the clutch. However, IF the clutch should stick it is easy to use a spray can of WD40 which will free it immediately. It would be best to put in some engine oil right after that but it is not even necessary. It happened to me last summer on a very hot day (and I hadn’t oiled the pins for a long time!) and I just used the WD40 which only took me a few minutes and enabled me to finish the trip (about 50 miles) without problems.

    oakley
    27 January 2010 at 20:55 #47741

    I have tried that but it made the clutch stick terribly – at least on my car. I had to use petrol to get it all out again.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 92 total)