Technical Seriously, no gearbox fluid leaks?

Currently reading:
Technical Seriously, no gearbox fluid leaks?

Bob, that twisting is why I changed the previous boot....not a leak. I have some vintage boots in my collection of parts that came with my other "car" which seem thicker, shinier and are still useable....just that they fit the bigger shafts. I think I still have the metal seal carrier inserts from the original 19mm boots on my car and I might try to fit a seal into one of them and then insert it into a new boot; I'll feedback on that if I do it.
With some other makes of vehicle, owners' clubs or individuals have come up with solutions to common problems like this. This has involved remanufacturing of small runs of parts. I'm shy of trying this myself but it's worth a thought for some types of badly reproduced 500 parts.
I suppose I
can partly blame myself as I am really pushing the limits using a 47 year old car as an almost daily driver.:)

Does Murphio still have 19mm original shafts Peter? Its funny Murphio now comes up in my predictive text when I type, as the iPad has learnt it now I have typed it so often.:D
 
Peter,

But the seals were a loose fit in their plastic housings and rotated with the shafts. I'm thinking this poor fit between the seal and the housing allowed them to leak.

You were on to it first Bob! I dug out the original seal carriers I have and apart from the obvious, there are differences.

PT1_1390 by Peter Thompson, on Flickr

In particular, the steel ones have no return grooves for the oil. Of, course, those grooves could function as feed grooves which would accelerate oil loss. As far as I know, in gearbox applications, oil return grooves are usually helical, using centrifugal force to push the oil back.

PT1_1388 by Peter Thompson, on Flickr

Anyway, the metal ones will also have a much closer fit to the shafts and the original seals have a longer taper, although I think that's a minor matter.
So I decided to put the new seals in the old carriers. Of course, the old seals got damaged prising them out as you can't get behind them. I thought I would need to measure the seals and buy new ones locally, but then I realised that I could remove the new ones from the plastic carrier using my fingers without any force.
I'm busy today so the job will have to wait, but I'm hoping that the new seals in the old, metal carriers will be the solution.
For Bob and anyone else having to use the modern replacements it seems that Bob's suggestion to remove the seals and refit using a sealant of choice is likely to reduce the chances of early failure of this component.
 
Just to follow this one up; I did fit the new seal and boot. The boot had a minor split in it but I don't think that was the cause of the leak. Pushing the metal bearing housing on the shaft was quite a challenge...it's a very close fit, which is good. I topped up the gear oil and had a test drive and so far so good.
It was worthwhile on another front as the previously well-lubricated spilnes at the driven end were already looking quite dry. So they went back with a generous splash of oil/grease, copper-grease for good luck.
The whole thing was thoroughly degreased afterwards and so I can keep an eye on things with a 100+ mile drive ahead tomorrow.
 
Please can someone tell me how to create a post on here? I have been trying to do it for the past hour but cannot find any link referring to - 'post a comment' or 'post a thread' etc
 
Please can someone tell me how to create a post on here? I have been trying to do it for the past hour but cannot find any link referring to - 'post a comment' or 'post a thread' etc

Hi There,
If you're on a Windows laptop the "post reply" is a blue oblong top and bottom just above the first and below the last comment on the page.

You must have just done that?(y)
 
Just a photo for reference of the difference between the 500 and 126-type selector rod housings at the gearbox front end. Not much difference really considering these two items were made about 35 years apart. There is the bigger recess for the shaft seal and an additional tapping for a reversing-light switch.
PT1_2068 by Peter Thompson, on Flickr
 
:D:D:D
There you go, repeating the common misconception that patina = dirt.:eek:
I'll have you know that the item on the right looked even more similar to the item on the left before I degreased it.:p
But I draw the line at polishing, lacquering or painting it.:eek:
 
:D:D:D
There you go, repeating the common misconception that patina = dirt.:eek:
I'll have you know that the item on the right looked even more similar to the item on the left before I degreased it.:p
But I draw the line at polishing, lacquering or painting it.:eek:

I am surprised you bothered.:nerner:
 
Is there any dimensional differences between the two that influence the length of the selector rod? Just wondered, as when I fitted my 650 engine and gearbox I needed to adjust the gear linkage to select gears, and the only thing I could conclude is that there is a difference in total length. I assumed it was either in the bell housing or the end housing.

cheers, Steve
 
Is there any dimensional differences between the two that influence the length of the selector rod? Just wondered, as when I fitted my 650 engine and gearbox I needed to adjust the gear linkage to select gears, and the only thing I could conclude is that there is a difference in total length. I assumed it was either in the bell housing or the end housing.

cheers, Steve
Steve, the length from the machined face of each of those casings to the tip of the boss on the casting where the hole for the shaft is machined, is identical in both cases.
So I assume that the 500 and 126 selector rods are also the same but can't confirm that.
 
The quest to "seriously have no gearbox fluid leaks" hots up as I have now driven Murf up the scaffold plank ramp and removed the gearbox end-housing with the selector rod.

I should probably have made the slope steeper as I have lost half the oil anyway. The oil isn't that clean so I think I'll empty the lot and refill all new.
FOR_3684 by Peter Thompson, on Flickr
The rod was a slightly sloppy fit in its guide tube, but the advantage of the 126 replacement housing is that I can use a new "O"-ring and it has a new oil seal as well. The belt and braces effect is enhanced with the fact that where the rod enters the housing externally there is a rubber gaiter. This is secured through a hole in the casting making the whole thing very workmanlike.
Undoubtedly the rubber bellows will be in tatters in a short time but it is at least an attempt to reduce the entry of road grit which must be the major cause of the wear on the original design.
FOR_3691 by Peter Thompson, on Flickr
 
Crumbs I was wondering what the hell was going on when I first saw that picture. I thought you had embedded Murf into a wall at first. :eek:

Nice to see you carried out a risk assessment for the health and safety people.:D
 
Crumbs I was wondering what the hell was going on when I first saw that picture. I thought you had embedded Murf into a wall at first. :eek:

Nice to see you carried out a risk assessment for the health and safety people.:D

That wall took too much blood and sweat for me to scratch it with Murphio's front end.:D

The health and safety of the car is always foremost in my mind and he's OK with heights.:D
 
I've hit a snag with the selector housing replacement. Although it appears to be dimensionally the same as the 500 type, there must be differences. I have double-checked that everything is located correctly and moving properly but now I can't get into reverse and sometimes I only easily get 1st and 2nd and other times 3rd and 4th.
The housing has to be putting the selector fork in the wrong alignment; so back to square one tomorrow.:confused:
 
Back
Top