Jolls FC Ute Project

[Jolls]

Hi Team,

Got home from work today to find the Warneford manifold had arrived. So, stright up to the shed to see if it solved the trip SU problem.

Looks like the punt was worth taking as the clearance from the welch plug on the back of the head to the closest point on the rear caburettor is 4 5/16" (110mm). The deistance from the recessed portion of the firewall to the forward most section is also 110m. So give the engine clearance is enough to stop the motor hitting under acceleration and braking I'm pretty confident that the carburettors will fit withou having to modify the firewall.





There is a bit of work to do before I can bolt them on and get it onto the test bed:

• the manifold does not fit over the locator rings so that will need to be addressed. I am also short tow locator rings so if anyone knows of an aftermarket supplier or a DIY solution I'm all ears;
• in addition the manifold is a little under 0.5mm smaller that the carburettors at the mating point so a bit of porting is required
• the fuel rail will need to be modifed as the mounting holes are now out of alignment. It may also need to be shortened and possibly have the return line blocked off
• the linkages need to be modified as the carburettors are now much closer together
• the extractors/headers don't quite line up with with the locating studs so the holes need to be relieved a little to enable them to be mounted correctly

RET indicated in a question I reased about the boundary between historic and modifed that the rule of thumb is that if a mod is something that appeared in the advertisements of contemporaneous issues of Modern Motor, Wheels, Practical Motorist & Motorcyclist etc, then it counts as a period accessory and will likely be OK. Does anyone happen to have a copy of, or recall seeing and advertisement for the Warneford Manifold in any of these "references". It would interesting to see if this would be classed as a period correct modification.

Cheers n Beers
Jolls

[Errol62]

Looking good Craig


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ardiesse]

Craig,

Inlet manifold rings -

Measure the ID of the counterbore in the inlet ports.  Go to an exhaust place.  Hopefully there'll be a size of pipe only slightly larger than the inlet port.  Cut the pipe to the right length, then slit it and grind the gap until it just fits in the inlet port.

Rob

[Jolls]

Craig,

Inlet manifold rings -

Measure the ID of the counterbore in the inlet ports.  Go to an exhaust place.  Hopefully there'll be a size of pipe only slightly larger than the inlet port.  Cut the pipe to the right length, then slit it and grind the gap until it just fits in the inlet port.

Rob

Thanks Rob,

that solution is too easy - not sure why I wasn't smart enough to think of it. I have one original ring so getting a couple more from an exhaust joint should be pretty easy. Son 2 has gone back to swingins spanners so I will see if he can sort it for me.

Cheers n Beers

[Jolls]

Fitting the "new" Warneford manifold has become a frustration to me for two reasons. The manifold won't fit if the locator rings are installed and if I remove the locator rings getting them aligned is a bit of hit and miss and the recess for the locator rings will have affect the flow of the fuel air mixture.

Then I pulled myself up and wonder if I'm not overthinking the problem.  Firstly; is the affect on the flow of the air fuel mixture even be noticable in such an agricultrual application and secondly, if locating the manifold is such a problem why wouldn't it have been addressed by someone in the 60 plus years since the manifold was produced?

The manifold itself has probably been on more than one or two grey engined beasts in its time. If setting ip wasn't a problem for the previous 60 years why is it a problem for me now?

For the life of me I am stumped though. I haven't been able to come up with an easily repeatable method to accurately locate the inlet manifold. So I thought is was time to seek help.

Who out there has mounted triples to a grey using a Warneford manifold before and how did you do it? Did you do anything with the locating rings to keep the airflow as smooth as possible?

My original plan was to make three locating rings from the 1 1/4" exhaust tube. The head has 4mm (5/32") recesses in each of the inlet ports to accept the locating rings.  They are a tight fit. If I was to relieve some material from the manifold to a depth of 4mm to make it a slide fit over the locator and add 1mm to the locator width to cater for the compressed manifold gasket we should be cooking with gas right?

Is there a simple solution out there that I have just missed?

Thanks in advance for the advice.

Cheers n Beers
Craig

[ardiesse]

Craig,

Yes.  You need to have the inlet manifold machined to accept the spacer rings.

Rob

[Errol62]

You may have to give them your head for the machinist to match up unless you can make a pretty good template. Craig Alardyce on the FB EK forum may have some insight as he loves greys and SUs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Errol62]

Triple SU carbs on FB EK
https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/topic?share_fid=25355&share_tid=20377&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efbekholden%2Ecom%2Fforum%2Fviewtopic%2Ephp%3Ft%3D20377&share_type=t&link_source=app


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jolls]

You may have to give them your head for the machinist to match up unless you can make a pretty good template. Craig Alardyce on the FB EK forum may have some insight as he loves greys and SUs.

Yes.  You need to have the inlet manifold machined to accept the spacer rings.

Thanks for the advice. I will get onto it.

[Jolls]

Had a busy weekend with Son 3, Grandson and Brother in-laws birthday get together in Sydney. Plenty of cold beers and a bit to Tequila down range didn't leave time to work on the ute. I did manage to pick up two grey gearboxes for $25 each while I was there. One dates to being an FX box Gearbox Number 49457 and casting code of 7/. K241 (24 October 1951). The second appears to be originally in an FJ  with a Gearbox Number of 145180 and a casting code of C244 (24 March 1954). Both appear to be in resonable condition.

Today I got a few minutes in the shed so made the missing locating rings for the head. Thanks to Rob for the idea of making them from some exhaust pipe. I used 1 1/4" and cut is slightly larger than I needed with an angle grinder and then ground them back to size on a stone. I then had to cut a fair chunk out to neck them down to size.



The next step is to cut recesses into the inlet manifold using a die grinder and a straight burr that is rated for aluminium. IT will be a slow process but I haven't been able to find any engineering workshop keen to take it on in the Canberra region.

While checking out the manifold I noticed an "additional" hole in the manifold's balance tube. It is quite small and appears to have been threaded previously so I expect it has been used as a vacuum pickup for the distributor. The hole is at around the two o'clock position from the centre inlet.



Can anyone confirm my assumption?

Cheers n Beers
Craig

[Errol62]

Doubtful it would be vacuum advance Craig. Vacuum wipers more likely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ardiesse]

Craig,

I've put my gearbox nerd hat on -

Since both your gearboxes are very early, can you tell me which of them has extra ribs on the bellhousing?  From memory, they run from the lower bellhousing bolt holes down to the bottom cover (and also prevent an early gearbox being used in a later model with hydraulic clutch, 'cause the rib on the right interferes with the clutch slave cylinder).

Both gearboxes should also have -

1"AF drain plug
six holes for the clutch cover
short selector lever (compared with FE-EK)

The FX gearbox should have a welded steel rear extension housing, the FJ 'box will have a cast alloy rear extension housing.

As always, pictures are good . . .

(I also believe that the very early gearbox cases are in demand among Humpy purists . . . )

Edited to add:  The FX mainshaft can only take a single-row bearing.  Probably the FJ too.  The second groove, for a double-row bearing, had been added in 1957; and double-row bearings made standard at FB.

Rob

[Jolls]

Doubtful it would be vacuum advance Craig. Vacuum wipers more likely.

Thanks,
It had me scratching my head - I didn't even notice it at first as there is a much larger port in the centre inlet of the manifold that I expected was for the brakes.

Wipers hadn't occurred to me as a consideration, I assumed that if the vacuum wipers were still in use the pickup would probably be the vacuum pump at the bottom of the fuel pump.

Given the size of the hole it is about right for what is normally used for the distributor advance. My assumption was that a previous owner may have chosen to use manifold vacuum as opposed to ported vacuum for the distributor as there are plenty of "experts" on the interweb espousing the use of manifold over ported vacuum. I also believe that there are distributors that have been set to work on full manifold pressure. I have not heard of one for a grey though.

I am sticking with the original Bosch unit (that may include an accuspark/pertronix upgrade) so I need to work on the distributor setup. The SUs I have are the early H series ones so they don't have a ported vacuum pickup as standard.

[Errol62]

I like to run ported vacuum, particularly on a manual, but you dont really need it performance wise. I wouldn’t run manifold vacuum on manual but as you say there are those that advocate it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jolls]

Craig,

I've put my gearbox nerd hat on -

Since both your gearboxes are very early, can you tell me which of them has extra ribs on the bellhousing?  From memory, they run from the lower bellhousing bolt holes down to the bottom cover (and also prevent an early gearbox being used in a later model with hydraulic clutch, 'cause the rib on the right interferes with the clutch slave cylinder).

Both gearboxes should also have -

1"AF drain plug
six holes for the clutch cover
short selector lever (compared with FE-EK)

The FX gearbox should have a welded steel rear extension housing, the FJ 'box will have a cast alloy rear extension housing.

As always, pictures are good . . .

(I also believe that the very early gearbox cases are in demand among Humpy purists . . . )

Edited to add:  The FX mainshaft can only take a single-row bearing.  Probably the FJ too.  The second groove, for a double-row bearing, had been added in 1957; and double-row bearings made standard at FB.

Rob

Hi Rob,

I dated the boxes based on Harv's excellent guide. I trust I did it correctly; however, a secons set of eyes is always useful. I'll upload the photos and answers in batches as the site charshes when I post too many images. The answers are below:

Ribs: Both have them as shown in the photo below.


Clutch Cover Holes (six: Both have the saem setup.


Extension housings: Both are alloy so the FX one has been changed at some time. The FJ Box has the metal shroud at the rear the FX one is all alloy.

[Jolls]

As for the dating them. I went off the telltale signs Harv outlines - in particlar the ribs, the clutch cover holes, the gearbox number and the casting detials.

Box identified as being FX
Gearbox Number 49457


casting code of 7/. K241 (24 October 1951).


There are no other casting marks on this box. No part number, no Holden/GMH symbol

[Jolls]

Box identified as being FJ
Gearbox Number145180


casting code of C244 (24 March 1954)


This box also has GMH and the Holden Part number as part of the cast.

[Jolls]

I like to run ported vacuum, particularly on a manual, but you dont really need it performance wise. I wouldn’t run manifold vacuum on manual but as you say there are those that advocate it.

Appreciat ehte advive.
I am not that keen on drilling a hole in the SU to achieve this; however, I saw over on the FB EK forum that this is achievable. The plan at this stage is to block the small hole and run without the vacuum advance and see how it runs. If there is no probem I will probably just leave it, if there is a problem I will tackle it then.

[Jolls]

Today I got a few minutes in the shed so made the missing locating rings for the head. Thanks to Rob for the idea of making them from some exhaust pipe. I used 1 1/4" and cut is slightly larger than I needed with an angle grinder and then ground them back to size on a stone. I then had to cut a fair chunk out to neck them down to size.



The next step is to cut recesses into the inlet manifold using a die grinder and a straight burr that is rated for aluminium. IT will be a slow process but I haven't been able to find any engineering workshop keen to take it on in the Canberra region.

So I took a bit of time this afternoon to attack the Warneford Manifold.

There was a reson that it did not cater for the locator rings - that being the outer inlets (inlet at either end of the head) were not in alignment with the ports. Both ends were inboard by about 2.5mm.

So, fortunatley I did not take the manifold to an engineering workshop and have them machine the holes to the correct size. I marked the manifold up and used the die grinder to remove material until I could get it to fit. The alignment issue was not just in the horizontal - vertical adjustments had to be made to get it fit correctly. As a result I am sure that there are small gaps around the locator rings.

The picture below is of the manifold mounted. There is around 1mm spacing between the manifold and the head that I trust will be taken up with the manifold gaskets. If not I can easily dress them down a little.



My plan is to fit the rings to the manfold so they are a permanent fixture and then port the inlets to match the locator rings. I expect I will need to address a lip on the locator ring on one side and grind away some alloy on the other to get a smooth transition. If anyone has any recommendations or advice I am all ears.

At the moment, subject to the forum's wisdom, I am thinking of using JB Weld's Cold Weld Steel Rainforced Epoxy as it bonds to both steel and alloy, is rated to 280 degrees celcius and can be filed like metal (or so the product brochure says). If I have it right the boiling point of petroleum varies as it is a mixture of different compounds but the highest rating is around 200 degrees C so I trust I have a little leeway.

Anyways, one step closer to getting the engine up and running. Now I have to sort the extractors so that they fit properly.

[Errol62]

Well gone Craig. I suspected there would be alignment issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk