Sean N

RAE Bedford was, as the name suggests, an outpost of the Royal Aircraft Establishment (having been a WW2 RAF base) where a lot of aircraft experimental work was carried out, including carrier and VSTOL development. Given the RAE Bedford insp. dept. plaque it's probably for general mechanical / engineering inspection work, rather than a specific purpose?

Not here, Dragan - finals in the summer, normally. You're right though, it's unlikely that many staff will be around over the holiday.

It's noticeable that many expert forums have become much quieter with the rise of Facebook groups. It's easy and pretty much zero cost for people to set up a group on Facebook, and natural for people who are active on Facebook anyway to get involved there, but I hate the way it sucks people away from places like this, to my mind to the detriment of the hobby.

Sorry Richard, Pete, cross-post! I was thinking maybe stuck valves as well, particularly if oil in the bores isn't sealing it.

Steve, To recap what Richard said, make sure you have the throttle open. Test the compression in the same conditions dry and with a teaspoon of oil in each bore. If there is no change in compression, you either have very poor bores / rings, so poor the oil won't seal them, or you have a valve or gasket problem. It's likely as you're testing cold the compression will be low anyway, but 40 - 60 sounds very low. I'm not an Austin 8 expert but from what I've heard I'd expect more in the 90 - 120 range depending on exact engine / head spec. Having said that, it would be worth going through spark, fuel, timing again just to make sure. Given it's such a simple engine if you're suspicious you could just whip the head off and have a look for problems, but if you don't want to do that and you have a compressor available you could invest £20 in a cheap leakdown tester of eBay, which would give you more information.

Been there 70 years, Rick, another few weeks isn't going to make a difference. As far as university geophys is concerned I doubt anything will happen until a couple of weeks into January now.

Ah, that's because the British Officer is used to more refined living...

Jules, as Ron suggests this type of sealing arrangement is very common with older vehicles - often known as a labyrinth seal. They normally work fine, but any problem quickly finds them out. You see them a lot on gearbox input shafts. Before panicking, you might check that you are running the correct grade of oil and that you don't have excessive oil pressure for some reason. I can't speak to the Morris as I'm not familiar with them, but typically you'd expect a drain hole in or near the rear main bearing cap so that the oil coming from the rear main bearing has an easy escape route. If that hole is partly blocked, say with a bit of sealant, it'll give you problems. If you do have a problem with the seal being damaged and it is a separate part (not part of the block casting) perhaps it could be machined to take a modern seal?

Ron, it's basically another way for HMVF to be supported by advertising. Automated software identifies what it thinks are references to products within the text and turns them into links to those products. If someone clicks the link, HMVF get paid a small amount. What it links to is determined by who's paying the link company at that particular time. What gets linked depends on the software. Sometimes it's more accurate than at other times!

Do you mean these: ? In an earlier image, it's noticeable at least one isn't so well attached:

Interesting seeing that photo, I think I have some lenses and reflectors for these. I'll have to have a look.

Any of you Hameln or RE guys ever get involved with these things: ??

I like a dafty test. I can think of some who need one. Autocomplete, I guess?! It is, or was, standard procedure. If you think about it, for most cast vehicles being registered in the normal way it's quite difficult for DVLA to establish year of manufacture - generally the paperwork to prove won't be available, unless an enthusiast has gone to the trouble of doing the research - so it's straightforward for them to take DIS as date of manufacture. You can get it changed if you can demonstrate the true date of manufacture to their satisfaction. It's always the same when you have a hard date for a rule change and the vehicle build straddles that date. You get the same thing with lots of vehicles, for example MKs not needing under-run bars while later MJs do, or different lighting (rear foglights) on post-1980 vehicles. That's one instance where being able to prove an earlier date of manufacture is useful. That itself leads to some funny goings on though - I'm sure there are a lot more 1959 Thames Traders, Bedford TJs and TKs around than GM or Ford ever built! I suppose a rolling date helps here - if your vehicle isn't exempt, it soon will be.

I suspect also that cleaning up a heavily scratched original plate, were it possible, would be more time consuming and therefore expensive than printing a new one, which is probably why it's not done.

Louisa, you can message Austin using this link: http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/private.php?do=newpm&u=3323

Hutch, it's not really to do with the EU. Any vehicle which is not otherwise exempt must have an MoT; that's always been the law since roadworthiness testing was introduced. The Goods Vehicle (Plating and Testing) Regulations have an exemption for vehicles manufactured before 1 January 1960, used unladen and not drawing a laden trailer. More recently, harmonisation with EU regulations meant that this was extended to all pre-1960 vehicles, not just goods vehicles. Brooky obviously assumed your Militant was pre-1960 which is why his question - and indeed it may well be, but the licencing authorities often use the date into service (DIS) given by the MoD as the date of manufacture, and in reality the two are not always the same. I'd guess your 1966 date came from MoD disposal documentation, or the previous owner? You're right that this might now change; further EU harmonisation has resulted in a consultation, which ended last month, about further changes to the law. The option favoured by the Ministry is to change to a rolling 40 year exemption, which would make pre-1976 vehicles exempt as of current date. However there may be some wrinkles to it, as there is some thought of introducing a basic safety test, and scoring vehicles for originality per the procedure for registering heavily modified and kit built vehicles. The proposed changes are here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/roadworthiness-testing-for-vehicles-of-historic-interest

Neil - might also be an idea, if there's enough length on the studs, to put a penny washer and rubber washer either side of the mounting bracket to cut the vibrations a bit more?

I thought that; it comes up on Google, but not on Milweb's listings. I think Milweb are sometimes not too good at deleting expired ads. If you look at Milweb's classified ad listings now, there don't seem to be any Commer cab Fords. However, I wanted to confirm that was the one Hoseman was referring to, and there doesn't seem any harm Louisa calling about it; worst case, she's in no worse position than now.

This one? http://www.milweb.net/webvert/75150

This may be two stories confused. Is it more likely that it was supplied under lend-lease, but converted as a snowplough post war when disposed of by the WD? There was a firm calling themselves Mack Trucks who did a lot of snowplough and other conversions of surplus Macks, and I believe a number were also bought direct by local authorities - there were some such survivors in Scotland.

In Hutch's other thread he gives the D.I.S. as 1966.

You could speak to 'Austin' on this forum, if it's the Commer cab Ford. He recently bought two or three of them. If he's making one out of two, he may have some parts left spare (though note I don't speak for him and I don't know his situation) If you want a new shift lever gaiter I have several!

Neil, having come across similar applications in industry, I'd agree with Iain - it's likely that MDF will not put up with vibration and jolting even if the damp doesn't get it - I think the fixings are likely to tear out. If you are going to use wood, ply would be a much better bet; or you could consider a fabricated steel mount.

Richard, I'd say it was some variation on an Amphenol plug as well, having used them in industry. Even if the one Andy's identified isn't quite correct, there will almost certainly be a match in the RS catalogue.

Thanks Richard, Pete. I did put 'Census' in inverted commas as I wasn't sure if it'd still count as one. Yes, just like that one on the Jeep, though it was across the scuttle panel below the offside windscreen.