Richard Farrant

That'll save on brake linings :-D

Good bit of film there CW :thumbsup:

If it is a Kegresse conversion, then possibly Burford, Crossley or Morris Commercial......I think the latter one.

Got it, they are a pair of bearings! I think the pair are given Hoffmann no. N1090, The MT7 Vocab lists as follows; MT7/1960 45 x 120 x 29 mm Hoffmann 545ACD ( or Skefko 7409 ) single row ball brg. then below with a NATO no. 3110-99-950-0618 we have this; 45 x 120 x 58 mm "two single row bearings, matched and apired back to back" with Hoffmann no. N1090 ( also Ransome & Marles 3/HJT45 ), the 58mm width being two bearings together. Makes sense now!

Chris, In this case the cat might be wrong . I have JP Pistons catalogue here ( Aussie manufacturer) and they list 27 hp ( should read 28), from 1939-57, for K, M, O, W, TA, 214 with gudgeon pin to crown height of 1.625" and later 214 1957-76 with pin to crown height of 1.812". So looks like you have to watch out for the later 214, post 1957 as it will not fit a 28hp. As for your recollections of the SB, with 300 engine, just noticed, there were two different pistons, with a variation of about 0.5" , early 1950-56 and later 1957-76

Hi Chris, I think the SB coach had the 300 cu in engine, at least all the army ones did, and that engine went through a lot of design changes. The engine in question, should be a 28 hp, if the engine number is stamped with a prefix such as "MW" or "OY", that will prove it, postwar, there were improvements in the engine, then a revamp in to the 214 cu in and I am sure that parts are not interchangeable between 28 hp and 214.

As they would be dis-similar metals, body in alloy and chassis steel, it might have been to stop erosion at that point. I recollect having to use a special marine paint to the locality when bolting up suspension mountings to Fox hulls, again, dis-similar metals.

For breaking up turds in the latrines ? :rofl:

Clive, Well, I was going to take a back seat on this one, but as you have dragged me into this, all I can safely say is that it is definitely not a "comforter, special" :-D I had to check to see what wonderfully graphic description you might have given it

Right, had another look......... first bearing MT7/1960....conflicting info here as that number does not match in the army Vocab for MT7, to the Hoffman number you quote, although it does in the Scammell book MT7/2974 Pollard R360A Hoffman R360L Oil seal MT7/PT335212........and in the Scammell book another number, 33523750. This is a Pioneer oil seal and any bearing man worth his salt will recognise this as the number breaks down in to the od, id and width The best thing to confirm these bearings is to read the details off the old bearing This is the best I can come up with.

Here goes; MT7/1960 45mm ID x 120mm OD x 29mm width Skefko 7409 Hoffman 545ACD where did you get Hoffman N1090 from? MT7/2974 same as Pioneer t/transporter R&M MRJA60 roller journal 60 x 130 x 31 mm MT1/PT335212 not in army vocab MT7/1979 not in army vocab MT7/2017 not in army vocab Going to check out another book for those not listed

Not a good idea, the present owner would then think he was sitting on a gold mine and up the price. Best kept low key.

"Paraffin test" is not very accurate, because there is always gaps in the rings and holes in the piston grooves for oil scraper rings, and paraffin has a searching effect, so will swiftly leak through. I don't suppose you did a compression check before stripping? If the compressions were within limits, you only need renew the oil scraper rings and use Cords Duaflex as Grumpy said. If you put in new compression rings, the top one may chatter on the bore lip, and may have to have its upper edge radiused. Even after a light hone / glazebust, this will still be a problem. It all depends on how oversize the ring gaps are on the comp. rings, if very large, then you will have to renew them, but pay attention to the top ring. Don't worry about part numbers, just go to a engine parts specialist telling them bore size, and they will sort you out. Try Cox and Turner Engineering, John Cox is very knowledgable, 01425 652627

Don't think I have posted this one before. It is of a Pig that was in use by the San Mateo County Sheriff SWAT team, in California. I had been helping them over some technical issues with it.

:-( sorry, was not paying attention there, see what you meant now. Perhaps its time I switched this thing off...........

That is 16" on a 20" rim........not 16 in quantity :n00b: :-D :-D

I built an ex-Navy B40 up like that Victor Special, got a brand new original alloy tank from Russells in Battersea, for........£11 The V-twin looks to have B50 barrels and heads, gearbox and chaincase ar Norton as is the frame I reckon. Seem to think I have seen this before somewhere :confused:

Not sure about it being a man's truck...............looks more like a farmer's truck, with the old rope holding the battery on ........ :-D

Tony, That is a Cranes 45 ton trailer, and it is an engine powered winch on the front. Tyres are 16.00-20 earthmover types

I have an army cross reference list, fire away and I will see what can be done.

Hi CW, Nearly right . the Triumph Terrier 150cc was the original design, then Tiger Cub. BSA C15 and B40 sprung from them, followed by B25 and B44, then the mighty B50. I had a Sports Cub, also a B25 "Gold Star" (I know, ruddy cheek" but it was a fast bike for a 250 ), then a couple of B40's and a B50SS "Gold Star" (don't start that again :n00b:). The B50 actually won its class in the Production TT one year, beating japcrap :-D. It was a lovely bike and light for a 500. When the Royal Artillery Display Team stopped using BSA Victors, I bought some new Beesa parts from them.

Just to update. There is a very interested person on to it right now and I have put him in touch with my friend. So we will no doubt hear more, once he has seen it. Thanks for all your interest :thumbsup:

:idea: Was'nt there a thread called "New ownership" or similar, this pic should fit in that.

Swill, I have sent you a PM. Re the holders in the cab, they would originally have been for the .303" rifle. My Bedford is fitted the same, as were most vehicles

It is the bulk of the body that will not fit down the passage way, the place has been built up over 40 years. The body is of a construction that you would not want to disect. They are coach built vehicles.