question The "Austin K5" problem...a new direction....

[79x100]

I have the impression that there was a real squabble going on between Austins and the War Office (or more probably the Ministry of Supply).

 

Presumably the MoS were blaming Austin for engine failures and Austin were laying the blame on the oil type used by the War Department. Whether this related to detergency or simply to poor grade base oils is not clear. Certainly the military authorities were testing recycled oils during the 1930s (as well as new processes such as hydrogenating to improve stability). If the quality of the oil was declining, it may well be that the problems would also have arisen with the earlier 'M' series oils.

 

What does seem clear is that Austin were asked to supply standard civilian specification cars (presumably without a scraper ring) for use by the occupying powers and, following normal practice the oil specified for a civvy vehicle would be the higher end commercial blends from Wakefield Castrol or Essolube etc. Having checked whether this would be the case, they were informed that standard military 30 HD would be used and found this unacceptable. Was the wartime HD oil the equivalent of 'pool' petrol ? Certainly, it did not survive long post-war as by 1949, there was reference to the OMD codings.

 

Austin probably had no choice regarding the change to OMD in 1943. It was that or nothing. However, it's quite possible that they did test it at the time and found no problems but that there was a lowering of standards or a lack of quality control due to the large number of suppliers and that the problems were caused by this. What does strike me as strange is that they brought up the aspect of previous problems (presumably the K5 saga) instead of simply saying that their 1946 pattern civilian market car engines were not suitable for use with military 30 HD oil. Maybe it was just a bit of tit-for-tat...'You've cost us a fortune in warranty returns. Now you're going to pay extra for your new car engines...'

[phylo_roadking]

79x100...

 

If the quality of the oil was declining, it may well be that the problems would also have arisen with the earlier 'M' series oils

 

...although I would have thought that if any problems were ever going to have arisen with the "M"series oils - it would have been 1940-42 in the Desert???

 

IIRC there was an American "MIL" oil grade directly equivalent to HD 30; I wonder if the specification change was after the Americans began arriving in the UK in numbers, together with their vehicles...? To simplify the supply requirements in the field...

 

..but that's very much an aside to the K5 issue.

 

However, it's quite possible that they did test it at the time and found no problems but that there was a lowering of standards or a lack of quality control due to the large number of suppliers and that the problems were caused by this.

 

But of course that would depend on the nature and duration of the tests...there were some VERY strange testing shortcuts made during the war! Avro Lancaster prototype testing comes to mind...!

[phylo_roadking]

Hi Bryan - indeed I can't help noticing...

 

As i said above (but in summary form this time ) i am also using info for the K6, which according to the manuals had the same engine, as well as the K2/3

In the August 42 Drivers Handbook it gives no detail of the oil to be used...

...In the October 43 Drivers Handbook, and later editions of the same, it specifies 30HD oil

The Maintenance Manuals from January 44 onwards state 30HD oil

All of these manuals were printed by Austin, so they must have known from at least 1943 that there was a change in the oil type being used.

In fact even up to 1945 they were giving the exact same engine details including those given by NickAbbot above:

 

...the split - and possible changeover

 

Like a lot of the "K5" problem, this aspect is at the minute being shaped by what we DON'T see! :-D

[79x100]

79x100...

 

 

 

...although I would have thought that if any problems were ever going to have arisen with the "M"series oils - it would have been 1940-42 in the Desert???

 

IIRC there was an American "MIL" oil grade directly equivalent to HD 30; I wonder if the specification change was after the Americans began arriving in the UK in numbers, together with their vehicles...? To simplify the supply requirements in the field...

 

..but that's very much an aside to the K5 issue.

 

Hmm...Did Austin blame the Yanks for the oil and the Septics got their own back by re-writing history (that's a new one !)...and put it about that Austin were single-handedly responsible for the logistics failure associated with Market-Garden ? What was the U.S. Department of Dirty Tricks called in those days ?

 

My point about the oil was that the problem might be more to do with quality than specification. It could be that the earlier less sophisticated oil was consistently supplied above specification but that later deliveries of an oil which should have provided better protection may not have achieved the quality levels for any number of reasons. Austin's refusal to countenance it in the post-war cars might simply be based on their knowledge that the quality was inconsistent and that batches were below spec.

 

Whatever it was, it is clear that something in the Austin engine was borderline as the problems are not documented with other makes. I suspect that the poor old K5 was being thrashed mercilessly to keep up with Ford V8s and Bedford / GM sixes and the 4x4 version simply couldn't take when fully loaded. It's much harder to overload an ambulance.

[phylo_roadking]

Well, here's the thing...

 

Hmm...Did Austin blame the Yanks for the oil and the Septics got their own back by re-writing history (that's a new one !)...and put it about that Austin were single-handedly responsible for the logistics failure associated with Market-Garden ? What was the U.S. Department of Dirty Tricks called in those days ?

 

...that's EXACTLY what Tom O'Brien's research is showing up! That Chester Wilmot's "major issue" attributed to the Austin K5 just isn't there!

 

Why??? Well...

 

I suspect that the poor old K5 was being thrashed mercilessly to keep up with Ford V8s and Bedford / GM sixes and the 4x4 version simply couldn't take when fully loaded.

 

 

 

...despite what the Americans said - they didn't get back INTO service in August and September TO be thrashed! The "wear" issue and "defect" issue was discovered when they were being checked through prior to being added to the pool of L of C trucks!

 

It's clear from the 21st AG Admin History that not only was there ENOUGH lorries in the Reserve - HUNDREDS more "B" vehicles were being landed in Normandy each week! There were enough that several OTHER large batches of "reserve" vehicles could be allocated to other uses temporarily. Yes, the Americans DID on one occasion loan us lorries for a time, but that was later in Sptember IIRC, when the bugbear of too little maintenance on the Lof C HAD eventually raised its head - which was weeks after the K5 problem was discovered!

 

From Tom's research it increasingly seems like the Yanks heard about the K5 issue and fastened on it...as an excuse? Because they didn't have visibility of the other lack-of-maintenance issues by then? Who knows...now

 

But one thing is clear from the Admin History - the failed 1,400 K5s weren't actually ever IN use in the L of C to prejudice any performance!

Edited July 25, 2013 by phylo_roadking

[Runflat]

I've been having a look through Austin Service Journal - War Department Issue, sadly I only have a couple of issues (Vol.9 commencing January 1945 and Vol.10 commencing January 1946). There's a note in Volume 9 that says:

 

Further to the article appearing on page 98, Volume 8, of this Journal, the engines of 4x2 vehicles first fitted with the modified compression and scraper rings, part numbers 1K1420 and 1K1421 respectively, are as follows:-

 

2-Ton W.D. Ambulances, engine no. 75090, during Contract S.3165

2-Ton (4x2) R.A.F. vehicles, engine no. 71804, during Contract S.6566

 

 

That doesn't advance things too much other than to confirm there was a design change. Presumably engines fitted to other types in the Austin range were also modified - you'll need to compare and contrast parts lists and/or track down Volume 8 for more.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Runflat
spelling

[phylo_roadking]

That doesn't advance things too much other than to confirm there was a design change.

 

More than you might think! One of the things we DID turn up many months ago now was that Austins were working with a third-party piston ring specialist company in the last months of 1944 We couldn't find any confirmation that it was specifically to do with the K5, but at the time we regarded it as an amazing coincidence!

 

NOW we can see that something concrete may just have come out of that liaison with respect to the K5!

[wally dugan]

As promised l started to look through the files in the loft l found a file of correspondence between Bart and my self

as you will be aware we where looking at the development of the ROLLS ROYCE B series of engines when we came across

reference to failure of engines during world war 2 What l have found is no indivilual manufacturer was named in the

document this could be for a number of reasons all of which would be speculation on my behalf We did write to ROLLS

ROYCE on the subject of the committee meeting and the report but the reply was in the negative all of this was in 1989

and 1990 l have only got half way through the files and lF l find the report l will post it on the forum it has surprised me how much stuff l have collected and forgotten about it which makes it even harder that you tend to read ever thing which slows

the job down

 

 

REGARDS WALLY

[phylo_roadking]

Hi Wally, thanks for what you've done so far.

 

By the way - what was the name of the committee???

[wally dugan]

when and if l find the file l will be able to tell you all the things you want to know

 

 

REGARDS WALLY

[RAFMT]

I have a question, as i'm not as well versed on the engine complaints as others seem to be.

Why did it affect the K5 in particular? If the K2/3 and K6 had the same engine why weren't they affected in the same way?

[phylo_roadking]

Why did it affect the K5 in particular? If the K2/3 and K6 had the same engine why weren't they affected in the same way?

 

Tht's one of the major planks in the whole debate! Why not...

 

...and incidently, why didn't it afect the early-production 1943 GS K5s???

 

But until we get a definitive something on the actual nature of the fault(s)....TWO problems are recorded "thinly" in the 21st AG Admin History...what we're doing now is exploring around the edges of the "problem" with what little there IS available to date.

 

One thing I'm thinking of now, after seeing something on a forum a while back http://www.network54.com/Forum/433829/thread/1356133544/last-1357131564/Some+interesting+Austin+K5+info+and+a+question

 

...is that it MIGHT be down to one specific batch of K5s...!

 

I don't suppose anyone here can put issue dates to those WD number ranges???

[79x100]

It's difficult to pin down the build dates even using comparisons with known deliveries. The census numbers were issued in batches but manufacturers with a back-log might not use them for eighteen months and others began production before the contracts were signed.

 

The Tank Museum have a substantial collection of what might be called 'Contract Receipt Cards'. They appear to be duplicates of records made at RAOC Chilwell. They certainly include softskins and Austins but I can't confirm which contracts. It may be worth asking. They're filed by manufacturer and consecutive 'Catalogue Ref. No.' and not by model or type.

[phylo_roadking]

Thanks for that; I knew they held the AFV records, but didn't know they had the softskin record cards too.

[Richard Farrant]

This subject has come for discussion in the past and I remember taking part. A couple of points that do not appear to have been noticed so far on the K5 engines, as follows;

Piston skirt clearance was increased from .0025" - .0028" to .004" - .0045" to make engines with new pistons immediately suitable for wading through water without fear of seizure. Pistons with original smaller clearance can be used for engines of vehicles which it is known will not be called upon for wading.

 

I would guess that vehicles built for wading with greater piston clearance could have been the ones causing the problems, this may have caused panic at the time and all K5's were considered a problem as it may not have been known how to identify which engines were wading types.

 

Also there were modified compression and scraper rings which exerted greater pressure on the cylinder walls, these were actually marked HD30 and had to be fitted the correct way up.

 

regards, Richard

[phylo_roadking]

Richard, thanks for that.

 

Piston skirt clearance was increased from .0025" - .0028" to .004" - .0045" to make engines with new pistons immediately suitable for wading through water without fear of seizure. Pistons with original smaller clearance can be used for engines of vehicles which it is known will not be called upon for wading.

 

I would guess that vehicles built for wading with greater piston clearance could have been the ones causing the problems, this may have caused panic at the time and all K5's were considered a problem as it may not have been known how to identify which engines were wading types.

 

There may still have been a problem with the "wading" types issued to the GT companies for D-Day despite those changes...because from what Tom O'Brien has found they were replaced quite sharpish in the GT companies

 

"this may have caused panic at the time and all K5's were considered a problem as it may not have been known how to identify which engines were wading types"

 

I wonder if this could have been mistaken for premature wear??? OR...could wear on top of the increased clearances have led to problems faster than comparable "B" vehicles?

 

But THIS is real bingo...!

 

Also there were modified compression and scraper rings which exerted greater pressure on the cylinder walls, these were actually marked HD30 and had to be fitted the correct way up.

 

Do you know if the new rings were specified to match the HD 30 oil specification???

 

(Or were the "high pressure" rings used in the "wading" engines with the looser clearances???)

[wally dugan]

IF as Richard says the problem was caused by wading would it not be a subject to be raised when talking about a new

range of engines for the military as l said l do not like speculation

[Richard Farrant]

IF as Richard says the problem was caused by wading would it not be a subject to be raised when talking about a new

range of engines for the military as l said l do not like speculation

 

Hi Wally,

The information I quoted is all straight from the Austin K5 workshop manual. It is not caused by wading, but due to precautions on engine building for vehicles designated to wade.

[Richard Farrant]

I wonder if this could have been mistaken for premature wear??? OR...could wear on top of the increased clearances have led to problems faster than comparable "B" vehicles?

 

But THIS is real bingo...!

 

 

 

Do you know if the new rings were specified to match the HD 30 oil specification???

 

(Or were the "high pressure" rings used in the "wading" engines with the looser clearances???)

 

What may have happened was that due to greater piston skirt clearances, there was an oil burning issue. This might also have been made worse with the new spec HD30 oil, although it obviously did not affect all of our MV fleet otherwise the war machine would have ground to a halt. The new rings that I mentioned would have had a stronger "springiness", no difference in clearances as far as I can see.

[wally dugan]

HI RICHARD

 

PLEASE DO not think l was suggesting you where speculating if you read my post about about a committee meeting

held about future engines for the military after the war engine failures where mentioned it was i who was specpulating

that the B RANGE was the engine been discussed which was as you know was waterproofed as standard if the K5s engine

suffered damage due to wading would not be prudent to do something about it with the next generation of new engines it was me who was speclulating

 

REGARDS WALLY

[Richard Farrant]

HI RICHARD

 

PLEASE DO not think l was suggesting you where speculating if you read my post about about a committee meeting

held about future engines for the military after the war engine failures where mentioned it was i who was specpulating

that the B RANGE was the engine been discussed which was as you know was waterproofed as standard if the K5s engine

suffered damage due to wading would not be prudent to do something about it with the next generation of new engines it was me who was speclulating

 

REGARDS WALLY

 

No problem Wally, actually I realised that I had not mentioned where the info came from and your post reminded me to put it on.

As a point of note, the B Range engines were not 100% waterproof. If the engine stopped, water can enter the sump through the rear main, I have seen it happen on several occasions.

[phylo_roadking]

Hi Wally, did you you have any luck turning up anything more?

[wally dugan]

HI l have had no luck up to now lots of everthing else going to be away this weekend but a friend is coming monday and tuesday to try and finish going through the last of the files with me will let you know soon as

 

 

WALLY

[phylo_roadking]

In the meantime - I can move the oil issue along a bit! I've been shown a couple of pages from the REME Official History...and -

 

There WAS a formal agreement...the Paul-Pryon Agreement - in October 1942 by which the British would move over to U.S.-equivalent "HD" detergent oils! Up to them the British were indeed using a range of straight mineral oils in the "M." series.

 

A temporary "changeover" regime was put in place to handle the switchover period...and although it was indeed feared that the "flushing" effect of the HD oils in pre-used engines WOULD cause carbon deposits to break away and circulate round the said engines....there was no sign of it happening in practice...

 

BUT as we now know - Austins did experience problems with their existing piston ring specifications when used with new HD oils Certainly with their car engines post-war...and from the revised-spec piston rings in the Ks being specifically stamped "HD 30" I would guess during the war too.

[wally dugan]

HI

As promised we finished looking through the files in the loft today but we did not find what we were looking for we did notice that several files are missing we also think we know what may have happened to them

 

 

regards WALLY