Hi Torque starter motor

[paustin]

Hi, I am about to source a WOSP 017 high torque starter for my ( late engine number ) Series 3 - was wondering if anyone has experience with this upgrade eg wiring compatibility etc?

Thx, Phil

[lowact]

Double check it has the correct pinion. Pre engine 7S7000 need a 29 mm diameter pinion. Later engines used 25 mm diameter (smaller teeth).

[Fspp369]

To confess I don't know which variety of SM.i have but can anyone tell me why a high torque SM is needed anyway on V12.

[mgcjag]

A high torque starter isnt needed......the standard motor starts the car perfectly well.....there is a lot of marketing that will tell you they are better......one thing though they are a lot lighter.....if thats of use...Steve

[Fspp369]

Ahh
So I need to be lighter with a v12...Mmmm!!!
I’ll cut the sides out of my crankcase to reduce the weight shall I? I could get an alloy bonnet I suppose, but there again at 6ft5in and 145kg ....I don’t think I’ll bother 🤭
The battery thing does make sense but buy a new battery if needed....much simpler.
Peter.
I do enjoy the banter on this forum.

[MarekH]

Why do you think it is an upgrade? Charlie Chaplin used to start his cars with just a crank handle in his films and he never seemed to have a problem with it.

The lightness makes it easier to hold and manoeuvre as you fit it - it has no bearing on its ability to start the car.

kind regards
Marek

[jagwit]

I also agree that a reduction gear starter is one of the least urgent upgrades needed on the V12. The manual and auto also differ in teeth count BTW.

Just because it SOUNDS like its turning slowly does not mean it is actually turning slowly. On my XJS as well as my EFI'ed V12 e-type I could see the reduction gear starter turning the engine at pretty much the same speed as the original.

A good battery, fresh wires and grounds is all that's needed (assuming alternator works well).

[Jiminsd]

I’m installing the Fosseway high torque starter in my 74 OTS. The engine is out and being rebuilt so it is a small expense and easy to get at. It’s small, lighter and has twice the power. My car started fine before but it’ll soon be 6.1L EFI.

http://www.fossewayperformance.co.uk/hi ... er-motors/

[chrisfell]

‘Tis a strange thing.

When I fitted a geared hi torque starter motor to my 6 cylinder S1, it turned the engine MUCH faster than the OE Lucas M45G motor would - even with new brushes bearings and a cleaned up commutator. I’m wondering why a similar effect would not be experienced when the same swap was applied to a V12.

Strange.

[Fspp369]

I think the answer is simple
Go EFI ...the way to go.
( I may have a vested interest in this!!)

[MarekH]

My conclusion is that paying any money for "upgrade" is definitely a total waste if you are going down the EFI route and really only worth it, if the previous Lucas item is in need of repair and fitting the new gear reduction item costs the same as the old one does to put right for the carburettored car.

The logic goes like this......

I see from datalogs that the starter motor turns over at 120rpm with the plugs in (and 160rpm with the plugs out). This means that as soon as you see the indicated rpm is over 120, at least one of the car's cylinders must be powering the flywheel, not the starter motor. I can also see how long this is going on, because the datalog x axis is time. It is now simple maths to look at the full 720' cycle and plot out how many cylinders are supposed to be providing useful work and what the result of this is.

In the case of the fuel injected motor, it runs on a special starting map which takes into account temperature and so it delivers exactly the right amount of atomised fuel directly to the cylinder inlet for it's known rpm, The car starts straight away every time, sometimes so quickly that that the flywheel has turned over not even a full revolution (each rev of the crank being six cylinders worth of running on the starter motor). You can clearly see that because the datalog shows you when the rpm was zero, when it jumped to 120rpm and crucially, when it rocketed up and over 120rpm. This tells me that the old Lucas starter motor was running for sometimes as little as just half of one rotation before cylinder power took over. That's hardly a strain on the battery, on the starter motor itself, or anything - the car just starts before you've even had time to let go of the key. Conclusion? - the zippy new starter motor brought nothing to the party for a fuel injected car.

So we know if we have exactly the right amount of fuel at whatever temperature then Charlie Chaplin can indeed just turn it over and go. What is different about the carburettored car?

It's all in the fuel delivery - or consistent lack thereof. Firstly, you can't just turn the key and go with a cold start. The fuel pump needs to fill the float bowls in all four carburettors and supply fuel to the two choke discs. You then need to get the right air:fuel ratio into the cylinders. This is the hard part, because it is only the turning over of the engine, creating the vacuum, that draws the fuel past the needle, where some of it hits the back of a cold water jacket, the insides of the black manifolds, the three branched inlet runners and then finally some of it gets into the cylinders. We know from the EFI datalogs that it takes about 250% fuel to start an engine at 0-10'c than it does a hot engine and this has to be supplied by the choke. The starter motor has to keep turning here, as not drawing air past the bridge in the carburettors means no fuel delivered, so what is at stake is not the exact speed this is done, but having the right amount of fuel delivered. With four carburettors, you get four bites at the cherry here - if just one of them is supplying the right air:fuel mix then three cylinders will fire and that is easily enough to get the flywheel spinning at over 120rpm. As soon as that happens, the car is powering the starter motor, not the other way around and the pinion is thrown out.

"But it spins over faster, so that proves it uses less energy and it must be better" I hear you shout! Well, the same work is being done - it's the same v12 engine being turned over, so the amount of energy needed to do that is the same. It turns over faster because of gearing, much like cycling up the same hill in a low gear means my legs spin around faster than if I'd stayed in a high gear, but it's still the same hill to get over. I can buy an argument that the cylinders more easily cleared of unburnt fuel at slightly higher rpm and that the is a lag between fuel atomisation and fuel delivery to the cylinders is decreased, but I know if the choke is correctly set and the correct fuel:air mix reaches the cylinders, it matters not a jot whether it happened at 100rpm, 200rpm or 300rpm - the cylinders are powering the flywheel and the car has started.

(My car is about 13:1 compression ratio with non standard cams btw - so it's a difficult load, but that doesn't matter if you deliver the right quantity of atomised fuel in the first place.)

Conclusion - sort out the fuel delivery and the car will start.

Jim - going EFI makes starting easier, so the Fosseway "upgrade" is an expensive way to fit new brushes in place of part worn old ones.

kind regards
Marek

[Fspp369]

[Adamski]

I'm actually on my original starter 1972 and it works well, Apart from gearbox removal and being retracted it has never been out.
Also still on original Butec alternator.

[Jiminsd]

Marek, thank you for the detailed explanation and I completely understand. You are 100% correct. My thought process defies logic. I shipped parts (brakes, alternator etc) from Fosseway anyway, I am not paying VAT, so no extra shipping and no extra labor to install it. Since essentially the entire motor is being refreshed and the engine is out of the car, $300 USD gives me piece of mind that the starter will be a non-issue until I sell the car when I’m too old to get in and out of it. I suppose you could say that my entire “re-freshening” was unnecessary and my wife and banker would certainly agree with you.

[Fspp369]

Jiminsd,
My wife thought the E was bank account sponge, then at first opportunity she came out with me after the mini rebuild....she’s now not so concerned about the costs, she smiled for hours! Sadly not so many smiles as a drive in her Smart Roadster gives her...I’m very definitely second to that! She loves it to bits. I can’t even get behind the wheel....she’s not tall, (hope that’s P.C.)!
Short answer do what you want to do, whatever floats your boat.

[PeterCrespin]

(My car is about 13:1 compression ratio with non standard cams btw - so it's a difficult load...

Not neces-celery. Many/most performance cams open the inlet valve earlier and close it later. At cranking speeds the effective compression ratio is therefore lower than a standard cam. Hence stump-pulling, unstall-able torque, as in trials bikes of old, is the province of softly-tuned valve events. Hence also a bit of inlet cam advance is worth having on automatic XK-engined E-types, where revving out and enjoying the top end is not really sensible.

[paustin]

Wow, thanks guys, overwhelmed by your responses. My car is fuel injected and an automatic - intrigued regarding different number of teeth auto to manual. Does this mean high torque starter LMS 017 isn't suitable for both transmissions?

Thanks in advance, Phil

[lowact]

Comparing my OEM starter (Lucas 26327 with the 29 mm dia. pinion) with a Gustafason geared unit as sold by Moss Motors:


Reason is, converting to high compression liquid propane injection, fuel rail pressure 30 bar, I will need good volts from the battery when starting otherwise the injectors won’t open.

First up the little geared unit. It was really struggling, quickly getting hot. Cranking speed 72 rpm, voltage 6.7 - 7.2 V. Next the OEM starter. Speed and volts zero, wouldn’t even start to turn over. Nothing wrong with it, bench tests fine. Issue is sure to have something to do with, no oil circulating… @#$#$%!!!

Meanwhile, clearly, the little geared starter is the best for me.

[Bob.]

Hi Colin,
If you are going to use one of the refurbished Nippodenso units marketed by Gustafson, check that the pinion "throw" and the depth of engagement with the ring gear teeth is the same as with the original Lucas. The unit already fitted to my car when I bought it appeared to have caused significant damage to the ring gear teeth despite having the correct 29mm pinion diameter for the car. One issue was that it only engaged 75% of the tooth length compared to the original Lucas unit.
See posts #9 and #18 here http://forum.etypeuk.com/viewtopic.php? ... er#p103478

[MarekH]

Dear Colin,
There is no logic in your argument. When you inject liquid propane, it'll attempt to vapourise as it is injected into the cylinder. Unlike petrol, which consists of a mist of atomised droplets of liquid, the propane will be perfectly vapourised because that's what it is at that pressure/temperature. This means you'll have a perfect mixture as far as spark is concerned.

My car starts wonderfully fast on lpg, faster than it does on petrol. It is a skimmed HE head and uses the old Lucas starter. At low temperatures, there is none of the trouble that you have with a carburettored car and the only reason for it starting better on lpg rather than petrol can only be put down to the fuel type.

V12 hard starting (particularly when cold) is a function of the inefficiency of carburettors and nothing else. Fuel injection eliminates that problem and using propane is just gilding the lily.

Low cranking speed with two different starters just indicated it's not a starter motor problem. The Lucas starter should turn your car over at 120rpm, and 160rpm with the plugs out. Before going further, confirm that is the case or fix it if it isn't.

I don't buy the "liquid propane is harder on the starter" argument at all - you should only be injecting a miniscule amount of liquid that corresponds to the same correct amount in gaseous form that I inject. The only difference is that for you it'll cool the air coming into the cylinder as it depressurises, so hopefully you get a little more air in, hence a tiny bit more power as you adjust the pulsewidth upwards for that factor.

kind regards
Marek