The 'E' Type Forum

I have just stripped the engine down to the block and the crank shaft, pistons big ends mains all out and off...how does the oil seal on the flywheel end of the crankshaft come off? all three allen bolts undone, the lowest won't come right out, it fouls the crank flywheel flange, and the dowels are loose but still engaged......I must be missing something the housing is loose and obviously one piece, its all loose and is the last thing stopping the removal of the whole crank.



Help!

It is not a one piece item. It has top and bottom halves , and in addition to the 3 horizontal cap screws holding the top half to the block , there are 2 vertical cap or allen screws holding the halves together

IIRC you can only see these by peering down the gap between flywheel and rear face of the block

Chris

Thank you Chris I'll get out and have another look......It shows them on my exploded drawing but I searched and searched to no avail last night.Thanks again.
Adam

Adam, do you plan to re-install the asbestos turd seal, or do you plan to fit one of the new kits using a proper oil seal? I will most likely do this when I tear my engine down and will most likely do this. Just curious.

Moe

There is much debate on whether it is worth fitting an 'upgraded' seal kit as not only are they expensive but they require considerable machining or the use of replacement parts. e.g. Rob Beere:

Lipseal Crank Conversion: Our conversion replaces the seal with a modern one-piece item, as found on any modern car. Other cheaper designs have tried to use a two piece seal. Kit includes: modified, ground (as necessary) and balanced crankshaft exchange, new flywheel, modified rear seal housing (exchange). ?695.00 inc balanced not ground; ?825.00 inc ground & balanced

There is also the question of longevity and I have been unable to get a definitive answer from anyone as to whether any of the modified seal kits are more reliable than a correctly installed rope seal. My car is with CMC at the moment having this job done and the recommendation is to stay with the original rope seal. Uryk at EType Fabs was of the same opinion when I asked.

David et alios : the only person I know who actually had one of the lip seals fitted ( to a 150 ) found it to be a total disaster. Not only did oil gush everywhere but the crank was ruined as well - this on a brand new rebuild . No-one could quite establish whether the machining was incorrect, but he ended up buying another crank and going back to rope seal . I know they all leak after 30 years, but if the system had been so unreliable from the start, Jaguar ( whose engine was always unquestionably the most beautifully engineered bit of the car) would not have persevered with it

Many thanks to all who responded. The oil-seal conversion is being sold by many of the usual suspects on this side of the pond. While it seems like a good idea--much in the same vein as the later, front-main seal--I have reservations about modifying the crank for fitment. There is a similar seal kit made for the Big Healey that works extremely well, but on those anything is an improvement over the scroll return originally used by BMC.

I think I'll keep my turd seal, thank you!

Mmm interesting one this...if I had seen just the first post from Mark: would bet I'd have said yes, I would replace it with a modern lipseal. it seems on first thought to be the sensible thing to do. However the rope seal lobby have a good well made point too.

My only experience of the two different systems are on the old Rover 3.5 lump, the first of which I rebuilt with the rope seal replaced....kind of worked but the second one (different car! and project!) I put in a lipseal. The lipseal became brittle pretty quickly, and the rope seal I never had any faith in it or my skill in installing it!

If! I ever get the old one off i will have to think hard, the current one is or has been oil tight not a lake of gunge on the flywheel end of the block, well not compared to the rover which had gunge all over the place it may well come down to economics and the considered comments of this forums best opinions! Am watching this space!

Adam

After installing several of the rope seals over the years, I often wondered why Jaguar had never used a conventional oil seal back there, but I've also seen a number of front-main seals fail with oil coming out in a big way. The rope seals will weep, but I've never seen one fail completely.

After thinking this issue through a little more, I believe that many leaks attributed to the rear-main seal are actually failed sump gaskets.

Adam

The secret to rope seal longevity seems to be in the preparation and installation. The seal should be soaked in oil for 24 hours and the correct rope seal sizing tool used during the installation. Andrew Turvey of CMC did a very full description of the process in one of his E-Type magazine articles. Worth getting the relevant back issue and reading it thoroughly.

Adam

The article is in the E-Type Magazine September 2005, Issue 10. You should be able to get a back copy from the E-Type Club office, if not email me. Chris Rooke, in his 'A Kind of Loving' articles for the same magazine, fitted an 'upgrade' seal. Even though it was a 'one-piece' item it had to but cut in half to fit on the crank and superglued back together! When these seals fail they apparently do so in a spectacular fashion, usually the first time you start the engine so at least you are not stranded on the side of the road. A failing rope seal means a gradual drip at worst.

Rope seal it is I think, I shall try and get a copy of the magazine, sounds well worth it.

Thanks David and Mark for your expertise I'll let you know what the engineering shop have to say about my engine and crank!
Adam

Dear E type followers,
I've just had 6 weeks of torment trying to fit an upgraded crank seal from SCParts which was not provided with any instructions. Now I can say I'm very happy with the result having resolved the interferance of the sump and flywheel issues. I can forward photos to anyone wishing to make such an upgrade. The beauty of this kit is does not require any machining of the crank only slight surface dressing of the crank flange outer surface.

my email for questions: grahamcyoung@gmail.com


Standard 1968 4.2 XK engine from 1968 FHC E type
Assembly showing crank flange protruding nearly 2.5mm from end face of seal.

Flywheel showing spigot with 5mm recess. The spigot interferes with the seal and prevents the crank and flywheel flange faces from meeting. The spigot face has now been machine down so the axial distance from the flange face to the top spigot face is now only 2mm.

BEFORE machining sump
Sump will not align to sump bolt holes in the block. The upgraded seal housing does not allow correct positioning. 5mm displaced. Considered machining the back side of the housing but wall thickness is only 4mm.

AFTER machining sump
Photo showing end of sump ground off 5mm with an angle grinder sanding disc (60 grit) then filed smooth. Cork gasket can still be installed and sealed up against the new lip seal carrier with hylomar.

Job done!
Graham from Bristol
1968 series 1.5 FHC E type