What is this under my clutch release bearing carrier?

[Steve G]

Hello Steve

Was it you that had the misfortune of the flywheel bolts failing and allowing the flywheel to become free upon over-revving when the throttle pedal stuck? If so, perhaps this more recent failure was effected at the time.

Just a thought. Ian

Yes that was indeed me. A very good point you have raised there. Although it didn't fail at the time because I did have a few trouble free miles of motoring after the engine rebuild with no noise from the clutch bearing. It may have been suitably weakened at the time of the over-revving though.

Do you have a five speed box? Looks like it could be the same part from the "maxi" 5 speed box...

John

No, or if it is it was doing a very good impression of a four speed box (It took me a while to stop thinking about a fifth gear though, coming from more modern machinery).

[ncm]

Hi Steve, If you haven't already sourced a replacement for this I have a spare one that you can have for considerably less than Burton's want

Cheers, Brian.

[Steve G]

Many thanks to ncm (Brian) for sending me the input shaft housing, I trust you got your Christmas card?

I took the old one out and it looks to be the same one as the new one except I'm still confused as to why the nosing on the old one is so much thinner. I have attached a picture showing the two compared and one of the old one showing how the failure surfaces of the nosing and plate don't match. From the outside the failure edge of the nosing matches that of the plate but inside it is about a quarter of the thickness it should be. The outside diameter is the same as the new one and I can't see how it could have worn down from the inside.

The numbers all match between the two except for a IF4 instead of a IF5 on the front. They are both stamped Ford Motor Company (FoMoCo). The rubber seal on the back of the plate looks to be a slightly different design.

I suppose it really doesn't matter but if anyone would care to enlighten me I would be most grateful.

[ardee_selby]

I suppose it really doesn't matter but if anyone would care to enlighten me I would be most grateful.

Steve,

I'm still stumped by what you found, but glad a netter (Brian) came to the rescue. A prime example of the forum working well!

Comparing photos from you and Gary really shows the reduced wall thickness...

Mark mentioned he had a couple of them break. I wonder if what you found was someones attempt at a repair at some time...

Anyhoo...good luck with re-assembly

Cheers - Richard

[rgh0]

Looks like the thinner wall "LF5" version was after some "value engineering" by Ford to reduce the material content compared to the "LF4" version and save a few pence.

Or may be the LF5 was a Lotus special to "add lightness"

cheers
Rohan

[Steve G]

I'm still stumped by what you found, but glad a netter (Brian) came to the rescue. A prime example of the forum working well!

The generosity and helpfulness of owners on this forum never ceases to amaze me, I got Brian's new part through my letterbox, all beautifully packaged, before I had time to get my cheque book out!

Mark mentioned he had a couple of them break. I wonder if what you found was someones attempt at a repair at some time...

I think that must be the only explanation, as if there was an inner housing that made up the rest of the wall thickness it would still be rattling around on the input shaft when I took the engine out. When you hold the old broken nosing in your hand you can immediately see why it failed, it's so thin compared with the new one.

Rohan - Yes, the 'add lightness' adage did cross my mind!

[ardee_selby]

Looks like the thinner wall "LF5" version was after some "value engineering" by Ford to reduce the material content compared to the "LF4" version and save a few pence.

Or may be the LF5 was a Lotus special to "add lightness"

cheers
Rohan

Ah yes...good old "value engineering". "The best way to engineer the value out of something" as an oldtimer used to say to me!

Richard

[garyeanderson]

I dunnu.

I looked 6 bearing retainer flanges 2 of each in stock
LEFT - from the Early wide/ ultra close box with the small bearing seal in the bearing retainer housing -113 E 7050
MIDDLE - from the Semi close box with the large seal bearing etainr housing 2821-7050 C
RIGHT - from the 71 and later box that WE got in the U.S. in the Ford Pinto that were equipped with the 1600 Kent crossflow numbers 71BG 7050 EA this is just shown so that maybe in the future it will answer a question.

This shows a bit of length difference of the nose length between the Early wide/Ultraclose bearing retainer and the later bearing retainer of the Semi-close.

here is your value engineering, the bearing seal was increaced in diameter, looks like the casting for the bearing/seal retainer was modiffied and failed after 40 years, what were they thinking?

Hi Steve

What gearbox are you working on? There were 3 different ones installed by Lotus and who knows what is there now.
My guess is you have the semi-close 2821 gearbox

About an hour plus to put this post together, and yes I am slow

Gary

[Steve G]

Thanks for going to the trouble of putting that together Gary, mine is the "MIDDLE - from the Semi close box with the large seal bearing etainr housing 2821-7050 C" as it has those numbers on both the old and the new one I have. It is a the standard four speed box from a 1970 S4, the engine (and car) was converted to Sprint Spec 20 or so years ago.

I have attached a picture I took of the underside of both housings. You can just about see the slight difference in the seals. The milled finish on the perimeter surface is slightly different too. I'm hoping the new one is interchangeable with mine, I really don't want to find out the hard way again. The manual says a cork gasket is needed between this housing and the front of the gearbox, it had a very thin, black gasket, don't know what it's made of, some sort of smooth, shiny textile.

[garyeanderson]

Hey Steve

I don't know, Like I said 40 years or what ever and shit gets old, tired and beat. This is similar to what 40 years of the old in-out does, NOW think about the gearbox bearing retainer and the throwout bearing hub .

Gary

[Steve G]

Gary

Are you suggesting that the more you use your throw out bearing the more worn and likely to fail it will become? This concerns me. Maybe I'll have to reserve it's use just for special occasions. Come to think of it, the wife is obviously already aware of this preventative wear regime.

Steve

[ncm]

Hi Steve, christmas card arrived last week. Thanks for the present it contained

Cheers, Brian.