Humber FV1600

[fv1620]

Originally Posted by Richard Coutts-Smith

Any idea as to why I have one engine with a heat shield casting, and one not? Rich.

Rich I think it is because supporting the heat shield from the two manifolds meant there had to be two different components, a forward one & a rear one.

Supporting the heat shield independently meant one manifold could be used in either position. Another factor might have been the difficulty of removing the retaining stud if it had become too encrusted with the effects of heat, rust & time.

[fv1620]

Here is a Pig Y on the left & a GS Y on the right. I have no idea whether it is early or late type.



The parts book for the Hornet gives the same Y piece as for the Pig. But the book is wrong the entire Hornet exhaust system is quite different. The book was based on the prototypes using the Pig system.

But that meant you had a heat source directly under one of the spare missiles in the rear. It also meant loaders were tempted to stand on the end of the tailpipe, although this was later protected by a small armoured cowl.

The production Hornet had quite a different silencer mounted below the radiator accommodated by an enlarged belly plate with the tail pipe exiting in front of the front wheel on the driver's side, sometimes causing hypoxia for the driver.

Hornet Y on the left, Pig Y on the right.



You can see the gaskets I have fashioned from the Standard Vanguard gaskets.

[fv1620]

The GS one looks to be the later type FV228288 although to me the casting looks to read FV228287

[Richard Coutts-Smith]

The Aussy one appears to be the same as FV228288. see attached.
Spare book shows castings for chassis no. 20 000 and above, where does that put the Aussy chassis at 13 000 + 14000?
Can't quite believe the differences in one casting for a short production run of vehicles. I assume these would have been ripped off, when the armoured bodies where fitted, as the inherent design flaw would have been quite obvious by that time. Which would also mean that you should have bucket loads of these castings lying around over there.
Maybe one of the designers had shares in a casting plant?
Obviously the longer legs on the "Y" are able to absorb the manifold movement.
That is the first uncraked short "Y" I have seen.

Not sure if your gasket fitting hammer is quite large enough.
Rich.

[lynx42]

How interesting is that. Thanks fellas for such an insight into the problems of manifolds. I still have to look forward to that problem as my manifolds are still OK. (Hope I haven't spoken too soon.)
Rick.

[Richard Coutts-Smith]

"Rich I think it is because supporting the heat shield from the two manifolds meant there had to be two different components, a forward one & a rear one.

Supporting the heat shield independently meant one manifold could be used in either position. Another factor might have been the difficulty of removing the retaining stud if it had become too encrusted with the effects of heat, rust & time."

Sounds logical to me Clive, but I notice that the engine with the cast Heat Shield mounts is later than the one without (11347). How was the shield mounted without the manifold casting? I do not have one on the Humber, and I assume that the one pictured is bent, and should be flat.
Rich.

[Richard Coutts-Smith]

Appears to be 2 Humbers for sale on a German(?) internet site
http://auto.ricardo.ch/kaufen/fahrze...v/an635194982/
Any one able to translate???
Rich.