head gasket problem

kevin powles · #1 22-04-12, 22:11

Hi, Took the carrier to a local show today, on returning from a 2 mile run, I was getting alot of gurgaling from the expansion tank and the radiator cap joints started passing steam.

The engine I have in the carrier is a 24 stud 8BA which came in the carrier when I got it and has given 5 years reliable service. She has always run a little hot and top radiator temp was 125 degrees C on shutting down, (hotter than normal).

I am going to do a compression check on the piston bores and coolant system this week, can anyone tell me what peek pressure can I expect on a healthy bore, I have yet to check condition of the oil. I did fire up my CO meter but its a bit old and unreliable and did indicate CO with radiator cap removed and the engine not running.

I am hoping this is a head gasket failure and not a cracked block, I think the radiator relief valve is working correctly as i have overhauled it previously, Head gasket change on these looks very straight forward but I am open to any ideas or comments.

kev.

Stew Robertson · #2 22-04-12, 23:17

Hi Kevin
take the rad cap OFF and run the engine until it comes up to nomal operating temperature then watch in the rad opening and rev the engine to check for bubbles nine times out of ten of there is bubbles, you have valve seat / wall cracks a typical overheated ford flat head issue
Stew
P.S while the engine is warming up also check the rad for bubbles, if they are
there before it gets warmed up it is probabley just the gaskets

carrierbarry · #3 24-04-12, 21:28

Thats a sad sight !!!

Hope everything is ok

Barry

kevin powles · #4 27-04-12, 15:59

Hi, Had the engine cover off today, turns out the fan belt was sherreded, got a new one on for £13, overhauled the cap, changed the oil and coolant. Now running as before, lucky escape and I would advise any carrier owner to check your fan belt condition and it is the correct one, also carry a spare.

kev.

charlie fitton · #5 27-04-12, 17:53

[QUOTE=kevin powles; turns out the fan belt was sherreded,

Hi Kev

Should be "belts" - and check your water pumps to see if they are the cause of the shredding..

Took me forever to figure out that the left pump would sieze "every now and then" - didn't leak, or even squeal all the time.

Dead simple rebuild.

f

ajmac · #6 27-04-12, 18:50

I remember kev said he has an 8ba fitted, if it is original condition then it only has provision for one belt, has it got the distributor up top by the RH cylinder bank kev?

Glad you sorted it...I have just started my 81a 3.6L 24 stud rebuild and all I can say is flatheads are not easy to work on when they have some carbon and corrosion in them!

kevin powles · #7 27-04-12, 18:52

Hi Charlie, Only one belt on my carrier as its an 8ba with single pulley on the pumps, Carriers run two belts to make them more reliable?, Cant see a difference in loading between a carrier and ford pilot or mecury, any one know why military spec is two belts~?.

kev.

ajmac · #8 27-04-12, 19:05

Think we cross posted there!
As far as I know twin belts were specified for trucks and single for cars in the US, over in England we were more reserved and retained twin belts throughout flathead production into the 50s. In my view twin belts were for reliability and during wartime when flatheads began to be supplied from the US and Canada, the British spec simply followed what they were procuring from Dagenham. Hence the twin belts and the British reluctance to move to the 239ci.... I am still sure that British built carriers never deviated from the 221ci, T16s and from people say Canadian carriers both went with 239ci power units.

Lynn Eades · #9 27-04-12, 21:18

Al. This has been argued about before, so I will post it again. See the opening pages from a British manual below.
I'd guess the British built MkII unversals and Mortar carriers at least with 239 cu.in. engines.

On the fan and waterpumps. I would suggest in the carrier situation, the h.p. required to drive the fan is probably higher than in any other Ford application of the time. The fan blade was special and it has to work hard to force air through a highly restricted flow path. Our carriers weigh in at about 4 ton and along with the design causing air flow dificulties, they also operate often at a low ground speed. As a result there would be virtually no air flow, that is not fan driven.
I personally wouldnt be trying to run without the twin belts.
The ford v8 by design is elsewhere described as a "hot" motor, because the exhaust gases have to flow through the block. couple that to an increased capacity motor (8ba,239 cu.in.) an exhaust system designed for a 65 h.p. v8 (a morris minor sized pipe)
As you go up in cu.in., the requirement for cooling increases.
Suggestion: Dont take shortcuts with your cooling system.

ajmac · #10 28-04-12, 12:09

I will post a scan of a wartime manual that conflicts with your scan! I am off to Qatar so it will be a while before I can scan it, these wartime manuals really do contain some errors, the trouble is there is no way of knowing which ones are at fault.
There is an archive memo which states for Loyds, no1 is 85 uk, no2 is 85 overseas and no3 is 95 overseas. The parts manuals state no1 is uk, no2 is USA and no3 is Canada and goes on to spec them individually as all 221ci, this is repeated in TD14758 a wartime drawing concerning carrier nomenclature. The overhaul manuals list all Loyd versions in the introduction and state that only no1 and no2 versions exist. All documents are 1943/4 dates. In one of the Canadian documents that N Watson uncovered dated December 1943, it states, 'test of 95hp engine not yet completed so it has not been released for the Universal Carrier', bit poor if you ask me as it was already 4 years old by then!

Lynn Eades · #11 28-04-12, 14:01

Page 208 of Vanderveens book(Fighting Vehicle Directory, WWII) uses the same description.(as my previous post)
If you read Nigel Watsons book I, pages 210 and 211. The COIUC 6097 Motors are the 95 H.P. motors (No.3) in the Universal carriers as well as in the Loyd carrier listings.
The 79E 6004 variations being The 65H.P. (No.1) motors.
Yes, I agree there are many mistakes in Wartime publications, which is understandable. However this part is very clear in its direction, and I believe this to be correct.
T.D.14758 is incorrect. It implies all MkI, MkII, and Mk III, Universals are all 85 H.P. which is definately wrong. Read the bit above the Cylinder head info on the same page (212)
What it is saying is that if the 65hp motor is replaced by an 85 hp, the carrier is no longer a No.1, but now a No.2 .

charlie fitton · #12 28-04-12, 21:08

" On the fan and waterpumps. I would suggest in the carrier situation, the h.p. required to drive the fan is probably higher than in any other Ford application........they also operate often at a low ground speed. As a result there would be virtually no air flow that is not fan driven."

I'll take the heat for this if it is wrong but I also have it in my head that the size of the fan also helps drop the engine RPM quickly when shifting...always seemed easier in the carrier than any CMP that I ever drove..

Perry Kitson · #13 28-04-12, 23:09

I had read somewhere that all Canadian produced carriers were powered by the Ford 85HP engine (3 1/16" bore x 3 3/4" stroke) The Windsor and all Ford produced CMPs in Canada used the Mercury 95HP engine (3 3/16" x 3 3/4" stroke) If I find the source, I will post it.

Perry

kevin powles · #14 29-04-12, 10:28

Hi, One thing to note is their is not much contact between a belt and the driven pully on the crank, two belts double the contact surface. I think my belt had been slipping before failure, quite an inertia on that fan and windage produced from the blades. When I eventually change out this engine for a wartime flattie it will be twin belts for sure. On closer examination it was the wrong size belt in width.

kev.

Richard Farrant · #15 29-04-12, 11:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevin powles

. On closer examination it was the wrong size belt in width.

kev.

Kevin,
Not knowing where you obtain your replacement belts from, but worth checking the angles of the pulley grooves on your engine in comparison to the belts used. Belts available in UK are usually the British Standard sizes with A, B and C widths, but these do not always correspond with pulleys on older engines, as there was a British Standard for Automotive belts at one time and the vee angle was slightly different, to use a B or C in these old pulleys, they tend to ride high and do not make a lot of gripping contact on the belt flanks.

Lynn Eades · #16 29-04-12, 12:34

Kevin. I think you will find these old fords used a special profile belt (as Richard has aluded to) I have an original belt here, Autolite 7RA 8620C the belt width is 17mm wide, but the depth is 13mm (a B section is 11mm)
I think this will mean the angles of the side of the belts are different.
To do it right, you might have to go to the trouble of getting belts from a Ford dealer (e.g. Vanpelts in the U.S)

kevin powles · #17 29-04-12, 19:06

Hi, Lynn, Richard, I will check out what i have here and make sure its correct.

kevin.

The Bedford Boys · #18 30-04-12, 07:26

Did the belts on a mates carrier a few months ago. Didn't have any trouble getting them here in little old New Zealand.

RichardT10829 · #19 30-04-12, 10:36

my experience with this is to check the insides of the pulleys very very carefully the slightest burr or bit off crap and you will eat through belts..... there is always the issue with over tension but knowing how anal (meant as compliment mate) you are Kev i doubt you would have done this

Hans Mulder · #20 01-05-12, 23:05

My carrier chewed up a fan belt last summer, and with the Chevy 350 setup there is only the one. Noticed the temperature guage climbing and shut her down in time to avoid damage. They do get very hot very quick as there is little natural airflow over the radiator.

Harry Moon · #21 01-05-12, 23:10

We had a problem with our Lynx out here and it came down to the fact that the head gaskets fit on both ways, right and wrong! It's not that obvious I'm told which end goes where but on an old flathead forum there was an answer and it cured the overheating problem but not before we heated it up pretty good trying to sort out belts, pulleys thermostats etc.