Timing chains.

[deanoed]

imported post

pic

[NickA]

imported post

Couple of observations:

The dowels are where the tensioners are mounted; they should protrude from block, they look like they're flush in the pictures.

Also the back plate (the thin metal thingy) should go between the back plate block and the tensioner. That's defiantly aftermarket as the originals have a hooked end to stop the tensioner falling out if it reaches the limit of its travel

[Ian Durrant]

imported post

Even with those pics its a bit difficult to tell, but it looks like they are both rolon tensioners. The one that mounts onto a metal block before mouting to the engine is the one with the dowel (little piston) the other won't have one. As Nick has said on the N/S the dowel appears to be flush with the block,it should either protrude and be used with an original type reynolds tensioner or not be used with the rolons. I am guessing someone has cut it down.

Seperate the other tensioner from its spacer block incase the dowel has been cut down in there as well.

Hope that helps

Ian

[NickA]

imported post

Ian Durrant wrote:

Even with those pics its a bit difficult to tell, but it looks like they are both rolon tensioners. The one that mounts onto a metal block before mouting to the engine is the one with the dowel (little piston) the other won't have one. As Nick has said on the N/S the dowel appears to be flush with the block,it should either protrude and be used with an original type reynolds tensioner or not be used with the rolons. I am guessing someone has cut it down.

Seperate the other tensioner from its spacer block incase the dowel has been cut down in there as well.

Hope that helps

Ian

Pic of the tension and back plate with hook



Looking at my spare block isn't that dowel that's flush with the block actually blocking the oil feed?

[Ian Durrant]

imported post

That tensioner looks like a reynolds, the writing on it I can't read as its too blurred but it will probably tell you

I think the dowel that's flush does have an oil hole but you are right it looks like its in the wrong way around or isn't the right dowel. I think you should remove it,you may have to drill it and screw a self tapper in to get it out or drill and tap it an use a bolt

I still think you should split the tensioner from its spacer block and see whats in their, dowel or no dowel.

I know some people think the newer rolon tensioner blocks are OK but I can't see why reynolds would have gone to all the trouble of dowelling the thing if its unnecessary.

[deanoed]

imported post

nice pics nick i think your right

[NickA]

imported post

Ian Durrant wrote:

That tensioner looks like a reynolds, the writing on it I can't read as its too blurred but it will probably tell you

<snip>

Yep; genuine renolds; sorry for the crap picture

[Ian Durrant]

imported post

Ah Thanks Nick.

[milothedog]

imported post

Thanks for all the help and advice chaps, regards the hollow dowel, it's not in the block it's in one of Dean's pictures above with the tensioner. it was the other one in the block that I thought was wrong and shouldn't be there as some are suggesting. with it fitted and with the tensioners we removed it means the oil has to pass through 2 restrictions before getting into the tensioner to push it out.

Ian.

(This makes sense as Dean said that on start up there was a rattle from that side of the engine.)

[Ian Durrant]

imported post

Yes I think its possible that if the tiny hole in the dowel,doesn't quite line up with the tiny hole in the rolon tensioner, that you were getting no or low oil flow into that tensioner. Double restrictions wouldn't matter as the flow will be equal to that produced by the tightest restriction.

There seem to be two schools of thought about the tensioner operation, those that think oil pressure is used to push the tensioner out and lubricate the chainsand those that think it has a pure damping function,together with lubricating the chains.

I think i tend to believe the latter, but it doesn't really matter, the point is you need oil in the tensioner with enough pressure to squirt it onto the chains and there is a good chance that wasn't happening as Deanoed has surmised.

[milothedog]

imported post

Ian Durrant wrote:

Yes I think its possible that if the tiny hole in the dowel,doesn't quite line up with the tiny hole in the rolon tensioner, that you were getting no or low oil flow into that tensioner. Double restrictions wouldn't matter as the flow will be equal to that produced by the tightest restriction.

There seem to be two schools of thought about the tensioner operation, those that think oil pressure is used to push the tensioner out and lubricate the chainsand those that think it has a pure damping function,together with lubricating the chains.

I think i tend to believe the latter, but it doesn't really matter, the point is you need oil in the tensioner with enough pressure to squirt it onto the chains and there is a good chance that wasn't happening as Deano has summised.

I agree with what you are saying Ian about 2 restrictions would have no effect, my train of thought is that initially there would be a delay before the pressure was achieved inside the tensioner body. (hence the rattle) The good thing is we found it and can put it right.

Ian.