I have never seen any timing marks on any Norton single cams, if they are there, a previous owner has stamped them.

Ian, as far as I am aware it's 3-4 thou clearance on the 16H valve guides. I'm sure I found this in one of the books or old manuals I've got but I can't confirm that without looking again. I bought NOS guides and new valves and that was the clearance too when fitted.

I can't remember what grease was stated in the manuals but it's every 500 miles. I use ordinary high melting point grease.

Sorry, I didn't see the other post you asked these questions. I will have to go through the books again and post to confirm.

email (option): horror@blueyonder.co.uk

['Sorry, I didn't see the other post you asked these questions. I will have to go through the books again and post to confirm..']

Hi Horror..It was a long running discussion quite some while back when Rik had all the trouble with his valves/guides...

I made a 'best guess' based on previous experience and other engines when I repaired Riks barrel...At the time it appeared that there was no information published in Norton manuals ref. valve to stem clearance...

I found that to be pretty amazing considering that it is basic information when overhauling an engine...but then I also found it hard to believe Nortons don't have valve timing marks...
After all, why make life difficult when it can be easy?....

I have copies of the BSA and Matchless REME 'standards' books...Hopefully one day the Norton book (and others) may appear to solve these problems...Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Ian, no I have never seen timing marks on any of the cams I have had. Some had painted on marks, which is what I did to mine. It's baffling why they wouldn't have marked them at the factory. Only thing that ever came to my mind is that the gear wheels and the cams are separate entities, perhaps they elected to press the cams into the wheels in any position rather than having to press them in at a precise position dictated by timing marks? Who knows, I'm sure there is sense to nonsense somewhere.

Valve stem to guide clearance? I guess I don't follow. Do you mean the clearance between the valve stem and the bore of the guide? Sort of like piston to cylinder clearance? If so I have no clue. The guides were drifted in, valves cut true on their seats, but I don't believe any honing was done to the guides. Everything was NOS. Please let me know if I didn't understand your question.

As for grease, I have always used lithium grease with no problems, in what concerns intervals, I don't really keep track, I have a grease gun next to the bike and give them a squirt before a ride. Probably more than necessary, but it doesn't hurt anything as far as I know and it sure makes me feel better!

Hi Sam.. Yes, it was the valve stem to valve guide bore clearance I was referring to...I guess it must be 'top secret' information..

What a strange company Norton were...

My father visited the Norton factory in the mid 50s and said it was the most antiquated factory he had ever been in!...Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

The correct pre-load (thickness) of the 'red' washer betwixt pump and outer-case is vital.
I know of at least 2 were there was no pre-load and the oil simply leaked out around the washer with not much going down to the big-end.

i've used 'o' rings but you need to be very careful as they can crush out or simply be stretched out of place (they should be made of NITRAL rubber - harder with less stretch than butylene).

I have been lucky to be able to use DOWTY/VICTORS washers - for this important seal - basically an 'o' ring internally bonded to a washer - to stop it from spread/crushing out of place.

I once converted a CI dommie oil pump to fit a short stroke ES2 i built (plain big-end instead of roller) with its twin start drive gear - i wonder if they are using these as a basis ?

The twins pump is totally different to the singles, the difference is obvious when you see them side by side.

Hmmm i must have three very rare CI bodied ES2 o/pumps on the work bench then - i do seem to remember having to mess with inlet/outlet but otherwise they interchange.
I would not say they are completely different?

You have managed to convince me to drag out and strip my S/Stroke ES2 engine (been under bench for nearly 20 years) to check what i actually did?
At least i can get int onto Ebay then.

One thing to watch out for is that later ES2's had a different drive gear on the oil pump, to match the two start crank-gear (as fitted on all twins).

The Norton singles I have, all have the drive on the left of the pump, and on the twins it's on the right.

Twin oil pump


Single oil pump

email (option): horror@blueyonder.co.uk

Well, that's interesting Horror, the pump for the twin has the large 3/4" disc, like the one that came with the pump I purchased from Andover. They must have figured they were all the same without checking! Scavenger and feed gears are reversed also, the outlet port is on the bottom for the twin.

Going slightly off topic but still on the subject of oil pumps, the Ariel WNG can be 'upgraded' by the fitment of a Triumph oil pump...

The oil holes in the crankcase need to be slightly chamfered on one side to align with the holes in the replacement pump, but it's an easy fit...

The larger diameter pump plungers of the Triumph pump boost oil flow considerably....Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Yes the the outlet (a slot on the twin) is on the opposite side.

I believe that i inverted the main casting and simply did some Dremelling/brazing to make sure things line up, as gears, shafts and end plates interchange between the bodies.
I also fitted a positive feed (oil seal instead of plunger) to the end of the crank.

HORROR knows from my B25 saga, what sort of things need to be done.

The mazac bodied oil pumps shown is for the ES2/16H with a single start crank-gear, the twin start gear has a more acute angle.
The gears interchange on the oil pump and the crank, i presume that Norton found some reason to double oil flow to the B.E. sometime in the 50's?

Hi Samuel, the pumps changes several times with different metal and with increased output etc here a picture of a Norton twin oil pump with the smaller disc.



The later twin pumps for sale say "fit all twins" and has the bigger disc, this may cause a problem on some earlier models like you've found. I haven't got a featherbed type ES2 engine, but I'm suspecting the larger disc may be for the last singles?

Hi Nig, sorry I'm not understanding how you converted a Dommie pump with the drive on the right to fit on a single? Do you have any pictures?

email (option): horror@blueyonder.co.uk

H - i don't know what the hell i'm looking at in front of me - but it seems all my CI bodied pumps which i thought came off twins (including my old Commando) have the scavenge and pressure gears in exactly the same position as my mazac (1932-4) es2/16h body.

With the pressure gears inline with the outlet (which caused the original question) - obviously, and the scavenge gears inline with holes/slots which correspond to the crankcase of some 16H c/cases i have.

The driving shaft may be in a different position on the twins, but the pump top (gears side) plate can swapped from mazac to CI body or even simply swap the top plate around - the outside of the casting doesn't line up but it seals and you simply grind off anything that gets in the way of the c/case flange.

The CI gears for both Scavenge and Pressure are slightly deeper than in the mazac body - but the idler shaft and the drive shaft are the same.

Have swapped to W10 (again) so currently lost any pic sending ability - so i'll send you some pix direct.


Had a look at yr pix again - and am truly baffled?
Talked to VMCC Norton expert last night about this (he did some of the welding on the s/s crankcases) and according to him - no ES2/16H had the CI body, only the twins?
Which means i have three - CI o/pumps that were never made ?



I'll go and check again (i'm doubting myself now!) and send pic

Ok, I'm not brave enough to start redesigning oil pumps. Taking them apart and lapping them in is as much as I do. If they're too far gone it's time for a new pump I know the gears are deeper on one side than the other and swapping the drive would affect the difference between feed and scavenge. The other difference between a single pump and a twin is the outlet is on the top of the body on a single and a twin is on the bottom so you'd have to drill another hole to fit a single. You're a brave man Nig

email (option): horror@blueyonder.co.uk

Keith H

Horror

There's even more to it than that the drive is on the other side of the pump!!

Yes, we've said that Keith, I've posted pictures of both pumps, but Nig is saying he swaps the top plate to make the drive on the other side.

email (option): horror@blueyonder.co.uk

It has now been 2 weeks since installation and as far as I can tell, not an ounce of oil has disappeared from the tank. I'll be a couple weeks still before startup, but as far as wet sumping, in my opinion, (and I'd loose half a tank in 2 weeks) it's a success. Running the engine will be the next test, but I don't anticipate any trouble, famous last words!

You'll have to put some oil in the tank first though, Sam...

To be honest, I'm not surprised as this is exactly what I found when replacing with a new-generation Andover pump on my Commando. Prior to that (and I'd replaced quite a few pumps - every time the cam or followers went...), it never made much difference before.

I have memories of levering out an outlet nipple on one of the old pumps, I think because a Nourish pump didn't have one. Have you spoken to Andover about hat aspect ? I'm sure that it's something that Joe Seifert would like to know about and it's an easy fix for them.

Rik, I may be one of those rowdy petrol tank riding Canadian trouble makers, but I did fill up the tank!

I have to admit I was fully expecting it to hold the oil for 2 weeks, the true test will be over an extended period of time, but that doesn't concern me as much, my goal was to get a few weeks time and be able to jump onto the bike and go without draining the sump or starting an engine full of oil.

I have reported it to Andover, and other than scratching their heads, they didn't mention anything more about it. Perhaps I should write them again and attach a photo of nipples side by side. As you say, an easy fix for them, and they could advertise them more correctly for the 16H.

H

no pix but better end my 'contribution' -

Seems the two (+one now damaged) CI bodied pumps i have ARE ES2 and not twin.

All of these bodies are symmetrical - in that they can be rotated end for end to make them 'upside down' - i.e move the pressure outlet from bottom to top.

The two covers - one a plain plate, the other a casting incorporating the drive shaft again can be swapped around - yes they may not look correct, but they seal and can be trimmed to allow the pump to fit against crankcase.

The un-driven pressure/scavenge gears - stay in place.

The problem comes with the drive-shaft - on mine, they have an integral pressure (thin) gear which allows the body to be in the correct position for the ES2 - on a dommi/commando/twin this would be a wider scavenge gear to allow the body to line up for the twins.
I presume all the pumps have this integral gear at different positions according to application?

I seem to have two different 'output' pumps - two with a narrow pressure and scavenge gears and one with wider gears.

The 'narrow' gear shaft, etc is the same as the MAZAC original 1930's 16H/ES2 - and the MAZAK gears fit very nicely into the CI body - giving a CI body oil pump, which will be fitted to my ES2 - eventually.

So - although the twin-pump appears (very?) different to the single-pump, they are very closely related and it appears that an pump from early twin with a CI body can be converted into a CI bodied single pump by swapping the bodies, as long as the gear width is similar.

As for the original start of the tread - the diameter of the machined flat on the pump body - why does it matter?

Or was the problem that the single pump has a smaller diameter pressure outlet stub than the twin - in which case why not simply find a fiber/Dowty/'o' ring of the bigger size

I think that I may have 'cracked' this one.

To answer Nig's final point, the problem here is that the backing disc to the push-in spigot is too large a diameter to enter the counterbore in the timing cover. This means in all probability that the timing cover will be held away from the crankcase face unless the OD is turned down.

On the 1936-pattern engine, the backing disc has to be small enough to enter the counterbore.

This photo shows a WD16H timing cover and oil pumps from (L-R)Mk3 850 Commando, 750 Commando and WD16H. The Commando outlet is sealed by a conical rubber - large OD on the Mk3 and smaller on the earlier model. The rubber seals are shown alongside the stub.



The backing disc on the early models is the same size as the WD16H. I suspect that what Andover have done is to make all their twin pumps suitable for the Mk3 - If the large Mk3 rubber is placed on the small plate, it is not supported and does not seal. The Mk3 needs a larger seal as it has to close a larger opening containing an anti-drain valve.

On the Commando it is not a problem as the rubber is about 1/8" thick and the timing cover sits well clear of the oil pump stub - the rubber should compress appreciably as the cover is pushed home so they can all use the larger disc.

Unfortunately, Andover appear to have carried this stub over on to the single cylinder pumps without appreciating that on the pre-1938 pattern engines at least, the stub has to be able to enter the counterbore in the timing cover.

The NOC are visiting Andover at the beginning of July. If needs be, I'll happily take the relevant components along.

You may need to click on the photo in order to see all three pumps (which form only a small part of my knackered oil pump collection !)

There is an iron twin pump listed as a singles pump on eBay at the moment.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Norton-oil-pump-ES2-16H-M19-M30-M50-77-88-99-/182127763088?hash=item2a67a91e90:g:NWAAAOSw3mpXM4gz

One month of sitting there and not a bit of oil has gone down to the engine, the pump is a complete success in my eyes, at least as far as wet sumping is involved.

Sam the true test now will be after you've done a good few miles to ware the pump in.

New York to Norton Sound and back.....GO! Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

Yes Ron, it's true, it hasn't been run in yet, but I still think it should prevent wet sumping for quite some time. Fortunately, I don't plan any endurance runs like the one you suggest!

SAM - norton were so convinced how good the o/pump would be at stopping w/sumping - on pre-war models they used an ON/OFF tap on the oil tank .........

Ok until u forget, but the increased rattles soon remind you!

Finally got the bike running and out for a spin. After a bit of carb adjusting, she ran like a clock. As for the pump, two things I have noticed are that the return rate is much higher than with the original pump, I am attributing this to the larger outlet hole in the pump, I am guessing it is furnishing much more oil than the originals, the oil return with the old pump was a babble and spit whereas with this one it is a steady solid stream. The other thing I have noticed which didn't happen before is that upon cranking the engine, the tell tale comes up and stays up for a bit, gradually returning as oil dissipates through the crank. Previously, the tell tale would go straight down, probably loosing it's pressure through the pump. I have not noticed any wet sumping in a couple months, altogether the pump is in my opinion a VERY good investment which cures the 16H's Achilles Heel, "wet sumping", this coupled with the fact that I know there is a high oil pressure make me a happy camper as I open the throttle!

This afternoon's ride.