Thanks Ed, but I was referring to the trunnion mounts that connect the front bumper damper leaf spring assembly to the dumb iron studs. I reread my enquiry and could see how it could be ambiguously referring to the suspension, my apologies. Do you have contact details or a link for Alan Gibbins?
Yes Ed the 36/7 SS100 is mounted as SS1 on rubber mounts but the 38 on SS100 is mounted solid to the frame
Peter B
The SS1 and SS100 up to 1938 had very limited rubber mounting. The front ‘pegs’ into the chassis had a rubber washer above and below washers . But this allowed such little movement that the exhaust systems were solid mounted to the chassis
And then the 1 1/2 litre cars cars with the same basic design of chassis as the 6 cylinder cars didn’t get the lead weights
Would a major manufacturer get conned by something that didn’t actually do anything?
Well here in Australia, we remember GM Holden and their racing driver Peter Brock
Well Brocky was a good and successful driver but got away with the fairies and was convinced that a " polariser" that he developed would improved the performance of a car. It was a box of crystal, magnets and epoxy that tap into the " orgone energy’… well you get the idea. So GM started installing them on productions cars. at about $ 600 each.
Of course it was rubbish and all ended in tears. there was some sort of recall , and Brocky and GM parted ways.
But I can see similarities with the Wilmott Breedon harmonic weights.
It’s a common affliction If we were over at the pub list where guitars get discussed, I’d be mentioning a friend who was convinced by one our better guitarists in Melbourne [ but had away with the fairies moments himself] that if you painted your guitar a different colour ,it would sound different.
There is a lot f this sort of logical thinking around.
1 Like
Ed ,surely the the harmonic bumper merits more than a,
“good idea at the time”.
I am well aware of the SS1 / SS100 engine mount details, my question
is/was why the change to the solid mounts on the 38 on chassis,
for frame stiffness or to stop the engine/gearbox movement when depressing the clutch pedal?
Peter B.
As far as engine movement goes. In about 35 years of ownership the engine has never shown signs of moving under braking, The rear engine plate allows no movement with in the brackets on the chassis on either side
Curiously I haveseen on 1927 saloons which had quite flexible mounts by comparison, a bracket fon the bell housing and a rod going back to the centre of the X members to stop this movement. Butobviously found not to be needed as the saloons up to an including the Mk IV [ and MKV] had exactly the same engine/ g box mountings and none continued with this bracket.
Using the engine to stiffen the chassis? Perhaps but this was more a thing from much later rear engined F1 cars and the 100 chassis is very stiff. I would have a guess at maybe it was just done [ at the same time as the 3 1/2 engine was offered, for production reasons. Folded sheet brackets being cheaper to make than the turned and milled pegs on the earlier mounts.
And thinking about it, I doubt my left leg has enough force to move the engine against the mountings.
Independent front ends didn’t entirely take over in about 1950. 4 WDs still usedcthem and I don’t recall lead weights in their bumpers [ but could be corrected]
The lead weights may have been a carry over from early MGs that has spring loaded lead weights attached to their brake drums, to stop squealing.
So long as it can move a wah-wah pedal…