Hmm, a bit more research needed, I think. Some of those have similar pinion arrangements to the one I’ve bought, but the body on mine is correct even to the month, and model number. Bit of a bitsa perhaps.
Very likely. So you need to exchange Bendix parts with an early 120 owner who has bought a later starter and discovers it won’t fit in his bell housing.
First up - YES, I did make an error in XK140 EXPLORED - the XK140 26062A Starter Motor has a Pinion with 10 teeth - not 11 as shown. My mistake, don’t know how it happened as my foundation resercah notes clearly state 10 teeth… XK120 EXPLORED was my next book, but only partially before I ended relationship with Viart, and with XK120 EXPLORED you will find a significant amount was simply copied from XK140 EXPLORED without checking and without modifying/editing to be actually XK120 correct. XK150 EXPLORED came next, and again much was simply blindly copied from XK140 EXPLORED without checking… Not to worry, its now clearly understood to be 10 teeth, and indeed the recent Revised Edition of XK120 EXPLORED has corrected this original XK140 EXPLORED mistake.
So back to the topic… see below, an original XK140 Starter Motor - same Starter Motor was used for ALL XK140 Oct 1954 to Jan 1957 - note photos are true/accurate, with the drawings in XK140 EXPLORED being simple schematics (that start from an actual photo) but as such are not necessarily accurate in detail - there purpose was to accurately identify parts and assemblies relying on accurate captioning for detail…
The relevant thing with total identification with LUCAS Starter Motors is all the lettering stamped on the body - see, below re this XK140 starter motor…
M45G - this is the generic MODEL of starter motor only - clearly all XK140 Starter Motors are M45G but so are hundreds of other/slightly different Starter Motors that may or may not suit an XK140 with more or less modification …
26062A - this is the Lucas Part Number that matters - it fully describes the assembly of every individual component used to build up a correct/original XK140 Starter Motor - including of course the exact correct pinion, bendix drive, mounting plates, internal electricals, terminals etc etc. Its the 26062 number that matters, the A suffix indicates the status of inconsequential changes to the build of the starter motor that does not effect interchangeability/functionality in any way at all, regardless all XK140 Starter Motors are this same 26062A Lucas Part Number, and indeed a quick check shows still 26062A up to at least 7 57 into XK150 application… Not sure of hand when introduced, but there was a later 26062B…
8 55 - this is simply the DATE that the Starter Motor was manufactured, so in this case August 1955, and with typical lead time is the original starter motor fitted to my XK140 built on the 19th September 1955. Same month or one month prior dating of Lucas components relative to an XK140s build date is typical, but can be 2 months…
GC49 - in itself, not all that relevant as all XK140/150 Starter Motors have this same GC49 stamping - but it is most useful quick check. GC49 is the Lucas Customer Code for this type of Starter Motor being supplied to Jaguar Cars Ltd. GC = JAGUAR code, and 49 = code for this particular Starter Motor Component. So if looking at unknown starter motors/generators etc, if you see the GC then you know straight away it is correct/original for some Jaguar application - if this two-letter code is anything else, then its not Jaguar… I do have a listing of all the different Codes for different Marques of cars/trucks etc, but for now, avoid anything without the GC code…
If you have a similar M45G model starter motor, with a different part number than 26062, then the Lucas Master Catalogues do fully break down its exact build, which will tell you whether it is feasible to modify or not, to suit an XK140 application - but regardless you will then have the real problem of sourcing any required different XK140 components, which will probably make it unviable. Best to look around for an original 26062 Starter Motor and have it competently rebuilt back to fully functional condition - can be done, and indeed is regularly done…
Thanks Roger, very detailed and helpful.
The motor I have has all the correct numbers stamped, including the date of 4-55, which is perfect for my late May-early June car. Whoever rebuilt it has obviously used different components on the motor shaft - although the pinion, which is new, does have 10 teeth. I need to check if the dimensions are the same, which hopefully I can check with the ring gear. In folks’ opinion, would the gear/spring combination on mine in the photo above be likely to work in a 140? I think I have sourced another motor with the correct parts, though, so hopefully will be able to sort it one way or another.
As I recall, you said you had the C5068 bell housing, and as the bell housing bolt hole dimensions and 132 tooth flywheel are the same as for 120, then I think yes your starter as is with the early Bendix will work.
We can presume that the change from your round wire spring to the flat wire spring shown by Simon, Gary, Morris and Roger was an improvement, but specific details as to how it was an improvement have not come down to us. My first guess is that it may have been quieter on disengagement.
Chris shows both types of Bendix spring. The one with the yellow tape is for early 120 before engine W2608 with the straight starter hump bell housing. The one without the tape is for later 120 from W2608, all 140, 150 and Mark 7/8/9 saloons with the stepped starter hump bell housing or automatic trans.
Roger, hopefully your starter will fit.
If it’s any help, on my spare ‘140 starter, the outside diameter of the gear teeth is 1.16”.
The inside diameter of the teeth is .86”.
When the gear is in its home position, extended out against the spring, the distance between the gear and the flat surface ( which abuts the bell housing ) of the starter is around 1.72”
When the gear is pushed away from the spring toward the starter, the distance between gear and the flat surface of the starter is around 1.02”.
Hope this info may be useful.
I love the heavy duty thunk- r r sound of the Lucas starter when it engages, you can tell from the sound that big heavy pieces of metal are interacting and are beginning to move now.
The awWWWWW sound of the starter spinning, but not engaging the flywheel, is not too cool though.
Wanted to thank Cary for these measurements. I am just finishing a rebuild and fired up the motor for the first time. My starter (the same as the one Roger has with the heavy spring and longer pinion) works fine and cranked it over without issue. However … as the engine runs there is a clinking sound coming from the flywheel. Almost as if the pinion had not quite disengaged, and there was a few hundredths of interference. I took the starter out and could not see any signs scoring on the pinion. I greased it up again to make sure it was disengaging all the way. The sound was less, but still there.
If someone could confirm that home position measurement of 1.72" I would greatly appreciate it. I will pull my starter and see what the home position measurement is.
Scott
Posting a follow up - just in case it happens to others.
I have a 140 bell housing, a mk2 flywheel and the starter shown below, which matched the Mk2 flywheel and would work great with a 140 bell housing.
The starter engaged and started the engine easily, but when running there was a jangling sound. I thought the pinion wasn’t quite retracting and the teeth were grinding… but I was wrong. clearance was fine. Next to the pinion in then photo is a collar held against the pinion by a spring. The flywheel cleared the retracted pinion fine, but the outer edge of the flywheel was just in contact with the collar and the friction contact was causing the collar to spin around the spindle. It didn’t impede anything enough to bind… just rattled away. I couldn’t think how to modify so I upgraded to a new high torque starter that throws the pinion in from the engine side of the flywheel.
I now hear only the sweet sound of a rebuilt engine when I fire it up. Acknowledge that my car is a bit of a frankenstein - the original engine and gearbox had been replaced with a chevy powertrain and I’ve brought it back to Jag by collecting a range of parts. Not a pure solution, but my experience might save someone from making the same mistake in the future.
I once installed a High-Torque starter on my XK140.
After a month is did not engage anymore, after removing i found the front bearing housing was broken.
I reverted back to the original starter, it always works fine.
Whether it’s a Bendix-style starter, or a solenoid-engaged starter, in all cases the teeth are “thrown in.”
So wear to the flywheel teeth is the same whether one uses an original starter or one of the modern high-torque types? I thought comparatively lessened wear to the teeth was one of the selling points in favor of these modern starters. Or is it mostly because they engage the teeth from the other side of the flywheel that gives them an advantage?
Neither: they are an advantage because they operate better and draw less current. The lead-in on the pinion teeth just goes on the front side of the flywheel, as opposed to the backside.
Still early here on the left coast so maybe I’m still unclear: is wear to flywheel teeth conceivably better over the long term with a modern starter compared to the original ones? Is this what you mean by “operate better”?
I don’t think wear factors into it: my experience is, properly-maintained Bendixes don’t necessarily wear out teeth.
They do get gummy/sticky, and that can allow them to bung up the teeth.
GRSs ‘operate better’ than Bendix-style only by dint of lighter weight, and less current draw.
That said, the old workhorse Lucas starters are near bulletproof, and with proper maintenance, will start the engines just as well.
The one exception to that is on 2-litre Rovers: they happen to use the exact same starter as an E type does, but because of the high compression four-cylinder, the compression pulses tend to throw the Bendix out pretty quickly, especially/frustratingly when cold.
It was a known problem with 2-litre Rovers, and when I installed a Gustafson starter, eliminated that issue.
Rovers. Always with the Rovers… Ha Ha. Okay, thanks for the explanation. This gives me incentive to rebuild the worn Bendix assembly on an old spare gathering dust on a shelf.
2 Likes
I think that’s a SPLENDID ideer!
I think I’ll offer my old Lucas for sale!
Hi chris do you still have the 26062A startermotor.
Yes, I still have it.
1960s/70s Rovers were the British Citroën - clever, off the wall technically and with all sorts of quirks. The P5B Coupé was probably somewhere near the high point of British drawing-room quality, and the P6 V8 the height of British automotive inventiveness. Pontoon substructure, bolt on panels, genius for its day. Shame, what happened next…
2 Likes