Hi, Could someone give me the Jaguar or Lucas part number of my starter motor, the car is a Mk 2 3.8 liter Automatic with a DG 250 box. I think its a 1964 0r 1965 model.
The motor has some field coil damage and I am wondering whether I could get replacement field coils for my original motor.
What would be the ideal replacement if I go in for a high torque replacement ?
JAGFANRAJ
rajeeva@live.com.au
I have my original on the bench - will send part number tonight, if one of the other guys doesnāt beat me to it. I have a 3.4 auto. Paul
M45G inertia drive type - rotation: clock wise, voltage: 12, drive: 10 teeth. Lucas no.: 26097
Jaguar XJ6 2.8 Series I with automatic transmission to engine no. 7G22978 (to November 1972) ā¢ XK140 and XK150 with automatic transmission (1954-61) ā¢ Mk10 3.8 with automatic transmission (1961-64) ā¢ S-Type 3.8 with automatic transmission (1963-68) ā¢ Mark II 3.8 with automatic transmission (1959-67)
As discussed. Soundly beaten. Paul
Thank you, both you guys greatly appreciate the info. Would still like to know about the high torque starter and where I can get the field coils for my present original one, if available.
I find most parts I need on e-bay , there is field coils on there for the M45 , for around Ā£35 but 26097 is not listed , but they may fit .
Same as the starter , would think the 3.4 and 3.8 are the same , but not sure !!
Thanks, heaps IAN, The info was very very helpful. I am gonna give the field coils a go with the original starter and see how it goes. Failing which I will go for the high torque starter.
Wonderful site guys, Keep up the good work
Caution required before going the high torque starter route - Chris Storey, a regular contributor on here who has not even begun to forget more than I will ever know about our cars told me they were not good. I cannot recall the specific reason or problems arising but when I had chance to swap he strongly advised refurbishing the original. As I write I think it had something do with the flywheel teeth ā I may be āmis-rememberingā ā I often do.
Other than there may be issues in mismatched tooth counts, hi-torque starters are superior in their ability to crank engines quickly. The installation of one made my Rover FAR more startable!
Overall, I would think they are just about as reliable as the old boat-anchor ones.
I have one of the high torque MUCH LIGHTER models for 10 years and 14,000 miles with absolutely no problems. It spins the engine over nicely.
Gerard
Not that I am telling you what to do, but If you havenāt already I would strip the original starter before ordering the fields - just to be sure it is sound and worthy of the spend. These starters are robust and durable - probably the commutator having the hardest life. Have also seen friction/contact issues between the field stator sections and the armature. On the comm look for burns/pitting, firm segments and sound solder joints. If you need manual sections let me know. Paul
which brings me to my questionā¦I have a 1967 Mark 2 with all synchro 4 speed & overdrive, Iāve owned the car 29 years. Lately, Iāve noticed when I start up the car after itās been sitting a few days , when I press the starter button, it just makes a noise like 'MMMMM". On the second or third try it starts up fine. Whatās interesting is, once the car has been driven some distance and has warmed up, if I stop anywhere and shut the engine off it always starts up on the first push of the starter button. Battery is new. Should I be concerned or live with it this way, knowing it always eventually starts up as it should.
The Bendix is probably oily, which will hang them up, when cold.
Not much to but pull the starter, clean the helix with Brakleen, then use silicone lube on it.
Or, fix it with a Gustafsonā¦
Guatafson, just get the gear reduction starter, sold everywhere, just do it.
P.
It depends your car and how much of a purist you are. Our ā63 is the most original I have seen - including carpet, seats and exterior. I bought it at auction and amongst other things it came with the original starter in a box of spares. The fitted gear reduction starter is functional but at some stage I will rebuild the original and refit it - good karma for me. My $0.02. Very much each to their own. Paul
Nothing wrong with that, Paul!
I can sorta relate: Margaret is a survivor, so likely will remain so.
The starter on Tweety was original, and worked well; for some odd reasonāand it wasnt just my car, they all did it!!āon the four cylinder, it would constantly throw the Bendix out, and when cold, it would be a challenge to get it started.
With the Gustafson? Completely eliminated that issue, and it cannot be seen.
Margaretās the Rover, right?
Wiggles,
The throwing the Bendix out of engagement is a āfeatureā of the inertial engagement Lucas starters. One of the reasons they belated shifted over to the pre-engaged starters. I have overcome this on my Morris Minors and MGTD in cold weather. These cars have separate mechanical starter control knobs so I first turn on the ignition, pump up the fuel to the carb, then pull choke, turn off the ignition and crank for 4-5 seconds, Then while still cranking, turn on the ignition and the car will start without the Bendix being thrown out. Not easy to do with my 3.8S Jaguar as there is no convenient way to do this with the electric starter button. But someone could probably rewire the starter button to work with the ignition off.
Love that 2000TC, fabulous driving cars.
Never had an issue with it, on any Jag I dealt with: I got the Gustafson JIC the 50-year old Lucas actually decided to cark it!
Thatās why I still had the Gustafson for Margaret: Iām familiar wth your āworkaround!ā
