[v12-engine] Improved Distributor Sealing

I’ve been contemplating the 1973 XJ12 distributor that Robert
Warnicke was good enough to send me for perusal, and I think I may
have come up with a minor improvement. For reviewing the parts I’m
discussing, you can refer to

http://www.jag-lovers.org/xj-s/book/DistributorOPUS.html

One of the things that bugs me is that the upper bearing on the
distributor shaft (the ball bearing) is separated from the crankcase
by the shaft seal below it and is open to the inside of the
distributor. There isn’t even a dust shield on the bearing itself.
Anything floating around inside the distributor can fall down into
the rollers themselves, and that includes oil as well as dust, dirt,
dropped screws, whatever.

Without the oil falling into it, it would go unlubricated. I’m
familiar with “permanently lubricated” ball bearings, but I think
those always have dust shields to help keep the lubricant inside.
With this bearing being fully open, it seems to me any lubricant
applied at assembly is going to either get blown out during operation
or it will get washed out by oil and solvents being used on the
distributor above.

On this 1973 distributor, there is a cupped washer just above the
bearing that spaces it on the distributor shaft. My proposal is to
install an O-ring, 1/8" thick, 15/16" ID, just above the bearing and
surrounding this cupped washer. I have the parts in my hand, and
they fit together as follows:

One side of the O-ring rests on the flat side of the outer race of
the bearing.

The OD of the cupped washer is a hair larger than 15/16" and it has a
45� bevel facing the bearing. This 45� bevel contacts the ID of the
O-ring.

The sealing effect I hope for is between those two contacts. Both
are smooth machined surfaces. In this application, the outer race of
the bearing will be stationary while the cupped washer rotates with
the distributor shaft, so this O-ring becomes a shaft seal.

Using an O-ring as a shaft seal is kinda hokey, but it does work. I
spent many years bicycling, and as soon as you quit racing and start
touring you find that you need to start devising your own sealing
methods. Bicycle component manufacturers generally don’t seal
anything because bike nuts find the added friction unacceptable, and
when they do apply a seal it’s usually an unreliable seal; as soon as
a load is applied and everything flexes, it no longer seals. So, you
take a crank arm off the axle, stack some O-rings on the axle, and
reinstall the crank arm so that it compresses the O-rings lightly
against the bottom bracket bearing shell. A then you don’t have to
rebuild the bottom bracket every time it rains any more.

In addition to those contact points, the O-ring may contact the flat
bottom side of the centrifugal advance base plate. It won’t seal
anything on this OPUS distributor because there are two holes through
the plate right where the O-ring makes contact. I don’t think the
contact will hurt anything, though.

The O-ring may also contact the aluminum distributor base at the
corner of the opening the bearing presses into. I suspect this
contact won’t hurt anything either, but if it’s convenient to chuck
the base into a lathe one might consider applying a 45� bevel right
there just to minimize this contact.

I fully expect that the O-ring will rotate with the distributor shaft
and slide on the surface of the bearing outer race. This will make
turning the distributor shaft a little stiff at first, but it’ll wear
a bit of the rubber away (or the rubber will take a “set”) so the
contact isn’t so forceful and the shaft will turn more easily.

Since the O-ring is unsupported at the OD, one might get concerned
about centrifugal effect distorting the O-ring or pulling it out of
position. This shaft only turns at 1/2 crank speed and the O-ring is
only 1" diameter, so I really don’t expect a problem – until the O-
ring dries out and gets hard and cracks, when it’ll probably get
broken open and tossed out into the bottom of the distributor where
it will sit and do nothing, while your bearing returns to the level
of exposure to contamination it originally had. Obviously, a Viton O-
ring might be a good idea here.

I personally like this idea so much that, if this were MY distributor
and I was reassembling it for use, I’d be putting that O-ring in.

My original intention in thinking about this was to provide a mere
dust seal, keeping the big chunks outta the bearing and keeping
grease in. However, considering how well I expect it might seal, the
probable condition of the shaft seal beneath the ball bearing, and
the fact that that shaft seal is NA, there is another plausible
purpose for this mod: to REPLACE the shaft seal. If some Loctite 518
is applied to the OD of the bearing prior to installation in the
distributor base and some more is applied to the ID of the cupped
washer where it contacts the inner race of the bearing, this O-ring
should provide a very secure seal indeed. Leave the shaft seal out!

This would have a side effect: the seal would now effectively be
ABOVE the ball bearing rather than below. Hence, the ball bearing
might get some lubrication from the crankcase below.

I dunno how any of this idea might apply to the later CEI
distributor. For one thing, the later distributor has a different
rotating base plate for the centrifugal advance mechanism. Also, the
ball bearing in the CEI is installed in a loose-fit hole with a wavy
shim around it to hold it centered, while this OPUS distributor has
the bearing pressed into the aluminum distributor base. I don’t even
know if the CEI distributor uses the same cupped washer. All of
these factors may affect how an O-ring would work in the assembly.

BTW: the bearing in this 1973 distributor seems to be in good
condition except that it was seized. Seizure isn’t really a problem
here, you’ve got 260 hp to turn it, it’s GONNA turn. The only reason
this one was seized was apparently that it hasn’t turned in a long
while. It does appear to be exactly the same thing that happens to
the centrifugal advance: the lubricant dried out and gummed it up.
With this bearing in my hand, a little Liquid Wrench loosened it
right up so it spins nicely.

– Kirbert

-To unsubscribe go to

Kirby,

I don’t doubt that your approach will work. However, once the you have the

thing taken apart it’s not that difficult to put a proper seal as both
Richard Dowling and I have done. Also, as I mention in my write-up,
(http://home.adelphia.net/~sowelled/ed/myJag.html)
I have some lingering doubts about whether I needed to replace the seal.
First, someone pointed out to me that crankcase vapors are not combustible

(unless you have fuel in the crankcase). Second, my old seal was hard, but

there was NOT a lot of clearance between it and the shaft. I believe
you pointed out at the time that it may have always been hard, by design.

Regarding the bearing, I think you may be fretting needlessly. After
nearly 27 years
and 125000 miles the bearing I replaced still had lubricant and was in
good condition.
I replaced it because it was cheap and easy, but definitely not worth
taking the
distributor apart. Seems that the one you are looking at is not all that
bad either.

BTW, I found that bearings this size arn’t available in the sealed style,
possibly because
it would make them too thick.

Ed Sowell
76 XJ-S

Kirbert wrote:

Without the oil falling into it, it would go unlubricated. I’m
familiar with “permanently lubricated” ball bearings, but I think
those always have dust shields to help keep the lubricant inside.
With this bearing being fully open, it seems to me any lubricant
applied at assembly is going to either get blown out during operation
or it will get washed out by oil and solvents being used on the
distributor above.

-To unsubscribe go to

Edward F. Sowell wrote:

I don’t doubt that your approach will work. However, once the you have
the
thing taken apart it’s not that difficult to put a proper seal as both
Richard Dowling and I have done.

Yeah, true. Still leaves the ball bearing open to dirt, though.

Also, as I mention in my write-up,
(http://home.adelphia.net/~sowelled/ed/myJag.html) I have some
lingering doubts about whether I needed to replace the seal. First,
someone pointed out to me that crankcase vapors are not combustible
(unless you have fuel in the crankcase).

I think you want to have the crankcase effectively sealed regardless
of the flammability issue.

Second, my old seal was hard,
but
there was NOT a lot of clearance between it and the shaft. I believe
you pointed out at the time that it may have always been hard, by
design.

No way. The one that fell out of this 1973 dizzy in crumbles
included a still-intact circular spring. You don’t put such a spring
in a hard part. It appears this thing is a conventional shaft seal
except that the OD is different – it is held in place by the outer
edge of a flat flange rather than a cylindrical OD.

Regarding the bearing, I think you may be fretting needlessly. After
nearly 27 years and 125000 miles the bearing I replaced still had
lubricant and was in good condition. I replaced it because it was
cheap and easy, but definitely not worth taking the distributor apart.
Seems that the one you are looking at is not all that bad either.

Yeah, that’s why I mentioned it. Agreed, it might be a solution in
search of a problem.

Where did you find a bearing? The .5025" ID and 1/2" thickness would
seem to make it a pretty oddball item – but I really know little of
the market for bearings.

BTW, I found that bearings this size arn’t available in the sealed
style, possibly because it would make them too thick.

Yeah, I’ll believe that. However, there’s no problem with space in
this dizzy; if they had wanted to install a wider bearing with dust
shields, it would have been an easy matter to machine the distributor
base to hold it.

– Kirbert

-To unsubscribe go to

Kirbert wrote:

Yeah, true. Still leaves the ball bearing open to dirt, though.

Where from? I didn’t see any dirt in mine.

I think you want to have the crankcase effectively sealed regardless
of the flammability issue.

To what end? To keep oil vapor deposits out of the dizzy? Well, I guess
there
was a light film on the inside of the body.

Second, my old seal was hard,
but
there was NOT a lot of clearance between it and the shaft. I believe
you pointed out at the time that it may have always been hard, by
design.

You don’t put such a spring
in a hard part. It appears this thing is a conventional shaft seal
except that the OD is different – it is held in place by the outer
edge of a flat flange rather than a cylindrical OD.

Yes, now I remember thinking the same thing.

Where did you find a bearing? The .5025" ID and 1/2" thickness would
seem to make it a pretty oddball item – but I really know little of
the market for bearings.

Neither do I, but I found that any bearing house has this bearing. Just ask

for R-8. It’s 1/2" ID and 1/4" thick. Or at least mine was.

BTW, I found that bearings this size arn’t available in the sealed
style, possibly because it would make them too thick.

Yeah, I’ll believe that. However, there’s no problem with space in
this dizzy; if they had wanted to install a wider bearing with dust
shields, it would have been an easy matter to machine the distributor
base to hold it.

As I recall from talking to the bearing people you would have to go
to a significantly larger bearing before finding a sealed version in their
catalogs.
And it would be ugly. And why bother? There is really not much of
a dirt problem in there.

IMHO, an open bearing packed with a good high temperature grease is all you
need.
BTW, as a bicycle guy (you, not me) did you notice what I used for the
lube?

Ed Sowell
76 XJ-S

-To unsubscribe go to

Edward F. Sowell wrote:

Yeah, true. Still leaves the ball bearing open to dirt, though.

Where from? I didn’t see any dirt in mine.

Well, perhaps that’s yet another solution in search of a problem.
This particular dizzy looks pretty filthy inside, although all the
crud appears to be dried and caked lubricants – which hopefully
won’t damage bearings like actual dust will. And there IS a little
filter on the end of the hose where the air is sucked in and through
the distributor.

I guess I just don’t generally think of the inside of a distributor
as being a particularly clean environment. Perhaps that comes from
the old days of distributors that weren’t sealed at all, just pretty
much open to the elements. With a gasket under the cap and the
filtered air supply, maybe this thing is clean enough inside for
unprotected ball bearings.

Ooooh, I just thought of something. The distributor cap has brass
terminals, right? Are there any cheaper aftermarket caps with
aluminum terminals? And after a cap with aluminum terminals has been
running for a while, what’s that scale that seems to build up on the
arcing surfaces themselves? It wouldn’t happen to be aluminum oxide,
would it? And would any of it ever flake off and get down into the
bearing?

I think you want to have the crankcase effectively sealed regardless
of the flammability issue.

To what end? To keep oil vapor deposits out of the dizzy? Well, I
guess there was a light film on the inside of the body.

No, so that the PCV system can effectively maintain a proper vacuum
on the crankcase so the rear main seal doesn’t leak!

Where did you find a bearing? The .5025" ID and 1/2" thickness
would seem to make it a pretty oddball item – but I really know
little of the market for bearings.

Did I write 1/2" thickness? I meant 1/4".

Yeah, it is 1/2" ID. My dial caliper had some junk in the gears that
gave that .5025" reading, I had to clean it up and try again.

As I recall from talking to the bearing people you would have to go to
a significantly larger bearing before finding a sealed version in
their catalogs. And it would be ugly.

It looks to me as though the common 1/2" bearing is the same OD as
this (1-1/8") but 3/8" thick instead of 1/4". I don’t think that
would be a problem in this application. And I suspect it’d be
cheaper, since the common bearings are typically cheaper than the
oddball.

And bearings generally come as sealed or shielded. In this
application, I would have gone with shielded. They look pretty much
the same unless you get a magnifier out and see the little rubber
lips on the sealed type.

Ugly? You don’t even see this thing!

And why bother? There is really
not much of a dirt problem in there.

Judging from the lack of reports on problems here, I must agree. I
just wouldn’t have designed an open bearing in this environment
myself, that’s all.

IMHO, an open bearing packed with a good high temperature grease is
all you need.

I dunno what keeps it in there. Perhaps if you fill the pocket
between the bearing and the seal with grease, that might work.

BTW, as a bicycle guy (you, not me) did you notice what
I used for the lube?

Nope. What?

– Kirbert

-To unsubscribe go to

Kirbert wrote:

Well, perhaps that’s yet another solution in search of a problem.
This particular dizzy looks pretty filthy inside, although all the
crud appears to be dried and caked lubricants – which hopefully
won’t damage bearings like actual dust will. And there IS a little
filter on the end of the hose where the air is sucked in and through
the distributor.

Glad my distributor is giving you so much enjoyment. On the dirt issue,
that thing has been sitting exposed, removed, and on top of the engine in my
car port since 1998 or so. If its dirty, I’m thinking it has more to do
with my dirt back yard, my black lab, and windstorms.

As far as the vent system, this was a carb car, I don’t remember ever seeing
a venting system on it. For some reason I remember someone saying that the
venting being an FI issue.---------------------------------
Robert
73XJ12HE
87XJ-SC

-To unsubscribe go to

Kirbert wrote:

Ooooh, I just thought of something. The distributor cap has brass
terminals, right? Are there any cheaper aftermarket caps with
aluminum terminals? And after a cap with aluminum terminals has been
running for a while, what’s that scale that seems to build up on the
arcing surfaces themselves? It wouldn’t happen to be aluminum oxide,
would it? And would any of it ever flake off and get down into the
bearing?

I don’t have mine open at the moment, but as I recall they are aluminum
lugs.
Seems to be a reach, though.

I think you want to have the crankcase effectively sealed regardless
of the flammability issue.

To what end? To keep oil vapor deposits out of the dizzy? Well, I
guess there was a light film on the inside of the body.

No, so that the PCV system can effectively maintain a proper vacuum
on the crankcase so the rear main seal doesn’t leak!

OK, I’ll buy that. Since I have a new seal, maybe if I change my PVC
my rear main seal will stop leaking? Actually, I replaced it not very long
ago
but I think I used a generic. Recent postings suggested that maybe I should
order one for a Jaguar.

It looks to me as though the common 1/2" bearing is the same OD as
this (1-1/8") but 3/8" thick instead of 1/4". I don’t think that
would be a problem in this application. And I suspect it’d be
cheaper, since the common bearings are typically cheaper than the
oddball.

I think designers often follow rules of thumb regarding metal thickness
at various cross-sections, so increasing the bearing thickness would result
in the whole dizzy getting 1/8" taller.

Ugly? You don’t even see this thing!

I meant from the perspective of the designer. Perhaps clunky?

And why bother? There is really
not much of a dirt problem in there.

Judging from the lack of reports on problems here, I must agree. I
just wouldn’t have designed an open bearing in this environment
myself, that’s all.

IMHO, an open bearing packed with a good high temperature grease is
all you need.
I dunno what keeps it in there. Perhaps if you fill the pocket
between the bearing and the seal with grease, that might work.

Just pack the bearing cage as best you can. If the grease has a high enough
melting point (must be a better term, but you
know what I mean) it will simply stay put.

BTW, as a bicycle guy (you, not me) did you notice what
I used for the lube?

Nope. What?

Finish Line Teflon Fortified Synthetic Grease. I called them and learned it
is good to 400F.
A bit of an overkill for bicycles!

Ed Sowell
76 XJ-S

-To unsubscribe go to

Edward F. Sowell wrote:

No, so that the PCV system can effectively maintain a proper vacuum
on the crankcase so the rear main seal doesn’t leak!

OK, I’ll buy that. Since I have a new seal, maybe if I change my PVC
my rear main seal will stop leaking? Actually, I replaced it not very
long ago but I think I used a generic. Recent postings suggested that
maybe I should order one for a Jaguar.

I don’t think it’s the valve, I think it’s the design of this system;
I don’t see how it can maintain any vacuum on the crankcase – which
is perhaps part of why these cars leak oil. But someone reported
recently that he measured a slight vacuum when running, perhaps due
to losses through the LH air filter. All you need is slight, and if
it gets it, having openings into the crankcase that defeat it is not
good.

It looks to me as though the common 1/2" bearing is the same OD as
this (1-1/8") but 3/8" thick instead of 1/4". I don’t think that
would be a problem in this application. And I suspect it’d be
cheaper, since the common bearings are typically cheaper than the
oddball.

I think designers often follow rules of thumb regarding metal
thickness at various cross-sections, so increasing the bearing
thickness would result in the whole dizzy getting 1/8" taller.

No, it wouldn’t. The bearing isn’t between the valley cover and the
dizzy, it’s in the protrusion down through the valley cover to where
the gear is positioned. You could make that bearing an inch thick
and it wouldn’t affect the dizzy position or the appearance under the
hood.

Ugly? You don’t even see this thing!

I meant from the perspective of the designer. Perhaps clunky?

Aha! Engineering esthetics! Yeah, perhaps clunky, perhaps
“overdesigned” since the bearing would end up with a load rating
about 1000x what is needed in this application (there is ZERO load on
this bearing!). I think the bearing used might be what’s called an
“instrument bearing”, designed for use inside delicate, finely
crafted instruments rather than in rugged consumer applications. The
designer probably thought that was a nice touch.

Or, perhaps he just looked through the bearing catalog and picked out
the smallest bearing that would do the job, not knowing that a larger
bearing might be CHEAPER and more easily maintained in this
application.

I dunno what keeps it in there. Perhaps if you fill the pocket
between the bearing and the seal with grease, that might work.

Just pack the bearing cage as best you can. If the grease has a high
enough melting point (must be a better term, but you know what I
mean) it will simply stay put.

Grease won’t stay put the first time the bearing is turned. The
rollers push it out of the way. If it STAYS out of the way, it’s
worthless, the bearing is now running dry. If it can flow back into
the tracks it can just as easily flow out the bottom.

Finish Line Teflon Fortified Synthetic Grease. I called them and
learned it is good to 400F. A bit of an overkill for bicycles!

There’s no such thing as overkill for bicycles. If a product costs
more, nearly every bicyclist will decide it must be better and run
out and buy it. The biggest mistake a manufacturer can make is to
price his bicycle components reasonably.

BTW, I dunno if this is one of them, but there are some greases used
in bicycles that are very interesting. In most of the bearings in a
bicycle, the LIGHTER the grease, the better – in fact, oil would be
a better idea than grease if you could get the oil to stay in there
(there are no seals!). Hence, there are some greases intended for
bicycles that are like grease until the bearings start rolling, and
then they sorta dissolve, becoming a liquid. So the grease outside
of the roller path stays firm and serves as sort of a dam while the
grease within the roller path liquifies and flows around to lubricate
bearings turning at less than 100 rpm.

– Kirbert

-To unsubscribe go to

In reply to a message from Kirbert sent Fri 8 Nov 2002:

A plain open R8 bearing is 1/4’’ thick. Looking at the shielded (or even sealed variety) it now becomes 5/16’’
thick. Will this extra 1/16’’ hurt anything?

I’d be hesitant to use sealed bearings unless I knew the temperature rating for the seal and the lubricant. I’d
be bummed if my new bearing dried itself out then had its intimately close seal crumble and get eaten up by
the bearing it was meant to protect.

FWIW- the NSK bearing catalog calls their double shielded unit ‘‘R8ZZ’’. A Double sealed jobbie-do is ‘‘R8VV’’.
1.1250 OD X 0.5000 ID X 0.3125 Thk.

They do weigh 0.010 lbs more than the open type though so your 0-60 times will suffer accordingly ;)–
The original message included these comments:

Where did you find a bearing? The .5025’’ ID and 1/2’’ thickness would
the market for bearings.

BTW, I found that bearings this size arn’t available in the sealed
style, possibly because it would make them too thick.
Yeah, I’ll believe that. However, there’s no problem with space in
this dizzy; if they had wanted to install a wider bearing with dust
shields, it would have been an easy matter to machine the distributor


Joe Bialy 87 XJ-S
Grosse Ile, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–

-To unsubscribe go to

JaguarJoe wrote:

A plain open R8 bearing is 1/4’’ thick. Looking at the shielded (or
even sealed variety) it now becomes 5/16’’ thick. Will this extra
1/16’’ hurt anything?

Well, yes and no. The hardware is made for the 1/4" thick bearing.
To use the wider bearing, you’d need to either change the cupped
washer to something 1/16" narrower (which may or may not work with
the fillet situation on the shaft) or you’ll need to machine the
recess in the housing 1/16" deeper.

But machining the recess in the housing 1/16" deeper is a snap.
You’re going to be machining the housing ANYWAY because you need to
cut a recess for a new shaft seal. So, while it’s chucked up in the
lathe, cut the bearing recess deeper and locate the recess for the
new seal below that. There appears to be plenty of “meat” in this
casting to handle both cuts.

I’d be hesitant to use sealed bearings unless I knew the temperature
rating for the seal and the lubricant. I’d be bummed if my new bearing
dried itself out then had its intimately close seal crumble and get
eaten up by the bearing it was meant to protect.

Good point. However, this is the distributor, there are things in
there made of plastic and an electric pickup, not to mention the
lubricant that’s supposed to keep that centrifugal advance mechanism
moving. If the bearing seals get cooked, you’re probably in trouble
all around.

Of course, this is another argument for the shielded rather than the
sealed. The shields are all metal. There’s still the issue of the
temp rating of the grease, but I’m not sure how that issue differs
between shielded and open.

FWIW- the NSK bearing catalog calls their double shielded unit
‘‘R8ZZ’’. A Double sealed jobbie-do is ‘‘R8VV’’. 1.1250 OD X 0.5000 ID
X 0.3125 Thk.

Double-sealed and double-shielded are SOP, although for a great many
applications a seal or shield on ONE side is all that’s needed. I
run into that on bicycles, for example; you don’t want a shield or
seal on the INSIDE, just on the outside. If you’re good, sometimes
you can pry the shield or seal off of one side.

In this application, shields on both sides wouldn’t hurt anything.
Seals on both sides might not hurt anything either, but if we went
the way of omitting the shaft seal I’d be tempted to pull the seal
off the bottom side of the bearing to allow oil from the crankcase to
get into it.

Of course, I dunno if oil actually WILL get into it. There’s a
scroll around the shaft to bring oil up through the sleeve bushing at
the bottom, and that seems to work for that bushing. The gears also
apparently have no lube problems, even though I don’t believe there
is any oil feed to this area. Apparently lubed simply by the oil
mist or splash going on below.

They do weigh 0.010 lbs more than the open type though so your 0-60
times will suffer accordingly :wink:

Yeah, maybe that’s why they went with the open bearing!

– Kirbert

-To unsubscribe go to

Kirbert wrote:

Of course, I dunno if oil actually WILL get into it. There’s a
scroll around the shaft to bring oil up through the sleeve bushing at
the bottom, and that seems to work for that bushing. The gears also
apparently have no lube problems, even though I don’t believe there
is any oil feed to this area. Apparently lubed simply by the oil
mist or splash going on below.

There was no sign of oil on my bearing. It’s pretty hard to see how any
could
get up there.

Ed Sowell
76 XJ-S

-To unsubscribe go to

Edward F. Sowell wrote:

Of course, I dunno if oil actually WILL get into it. There’s a
scroll around the shaft to bring oil up through the sleeve bushing
at the bottom, and that seems to work for that bushing. The gears
also apparently have no lube problems, even though I don’t believe
there is any oil feed to this area. Apparently lubed simply by the
oil mist or splash going on below.

There was no sign of oil on my bearing. It’s pretty hard to see how
any could get up there.

Didn’t you say your shaft seal looked like it was still working?

– Kirbert

-To unsubscribe go to

Kirbert wrote:

There was no sign of oil on my bearing. It’s pretty hard to see how
any could get up there.

Didn’t you say your shaft seal looked like it was still working?

Yes. BTW, I still have the old seal and bearings. I’ll send them to you
if you want.

Ed

-To unsubscribe go to

Edward F. Sowell wrote:

There was no sign of oil on my bearing. It’s pretty hard to see
how any could get up there.

Didn’t you say your shaft seal looked like it was still working?

Yes.

Well, oil sure ain’t gonna get to the bearing with a working seal in
there.

BTW, I still have the old seal and bearings. I’ll send them to
you if you want.

Hmmmm. I certainly don’t need the bearing. The only reason I can
think of for needing the seal would be to get a decent picture of it,
but I suspect it’s just small and black and looks pretty much like a
black smear in a digital photo. So, I guess not. Thanks anyway.

– Kirbert

-To unsubscribe go to

Kirbert wrote:

Edward F. Sowell wrote:

There was no sign of oil on my bearing. It’s pretty hard to see
how any could get up there.

Didn’t you say your shaft seal looked like it was still working?

Yes.

Well, oil sure ain’t gonna get to the bearing with a working seal in
there.

I even obsessed a bit about the possibility of NOT getting oil up to the
seal, because
if it doesn’t then the seal material should have good “dry running”
properties.
Since I was not able to find a seal made of materials with such
properties,
I just got the best material I could from Chicago Rawhide and smeared a
little
Finish Line grease on it.

BTW, I still have the old seal and bearings. I’ll send them to
you if you want.

Hmmmm. I certainly don’t need the bearing. The only reason I can
think of for needing the seal would be to get a decent picture of it,
but I suspect it’s just small and black and looks pretty much like a
black smear in a digital photo. So, I guess not. Thanks anyway.

I put a fair picture of it in my write-up, but black on black is hard.

Ed Sowell
76 XJ-S

-To unsubscribe go to

In reply to a message from Edward F. Sowell sent Sun 10 Nov 2002:

Can you just skip the shaft seal if you use a sealed bearing instead?–
The original message included these comments:

There was no sign of oil on my bearing. It’s pretty hard to see
how any could get up there.
Didn’t you say your shaft seal looked like it was still working?
Well, oil sure ain’t gonna get to the bearing with a working seal in
there.


Joe Bialy 87 XJ-S
Grosse Ile, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–

-To unsubscribe go to

Hi Joe

I would not be drawn to that conclusion. The particular exchange you cite was
about oil,
and if it could get up to the bearing. The general opinion is that the seal
is intended
to keep crank case vapors out of the dizzy. Also, if you go to a seal bearing
you have to
bore out the body for it, so you might as well as the machinist to reset his
boring tool
and go a bit deeper for a proper, standard size seal.

Ed Sowell
76 XJ-S

JaguarJoe wrote:

In reply to a message from Edward F. Sowell sent Sun 10 Nov 2002:

Can you just skip the shaft seal if you use a sealed bearing instead?

The original message included these comments:

There was no sign of oil on my bearing. It’s pretty hard to see
how any could get up there.
Didn’t you say your shaft seal looked like it was still working?
Well, oil sure ain’t gonna get to the bearing with a working seal in

-To unsubscribe go to

JaguarJoe wrote:

Can you just skip the shaft seal if you use a sealed bearing instead?

I don’t see why not. I’d like to be able to claim that the sealed
bearing won’t seal as reliably as the correct shaft seal, but I’d
lose all credibility!

– Kirbert

-To unsubscribe go to

Hi,
Sorry to revive an ancient thread, but I’m interested to know if the ‘distributor seal’ thinking has advanced since 2002? I’m rebuilding my engine and the seal seems ok but is hard - as expected.
Edward Sowell commented above about using a “proper seal” and on https://www.jag-lovers.org/xj-s/book/OPUSdistributor.html Richard Dowling had found a “more standard-looking seal”. Does anyone know what this alternative seal is and whether machining of the shaft or housing is required? Since I have everything pulled apart, it seems like a good time to deal with it.
thanks in advance.
Ron

You really stirred the memory Ron.
I only delve into the V12 forum now and again.
I found a photo in my collection from 2007 that shows the new seal held in place by silastic. It gives no great information apart from what I say.
I guess the seal OD was a little undersize so needed the silastic.
I do have a lathe but did not do any machining on the dizzy.
I recall I bought the seal and bearing from a local shop that specialises in rebuilding dizzies. They would not tell me the seal manufacturer or part number, claiming it was a trade secret.