[xk] Flywheel C2211 C4809 C5808

there is somthing funny here
I have a C2211 flywheel and this is stamped as such and clearly only has 6
bolts holding it onto the crank.
I have probably 12 or so C4809 all stamped with part number but certainly I
have never seen a flywheel stamped C5808 and with some 4000 flywheels
presumably having this number you would expect the law of averages to
suggest I should have one amongst what I have? and why on earth would there
be a different flywheel on a O/D 140 than the standard 140.
My guess is that part number C5808 is the lightened flywheel particularly
given that there is no part number stamped onto the lightened flywheel.
Anyway I would love to hear from someone who has a flywheel stamped with the
number C5808 and more particularly get a photo of the item
regards terryDate: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 16:50:26 -0500
From: " R_and_J_Reilly" xk120us4@sbcglobal.net
Subject: [xk] Flywheel with separate ring gear

Since several of you were quite emphatic that XK flywheels never had a
separate ring gear shrunk on originally, but that this is a standard repair
method, I thought I might bring up this question.

Many years ago I had a flywheel with a separate ring gear. It had 10 bolt
holes so I know it could not have been a C2211 for early XK120 as those had
6 bolt holes.

It had the teeth worn down in 3 places, so I took it to a machine shop and
they removed the old ring gear while I ordered a new one. When the new one
came, we found it was not the same and would not fit. The teeth were wider
in the front to rear direction and the inside diameter was much smaller,
like at least 1/4" difference in ID.

The shop said I had the wrong gear, so I returned it, and then I found a guy
with used parts so I traded mine for another flywheel which did not have a
separate ring gear, and its on my car now. I remember that the one with the
separate ring gear weighed more than the one he gave me, which I think must
be a C5808 the lightened one mentioned in Service Bulletin 95.

Since then I’ve collected two more C5808 flywheels and they weigh about 21
pounds.

Sooo, I’m wondering what I had? Was it a C4809? This one is listed for
mid-range 120 and all Mark VII. Does anybody have a C4809 that can weigh it
and check if it has a separate ring gear? You would see a faint separation
line in the ridge.

Rob Reilly - 679187

In reply to a message from Terry McGrath sent Mon 16 Apr 2012:

Terry, can you weigh one or two of your C4809s, either in
pounds or kilograms.

It is possible I could have misidentified the two I have
here. But one came off an XK140 engine with overdrive. Its
very badly rust pitted, no chance of a part number remaining
if there ever was one. The other is in fair shape but has
chewed up teeth, unknown origin, also no part number.

It seems like our real question is what are the visual and
weight differences between the C4809 and the C5808.–
XK120 FHC, Mark V saloon, XJ12L Series II, S-Type 3.0
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

In reply to a message from Terry McGrath sent Mon 16 Apr 2012:

I have no experience with the 6 bolt flywheels, but I have a
lightend 10 bolt XK flywheel. I don’t see that it has a part number
on it anywhere, only the ‘‘B’’ balance mark, the TDC arrow and a
couple of miscelleneous characters in another location. Nothing on
the back. It probably weighs half of what a 4.2 E-Type flywheel
weighs. The starter teeth are integral. Replacement starter rings
have been around for so long and in such a ubiquitious manner I
don’t know how you could say for sure that a flywheel fitted with
one originally came that way.

Aren’t all of these flywheels cast iron of some type? Since in
general you can’t weld cast iron, I think replacement rings would
always have to have been heat shrunk to the rim.–
Mike Spoelker
Louisville,Kentucky, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

Help! My boot won’t unlatch. I am not sure how the mechanism works to try
and unlatch it. I think I can get into the inside of the boot thru the back
seat. I also think the mechanism will be covered by the inside covering on
the boot lid. Any suggestions appreciated.
David–

This is how I did it in case others have to go there. I put the car up in
the air, jacked the rear of the transmission as high as I could and blocked
it there. I couldn’t see the 2 bolts holding the rear mount to the cross
member, but could feel them. I managed to get a ratcheting wrench on them
and removed them and the motor mount. I knew I would not be able to start
the bolts on the new motor mount because I couldn’t get my hand far enough
up there. I fabricated an angle plate, attached the mount to it with a flat
head bolt and drilled and tapped into the vertical part of the cross member
to secure it.

I assume you could go in by removing the tunnel cover, but that didn’t look
easy.

David–

In reply to a message from David B. Hammond sent Mon 16 Apr 2012:

Pretty ingenius. We should call that the David B Hammon tool #1,
instead of Churchill tool #XXX:-). I’ve always gone through the
top, but since I was pulling the engine/transmission anyway, all
the top tin was already off.
Joel–
ex jag, '66 E-type S1 4.2, '56 XK140dhc, '97 XJ-6
Denison, TX, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

David,

IF, and only if, the boot has been unused for a while and it is possible
that the star wheel latches may be rusted or otherwise gummed up, try gently
prying each lower corner of the lid as you release the latch. It may help
to give it some up and down action.

Gene McGough
XK-150 FHC S834515DN
XJ6C II 1976----- Original Message -----
From: “David B. Hammond” dbh@hamengr.com
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 8:48 AM

Help! My boot won’t unlatch. I am not sure how the mechanism works to try
and unlatch it. I think I can get into the inside of the boot thru the
back
seat. I also think the mechanism will be covered by the inside covering on
the boot lid. Any suggestions appreciated.
David

In reply to a message from David B. Hammond sent Mon 16 Apr 2012:

David
You are correct, go in through the inside. With a light, mirror and
screw driver, you should be able to get the front of the boot lid
cover down far enough to see the two cables running from the latch
to the lower corners of the boot lid. Make up two hooks of some
sort (David B Hammond tool #2) to grab the two cables. Pull on the
cables while someone else lifts the boot. Once you have it opened,
you’ll see that the cables are adjustable with turnbuckles.
Joel–
ex jag, '66 E-type S1 4.2, '56 XK140dhc, '97 XJ-6
Denison, TX, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

In reply to a message from Mike S sent Mon 16 Apr 2012:

Yep, I believe standard flywheels were always cast iron, no
welding, ring gear supposed to be shrunk on. But there is
one in the jag-lovers photo album held on with 10 screws.

The operative word may be ubiquitous. Since the ring gear is
not offered by Jaguar, there may be many aftermarket
manufacturers and they may not agree on dimensions. So this
puzzle may be unsolvable.

Terry raises an interesting point.

C4809 is listed for mid-range 120, all Mark VII, 140 without
overdrive, and all 150.

C5808 is listed only for late 120, and 140 with overdrive. Why?

Still looking for a weight on the C4809 flywheel. Anyone?–
XK120 FHC, Mark V saloon, XJ12L Series II, S-Type 3.0
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

In reply to a message from Rob Reilly sent Tue 17 Apr 2012:

My local engine machine shop has a catalogue of ring gears
available.

When buying the exact specified diameter to turn the flywheel to
is given and the temperature differential involved.

I would be surprised if flywheels were made of cast iron. Certainly
I think Jaguar used steel.

That being said I was still unimpressed with XKs ULtd advice to
weld on ring gears, but then personally, I’m fond of my feet.–
The original message included these comments:

Yep, I believe standard flywheels were always cast iron, no
welding, ring gear supposed to be shrunk on. But there is


Ed Nantes SS
Melbourne, Australia
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

In reply to a message from David B. Hammond sent Mon 16 Apr 2012:

David - It maybee of some meaning, if it is both or only one lasch,
which is not working.
A lister earlier suggested to make a hole on the bodybottom, to get
access to the nuts, two 1/2’’. Covered with rubber grommets for
later use.
Leo–
LeoN - Denmark
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

In reply to a message from Ed Nantes sent Tue 17 Apr 2012:

So you think they are forged steel? I guess I assumed cast
iron because of the shape of the forward side. The 120
manual says the pressure plate is cast iron but does not say
much about the flywheel. Not mentioned in the brochures either.

Incidentally the Plate E5 in the 120 manual is exactly the
same as in the Mark V manual for pushrod engines, even
though the flywheels are not the same cross sectional shape.

I would still like to know the weight of a C4809 flywheel.–
The original message included these comments:

I would be surprised if flywheels were made of cast iron. Certainly
I think Jaguar used steel.


XK120 FHC, Mark V saloon, XJ12L Series II, S-Type 3.0
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

The MK2 manual describes the flywheel as being of forged steel. I’m no
metalurgist but I think the idea of cast iron teeth doesn’t sound good.

Mike Eck
New Jersey, USA

'51 XK120 OTS, '62 3.8 MK2 MOD, '72 SIII E-Type 2+2>

So you think they are forged steel? I guess I assumed cast
iron because of the shape of the forward side. The 120
manual says the pressure plate is cast iron but does not say
much about the flywheel. Not mentioned in the brochures either.

I think we need to keep in context that both “Cast-Iron” and “Cast-Steel”
are generic terms, with quite a range of actual carbon and other alloy
content having a big impact on properties, but “Cast-Iron” is the most
basic/unsophisticated, and “Cast-Steel” can be anything upwards re a large
variety of different properties.

But equally “Cast Steel” and “Forged Steel” the relevant issue is not just
the actual steel alloy used, but whether the manufacturing process is
casting or forging and what you hope to achieve re properties. If we could
ever get the Jaguar Engineering drawings they would most likely advise
actual steel used - there are hundreds of different alloy steels that
choosing the correct alloy is most important to get all the properties you
want in final product.

In the case of a flywheel, fatigue resistance would need to be high, wear
resistance on the clutch surface would be high, and I dare say being heat
treatable to achieve desired hardness/wear-resistance of ring-gear teeth
would be high. Cast-iron will not give you this.

But short of wanting to make these yourselves, does it really matter. Not
if you source a second-hand ORIGINAL, as you can be confident that Jaguar
and the local supplier to Jaguar was on top of good British Engineering and
metallurgical practice so you only need to inspect for damage; but I
wouldn’t touch a new reproduction unless I was 100% sure as to its
engineering and metallurgy.

Not too many spare parts suppliers know anything at all about sophisticated
Engineering metallurgy, so they are totally reliant on the
skills/abilities/inclination of who they get to make it and whether they
themselves have any knowledge of consequence about metallurgy and heat
treatment. Anything made in China (and other such countries without an
Automotive Engineering history) I wouldn’t touch as even the big Chinese
brand car and motorcycle factories are still learning about metallurgy, so
what hope do you have from the little back-yard places that everyone now
uses, that if your lucky you will get the shape right and the appearance
close, but why forge the right alloy-steel when its easier to cast one out
of iron/aluminium - whatever!

(the European/Korean/Japanese branded cars and motorcycles made in China of
course are subject and controlled by the parent companies design and quality
control, so not a problem).

Bottom line as far as I am concerned - and applies to anything where the
metallurgy matters - flywheels, clutch forks, brake pedals etc and also
including my pet hate - bolts, especially high-tensile bolts - find an
original unless you can get guarantees regarding the metallurgy of the
reproduction part. OK if you want a repro badge or something cosmetic
where appearance is all that matters and you can see how good or otherwise
it is.

A local friend unhappy about paying $400 from a reputable UK supplier for a
good second-hand original XK140 Clutch Pedal he needed, instead paid $200
for a reproduction one from another reputable UK supplier, that looked to be
cast-aluminium of some description on arrival. Installed it - not an easy
job on a RHD XK140 - only to find the clutch pedal stem did not align as it
should with hole in firewall, so tried to cold-bend pedal arm in situ and of
course it snapped. Low and behold, still wouldn’t buy the original, but
this time sourced another reproduction one from USA this time described as
being made of steel - again for $200. On arrival, looked to be the same as
the first repro purchased from UK. So undeterred, using my original as a
sample we then set off to very carefully hot-bend the significant bend in
the main arm, but then found it was just not a case of being bent (actually
probably the result of unsupported cooling of an item shape not at all
suitable to be cast), but also total casting was about 95% scale - it had
shrunk. My guess is, whoever had these repro pedals commissioned had an
original that was used to make a mould and without allowing for shrinkage of
cast-steel, let alone cast-aluminium or whatever crap metal this is, used
that mould(s) to make a batch of repros, and then machined the necessary
clutch-shaft and stem holes in place, but with no regard at all for where
the holes needed to be relative to each other. So even after bending arm
about 3/4" to get an approximately correct offset, on assembly, the stem
shaft of course still does not sit centrally in firewall hole due to the
pedal shrinkage, so we now have a XK140 that the pedal-stem shaft is not
sealed from the engine bay.
The clutch now works at least, and the padal hasn’t yet broken given
clutch-pedal loads, but hate to think about a similar BRAKE pedal repro in
an emergency stop!

Roger Payne - XK140MC OTS; E-Type 4.2 S.1 OTS; DSV8.
Canberra.-----Original Message-----
From: owner-xk@jag-lovers.org [mailto:owner-xk@jag-lovers.org] On Behalf Of
Mike Eck
Sent: Thursday, 19 April 2012 4:29 AM
To: xk@jag-lovers.org
Subject: Re: [xk] Flywheel C2211 C4809 C5808

The MK2 manual describes the flywheel as being of forged steel. I’m no
metalurgist but I think the idea of cast iron teeth doesn’t sound good.

Mike Eck
New Jersey, USA

'51 XK120 OTS, '62 3.8 MK2 MOD, '72 SIII E-Type 2+2

So you think they are forged steel? I guess I assumed cast
iron because of the shape of the forward side. The 120
manual says the pressure plate is cast iron but does not say
much about the flywheel. Not mentioned in the brochures either.

In reply to a message from Roger Payne sent Wed 18 Apr 2012:

once again… Dear customer, WE ARE VERY PROUD OF OUR CHEAP FAST
QUALITY…please choose any two–
godfrey
pender island bc, Canada
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

In reply to a message from godfrey sent Wed 18 Apr 2012:

At my lab there is a campaign to remove all lifting
eyebolts, chains, slings and lifting shackles made in China,
and cut them up so nobody can ever use them again. A dropped
load on a crane was traced to a Chinese shackle.

One of my C5808s has quite a few broken teeth. Looks like
brittle fracture to me.

I weighed a flywheel from a Mark V, clearly stamped C445/2
on the rim BTW, and it was 30 pounds. It is a much deeper
dish than the C5808, maybe that’s why I thought it was cast.

Still would like to know the weight of a C4809.–
XK120 FHC, Mark V saloon, XJ12L Series II, S-Type 3.0
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

What is the difference between a 120 crankshaft and one for a xke? I thought
they were interchangeable, but I think I may be wrong (or should I say,
another senior moment)

Not sure if the stroke is different, but the spacing of the journals is
totally different due to the location of the bores in the block, the rear seal
area is different, the width of the journals are different. The only
thing similar about the two is the weight- heavy!! You MIGHT be able to use
a crank from an early sedan, provided it did not come from an engine with a
rear rope seal. Almost certainly one from an early MK7 should work fine.
Bob McAnelly

In a message dated 4/20/2012 4:22:00 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
dbh@hamengr.com writes:
What is the difference between a 120 crankshaft and one for a xke? I
thought
they were interchangeable, but I think I may be wrong (or should I say,
another senior moment)

I think that as a bare minimum there will be machining difference
regarding rear main seal.
BBOn Apr 20, 2012, at 2:21 PM, David B. Hammond wrote:

What is the difference between a 120 crankshaft and one for a xke? I
thought
they were interchangeable, but I think I may be wrong (or should I
say,
another senior moment)

In reply to a message from David B. Hammond sent Fri 20 Apr 2012:

The 3.4 crank and the 3.8 crank are interchangable so long as you
use also use the appropriate rear seal housing. The 4.2 cranks are
completely different and will not work.–
The original message included these comments:

What is the difference between a 120 crankshaft and one for a xke? I thought
they were interchangeable, but I think I may be wrong (or should I say,
another senior moment)


Mike Spoelker
Louisville,Kentucky, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php