Two Piece Timer 1910

Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration
Model T Ford Forum: Forum 2012: Two Piece Timer 1910
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Alan George Long on Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - 07:44 am:

Gents

Just in the process of rebuilding my 1910 open valve engine and had intended to use a two piece timer. At a recent T meeting they tell me that this old design isn't "user Friendly" and requires constant love and attention.

Is there an issue with these? Is there a fix for it? I wish to retain the original spring tension fan arm and wonder was a timing cover ever produced that used a tension spring fan arm and a later timer? Can you rework the original cover to adapt a later timer?

Cheers

Alan Long
Western Australia


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By mike bartlett on Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - 07:56 am:

I had a 2 pc. on my 1911 and it never gave a bit of trouble


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - 04:09 pm:

I bet who ever told you that has never used an early two piece timer. They are well built and work great.

You would need to change to a later style timer cover to use a later timer, there is no provision on the 1910 timer for a seal or for the clamp to hold the later timer in place.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard Gould on Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - 04:29 pm:

I agree with the two assessments above. If you examine the timer and think about how it is centered, you'll see its a better engineered piece than the later timer. Only one thing, I modified the roller to accept a pin with a head like the later style, as the straight pin originally used is a bear to remove. Even so it does require more work to clean. Well worth the extra effort in my opinion.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - 05:28 pm:

Alan,

Here is a picture of the currently available reproduction. It is a very well made part, performance is superb.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By mark herdman on Thursday, March 22, 2012 - 02:26 am:

Alan

I have had a lot of success from my original 2 piece timer that I converted with 4 modern points.

Harry Mason from Bundaberg originally came up with the idea. I gutted the centre of the worn timer and silver soldered a flat insert inside with pertruding rear with enough meat for an "o" ring to seal up against the original 10 timing cover i used. It is held on by a brass conduit nut and scotched keyed after the correct tension is on the o ring. Took a lot of work to design and fit in the confined space. Points are 1970s Rover V8, most likely Leyland P76. The new cam gear nut has 2 thou clearance on the Timer.

There is a seal inside the timer that runs on the Cam Gear Nut. It does seal really well.

I don't have a photo of the cam but it has one flat about 3/8 inch wide. So the points close to make the circuit. If i did it again, i would make the flat a bit less for less circuit to allow for the over run of output of the coils at higher revs. Some of the more experienced coil people could explain that.

No machining required on the timing cover.





I left the old timing in tact and put a cardboard disc on the crank handle (careful to have no movement when calculating) and marked out the timing spacing on the old setup.

Then fitted the new timer to the correct standard position and loosely fitted the cam till the timing was the same, then cut the slot in the cam to pit the locating pin.

You need to make sure there is room in the timing cover for the timer to float without hitting the timing cover hole - also helps with fitting the cover. You also need a blank to locate the points to set the point gaps so you have even pressure on all 4 points at the same time. You also need what is called a "rocket" which basically is a tapered fitting to gently push the timer over so the seal does not fold up. The cover and timer base is put together and then placed over the rocket and pushed into place, rocket removed. I did have some help with the machining of the o rings, A bit hard and far to easy to make a mistake. Points have a part cut off them to fit into the space.



When it is all finished, looks great with the original cover, 2 piece timer all there and you cant see any alterations. spring works good with the belt tension. Make sure the fan bracket and shaft are dead parallel with the cam shaft line to make sure it doesn't fall off and or cut through the timer cover. Sorry, no pics of it all together. Car starts buy turning on the key, when primed. Make sure you get the retard / advance set up correctly.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Warwick Landy on Thursday, March 22, 2012 - 09:45 pm:

Alan-
Great to see you have found some answers to your questions on the Forum. Marks alterations seem to be the answer. As I mentioned to you I feel the 2 piece timer was discontinued and redesigned early because it just was not a good design. The ability of the conductive materials to soak up the incoming oil and cause shorting is not a good mix. Also the difficulty of servicing as mentioned is a real pain. The key is to adapt it to make servicing easier and keep excess oil out. Let us know what option you come up with.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Friday, March 23, 2012 - 06:54 am:

I disagree Warwick. I believe the two piece timer was redesigned in 1911 to make maintenance easier. The two piece timer is clumsy to remove for cleaning and darn near impossible to install without removing the radiator. In service it works perfectly if properly cleaned and lubricated. As always I use red Mobil grease in these timers and they work great.



I don't see any advantage to what Mark has pictured although I bet it works equally well as the roller design.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Rob Heyen on Friday, March 23, 2012 - 08:04 am:

Mark,

I'm Impressed. It appears to me the exact opening and closing of points would really give an exact spark timing and sequence. Of course, I'm mechanically challenged :-(

Looks like a great idea. Now, if someone could shrink it down to an NRS timer......

I do know our two repro timers on our cars have worked well to this point.

Rob

From my iPad


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Friday, March 23, 2012 - 09:05 am:

Rob,

Actually the timing is not controlled by the moment when the roller contacts the iron segment nor would timing be controlled by the moment the points open or close. The coil fires when saturated, which is neither the opening nor closing time. It is a common misperception Rob, and an easy one to make.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Frank Harris on Friday, March 23, 2012 - 10:27 am:

I asked some questions about my old brass timer and got no technical answers. So this time, once more, just what do I have ?



The complete assembly

brass timer with loom

Close-up


close up


Internal view of the brass timer


internals


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Friday, March 23, 2012 - 10:52 am:

It's an accesory timer that appears to be a copy of the Ford 1911 - 1918 design for the most part. Looks pretty good except the insulators are cracked.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Les Schubert on Friday, March 23, 2012 - 11:35 am:

Rob
Obviously a e-timer would be another option.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Frank Harris on Friday, March 23, 2012 - 11:51 am:

Royce, do you mean the little rubber washers on the four low tension wire terminals? If so that's an easy fix. If so . . . thanks a lot for that information in advance. Frank


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Friday, March 23, 2012 - 01:50 pm:

The E timer would not be a good solution because it won't allow the car to run on "MAG. Also it would reduce the reliability of the car because it won't let the car operate at all with a dead battery.

Further, the E-Timer won't even fit the car at all unless it is 1912 model year made after about January 1912.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Les Schubert on Friday, March 23, 2012 - 04:30 pm:

By my measurements the "guts" from a etimer will fit in the 2 piece timer housing just fine!!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Friday, March 23, 2012 - 04:39 pm:

Les,

How do you propose it would stay in place? What would keep oil from gushing everywhere? Plus, it costs twice as much as a two piece timer. Why on earth would anyone want to do that?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Rob Heyen on Friday, March 23, 2012 - 04:40 pm:

Les,

I spoke with the E timer developer at Hershey about making one for NRS Fords. We didn't really get far, and he was quite busy with interested T owners, so I moved on.

The NRS timer is smaller than the two piece T timer. It also is located at the back of the engine and I wonder if heat would be a problem. The NRS timer is a royal pain, and you must either pull the rear end back, or take the radiator off and slide the engine forward a bit to remove the timer.

I know of a few NRS owners who have a true fire system and get along well with that.

Rob

From my iPad


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Stephen D Heatherly on Friday, March 23, 2012 - 06:12 pm:

Rob, I notice that the exhaust pipe runs over the NRS timer. Would removing the pipe and muffler make access easier?

Stephen


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Les Schubert on Friday, March 23, 2012 - 06:46 pm:

Royce
You will notice that Mark Herdman quite nicely solved the oil issues as well as holding it in place with his system. Dealing with them for the etimer would be no more difficult. Do it once, do it right and never have to touch it again ever!!
And charging a battery from the T magneto is simple and reliable.
We all know that the early style coils are quite problematic and potentially require at a minimum a "master vibrator" .
I do agree that it is not for everyone, but that does not mean it is not a viable solution.
Rob
I did own a NRS (actually 3 of them, all gone now thankfully) . I think a etimer would be a pretty good solution. You get to retain your stock coils. You don't have to deal with the nightmare service access to the timer. And as you are committed to running off of batteries you will get much better battery life.
If I was still playing with those cars, I would buy a etimer and do the conversion myself. If I was concerned about heat I would fabricate a simple little heat shield between the exhaust pipe and the timer. Just something to stop the direct line heat radiation should do the trick


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Friday, March 23, 2012 - 07:50 pm:

Les,

Mark's picture shows a 1912 or later timing cover. My picture shows a 1910 timing cover. Look at the difference. No way to install a later style timer or an oil seal on the early (pre - 1912) covers. The '10 runs great with its Jacobsen Brandow coils on MAG, and in fact starts easily on MAG. No battery is required.

I am working on a Model N that has an early distributor conversion. Seems to work fine, it uses one of the original coils. Driving the N sure makes you appreciate a Model T, on the other hand a Model N is a better car than a similar vintage Maxwell or Buick or Olds.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By mark herdman on Friday, March 23, 2012 - 07:52 pm:

Gents

I do believe the whole system that Harry Mason originally designed would fit into a smaller NRS timer. Please note that an NRS timer runs in reverse to a T Ford which is the correct direction for the points used (luckily they are very short points). Harry has been using his timer, a later application on a 1913-14 for 10's of thousands of miles without touching it at all.

I had so much trouble with my later 1920 timer I decided, like Les said, to fix it once and for all. So far so good. It really is a lot of work to make. After working out roughly where the points had to go and taking into account the amount to be shortened in the flat spring, I marked a points pin hole and used a dividing head in the milling machine to make sure all 4 holes were true and exactly 90 deg apart. Same for the locking screws for the adjustment slots.

I'm with Royce. If original works, use it and I do like the noise of the coils when starting, and starting the engine just by turning the key. Like I said, I had so much trouble with the 1920 repro commutator shorting out because of the lack of insulation inside the bolt holes of the new repros, I fixed the problem permanently. Two piece timers are hard to work on in the car.

I didn't know about E Timers were when I did my conversion. Think they were being developed. T's run cooler and much smoother on Magneto and not Battery.

I would look much closer at the duration time of the circuit as in a smaller flat on the cam.

Like Royce said. The iron in the coil has to saturate and de-saturate, so there is a time delay and the spark needs to be cut off and not run for too long. If I were to do anything to change the design, this is where I would look.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By mark herdman on Friday, March 23, 2012 - 07:56 pm:

To

Shorter spar duration means the coils would run slightly cooler and possibly the engine a bit cooler too.

Thanks

Mark


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Rob Heyen on Friday, March 23, 2012 - 08:41 pm:

Royce,

On your comment:

"I am working on a Model N that has an early distributor conversion. Seems to work fine, it uses one of the original coils. Driving the N sure makes you appreciate a Model T, on the other hand a Model N is a better car than a similar vintage Maxwell or Buick or Olds."

My choice of cars to drive (of our current group):

1. 1913 T touring. Something about this car, it is virtually indestructible. Starts in the dead of winter, and will drive as fast as anyone would choose to drive.

2. 1906 N. The N is nimble, quick and very easy to drive. The low to high on the lever is very easy to operate. With a slight pull back on the lever (low) you are moving forward, then into high immediately. I think the two speed on the hand lever gives a better response and shift than the pedal and lever of a T. Lubricating is more complicated (and messy) than a T.

3. 09 T. I don't have all the bugs out yet, and I can tell it will not be the "go to driver" our 13 is.

4. No opinion of the K yet. However, I rode in Tim Kelly's K last summer, and was really impressed. Time will tell.

I do agree that the N seems far superior to the 1 and 2 cylinder cars we tour with on the New London to New Brighton tour each summer.

And now back to the regularly scheduled thread topic :-)

Rob

From my iPad


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Les Schubert on Friday, March 23, 2012 - 09:59 pm:

My brother has a 1910 model 10 Buick and I hate to admit it but it is a considerably better car than the model T. It's only deficiency is that 1st is too low. Like a T it has a planetary. He added a Moore in the torque tube and that made it about perfect. Don't tell him I posted this!!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Rob Heyen on Friday, March 23, 2012 - 10:15 pm:

Les,
We had a 1913 Model 25 Buick. It was a beautiful, luxurious car, but I always preferred driving our 13 T. The Buick was cumbersome and had a terrible turning radius. The only thing I liked better was the sliding gear 3 speed transmission (but not the jerky cone clutch).

Also, maintenance and lubing was much more involved than with a T. That Buick is now in England.
Rob


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ken Findlay on Saturday, March 24, 2012 - 03:03 am:

Let see... What's Leigh Schuberts email again....


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Les Schubert on Saturday, March 24, 2012 - 11:47 am:

Rob
I am not familiar with a model 25. The model 10 was the little car. If you stuck a OH conversion on a T engine and gave it a "real" steering box you were about there.

IF I now owned one of these, I would not bother to convert a 2 piece timer, for all the time it would take (not much) I would simply make a new housing that accepted the etimer internals. Then simply install the pressed brass cover and you are there.

I am seriously thinking of installing one on my 1906 Cadillac.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jim Boyden on Saturday, March 24, 2012 - 01:01 pm:

I have tried using the two piece timer on my 1910 Touring and have finally given up and switched to an Anderson type unit. The two piece timer worked just fine for a while (100 to 200 miles)but eventually it began to wear and start misfiring and missing. Two things started going wrong, the insulator ring began to wear and cause the roller to skip but most of the problem came from oil starting to burn from the sparking and become conductive to electricity causing misfiring. I have posted a picture showing the burning and erosion of the insulator from this cause.Picture of burned insulator


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Stephen D Heatherly on Saturday, March 24, 2012 - 01:06 pm:

Jim, How often did you oil that timer?

Stephen


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jim Boyden on Saturday, March 24, 2012 - 04:09 pm:

I never oiled it. It oiled itself. I had to clean it every 50 miles or so.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Rob Heyen on Saturday, March 24, 2012 - 04:14 pm:

Les,

The Model 24/25 (roadster/touring) was also the "little" Buick. I think that other than a different slant on the spark plug, the jugs are the same as on a Model 10.

It was a great starting and running car, just not as quick and responsive as a T. Also, I thought the steering was not as responsive. It was a heavier, more elegant car, just not as much fun to drive.

Rob

From my iPad


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John F. Regan on Saturday, March 24, 2012 - 05:18 pm:

Jim:

From you picture it appears that one of the bolts in the background that hold the front cover on is way off center compared to the one in the foreground. I could see where it that struck the brush it could cause problems big time. Could that have happened? It could just be the camera angle making it look that way I suppose.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Les Schubert on Saturday, March 24, 2012 - 05:30 pm:

Jim
That timer of yours looks like a good candidate for conversion to a etimer. If would seem that you have a housing that was "miss-machined" for it's original purpose but could probably be saved with a little effort. Sorry I am not volenteering for the project!!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Saturday, March 24, 2012 - 08:57 pm:

Jim,

It has a crazy amount of wear. Perhaps a reproduction front cover with the timer alignment way off? Something is terribly wrong.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Warwick Landy on Sunday, March 25, 2012 - 04:47 am:

Royce-
We really do love a good timer debate dont we! At least we agree on one thing, the early two piece brass timer and roller assembly is as you pointed out "clumsy to remove for cleaning and darn near impossible to remove without removing the radiator".
How far are you able to tour in your car with its originally equipped 2 piece timer before you have to remove it for cleaning/maintenance? As stated in my earlier post, with no oil seal over the camshaft any amount of wear at all will allow excess hot engine oil into the timer penetrating into the electrical connections causing short circuit problems!Similar to Jim I always had problems, generally got about 100 miles before requiring a major service. Did attempt it many times on the side of the road, without removing the radiator, but it is no fun in that situation.
I would be pleased to hear from owners of other early T's who run 2 piece timers and what sort of mileage they are able to do before they start to play up!
By the way, I still maintain that Henry changed the design of the timer and cover beacause it just was not up to the task.1911 to 1927 no more changes to the timer. I think that speaks for itself.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Rob Heyen on Sunday, March 25, 2012 - 08:29 am:

Warwick,

Both our 09s have the two piece timer, and both are reproduction. The 09 we recently sold (still with us, but leaving soon) for some reason has had no problem.

The second one, for some reason, seems to require constant attention, meaning cleaning frequently. Our N two piece timer does not require constant attention, but did put me out of the 120 mile New London to New Brighton tour a few years ago because it self destructed.

The N timer is next to impossible to work on (back of the camshaft, requiring the transmission frame/rear end be dropped and slid back to take off the timer).

We drive all three cars with regularity, although the N sees more miles than the 09s.

Rob


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Sunday, March 25, 2012 - 09:03 am:

Warwick,

It probably has a bit more than 100 miles on it right now. As always I packed it with red Mobil grease so I would expect it to last about the same as any other timer. Don't see any oil slinging from it - yet - but will keep an eye on it.

Yours had something misaligned or some trash in it to have that much wear while being bathed in oil as you say.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard Gould on Sunday, March 25, 2012 - 09:48 am:

I take off and clean my timer regularly and I've never had to remove the radiator. I wouldn't use it if I had to do that much work. The trick is to use the later style pin with a head. If you have to drive out the original straight pin that holds the rotor on, I could see where you'd have to have more access. Its easy to modify the rotor body slightly to accept the later pin. With a dremel tool, simply make an indentation in the body to accept the head of the pin.
That is not to say its as easy to clean as the later style timer. It takes me about 20 minutes.
That involves removing the rotor and case, cleaning in solvent, reoiling and reassembling.
As with all my Model Ts, I clean the timers about every 100 miles or so. They run better.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Alan George Long on Sunday, April 01, 2012 - 07:42 am:

Thank you everybody for your valuable input. Decision time!!

Alan


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gary Hagen on Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - 01:45 pm:

Any more two-piece timer experience out there?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John F. Regan on Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - 05:11 pm:

Just for technical comment only, the T ignition coil is not saturated. If you look at any of the timing diagrams I made with my scope for Ron Patterson's articles you will see that the rise in current from zero to the the point when the coil fires is in an absolute straight line. This means that the current is increasing linearly with time. When a coil begins to saturate at all the increase in current is NOT linear with respect to time as saturation begins to occur. Thus the ramp-to-fire waveform that I recorded for Ron's article would show the current moving in a straight line for awhile but then increasing very rapidly as the primary coil current began to saturate the coils core. The resulting wave would be a curved line that rises WAY WAY up at the end so that before the coil "fires" the current flowing in the primary would not be a few maps but very large perhaps even 10 times higher at 20 amps or more depending on the applied voltage and the primary wire size since the only thing limiting the current is the DC resistance of the primary wire rather than any AC resistance caused by the inductive reactance (AC resistance) of the primary.

The T coil fires when its points open. Its points are pulled open when there is sufficient magnetic force to pull them open. That occurs well before the coil magnetism ceases to rise exponentially further because of coil core saturation. The nature of the T coil's power source being both DC from the Battery or AC from the magneto means that the coil really does need to have a lot of headroom within its core to prevent that core from ever saturating with the wide changes in applied power levels.

As a separate thing - I like the basic design of the early timer too. It is inherently centered perfectly on the camshaft without any issue of timing cover alignment. I believe there is in fact a felt donut between the front timing cover surface and the rear surface of the timer. While not a perfect seal it might work better than you think and if it does get a bit of oil in it that would tend to lubricate the mating surfaces. I have them on 2 of my show cars but have not driven them any street miles so cannot comment on the reliability but just the inherent advantages that the engineer would have with this sort of design approach. All engineering is in fact a trade off of one property deemed less important to gain something deemed more important.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - 05:32 pm:

That was my fault John, I am using the word saturated improperly.

When operating on magneto - or battery - the moment when the roller first touches the contact is not the moment when the coil fires, and the moment the roller meets the insulator is also not when the coil fires.

The coil must react to the voltage input and eventually fire after some elapsed time, the elapsed time delta between coils being critical to a good running engine. The elapsed time is dependent on voltage, RPM, capacitor condition, matched coil windings, and the most critical thing, being properly adjusted on a hand cranked coil tester or equivalent device.

As you and Steve and Ron so aptly portray in the series of articles found on your website it all is simple looking but a trap for logical minds.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John F. Regan on Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - 10:19 pm:

I agree totally with your last posting and you said it much simpler than I did. I call that delay the "Ramp-to-fire" time (RTF).


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Warwick Landy on Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - 06:42 am:

Alan-
I will put the original timing cover and timer back on Dads car but I plan to remove the old inner and replace the contacts with anderson style contacts and fix the flapper from the Anderson to the original base of the 2 piece timer roller. This way it will look original from the front but will perform as well as and be as maintenance free as the anderson. I will post pictures of the conversion and pass on road test results.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Alan George Long on Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - 08:59 am:

Thank you Warwick and all others for their valuable input

Alan in Western Australia


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gary Hagen on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 05:48 pm:

Any more twopiece timer experience out there?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By stuart clipson on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 07:15 pm:

i have a two piece timer i got with my 1911 but appears from mr royce's picture that i am missing some pieces, notably the nut/sleeve, collar, pin, disc. anyone know if these are available without having to purchase a complete unit? it has a later unit installed on it now. and yes, i have the correct timing cover for the two piece also.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 07:27 pm:

Stuart,

Contact Chaffins. They should be able to help. At the very least you can buy a complete replacement.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ron Patterson-Nicholasville, Kentucky on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 07:29 pm:

Kim Dobbins likes the two piece timers he used on his early cars. He told me they work well and are reliable if cared for.
Ron the Coilman


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gary Hagen on Sunday, May 06, 2012 - 01:52 pm:

There has to be more two-piece timer experience out there. Gail Rodda, Kim Dobbins, Steve Coniff, Marv Roth, Don Skille let's hear from you!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Val Soupios on Sunday, May 06, 2012 - 04:30 pm:

I ran the same two-piece timer in my '10 touring for more than 15 years without any issues but eventually I started having problems off and on especially at higher speeds like the roller was bouncing. So, when I had the motor out to tighten the rods (one piece pan) I changed the timing cover plate and switched to an Anderson style timer. Next time I have the motor out I think I will switch back just because I prefer things to be as original as possible. It seems to me that both timers work equally well but the Anderson style is a bit cheaper and it is certainly easier to keep a spare on hand when one timer fits all your T's!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gary Hagen on Thursday, May 17, 2012 - 01:40 pm:

One of my '10 friends doesn't get on the forum much so I am posting with his experience. Here is an e-mail from April 29, 2012.
I found my repro two piece timer innards to be poorly made. The engine ran like crap-rough and uneven. I wound up using a late model Ford script timer innards to replace the repro and used the late model roller.
This set up has always worked perfectly. Starts easily and runs smoothly. I am using the late coils in the original box as well. Had to sand them down a bit and solder on some tabs to reposition the contact buttons. They have worked flawlessly as well. Guess I choose reliability, starting and running well over 100% internal authenticity.
E-Mail from April 30th,2012. I don't remember what I used for an oil seal. That engine leaks so much oil a little in the timer during the few miles I put on it isn't going to matter much. Motor oil just lubrecates the inside of the timer, which is very important when using the stock Ford timer and roller. I usually run Lubriplate 503 ( I think) to pack the inside of the timer. It is a semifluid white grease that does great prolonging the life of the timer contacts and roller. You need a good (original Ford) spring on the roller to make sure you have good contact with the timer segments. Lately before I take a T out I just pump the timer full to the top with motor oil. Eventually drips out but keeps the timer functioning perfectly with very little wear. Any oil that winds up on the chassis and rear end wipes up easily and keeps things from rusting and keeps them lubricated.

An e-mail from May 12, 2012. I took the cover off the 1910 timer and took a peek in there. The timer is using a newer FORD script roller (steel type). There is a 2 inch diameter thin steel flat washer that the roller bears against to keep the timer housing in place. As I mentioned before, the fiber ring with contact segments is also a later Ford item. I remember the brass reproduction roller was junk. The car ran like crap. To recap, all the innards of the timer are late model. The timer itself looks perfectly original on the outside. The car runs better than any of the three I run. Running is smooth and never misses a beat. I woulsn't set up another early Ford any other way. the timer hasn't been touched since the early 60's. Of course, unlike Jim Boyden, I don't put many miles on that car.
Jim Boyden has put about 10,000 miles on his '10 with an Anderson timer.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Stephen D Heatherly on Thursday, May 17, 2012 - 06:15 pm:

What do you think about putting Timken grease in a roller timer?

Stephen


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Thursday, May 17, 2012 - 06:25 pm:

What is "Timken grease" ? Why would it work better than Mobil 28?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Stephen D Heatherly on Thursday, May 17, 2012 - 06:42 pm:

Royce, it is simply what I have in the garage.

Stephen


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Thursday, May 17, 2012 - 06:44 pm:

OK. If it is light brown or red (Mobil brand synthetic wheel bearing grease) it will work great. If it is black it likely has moly or graphite in it and will not work.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David Dare - Victoria Australia on Thursday, May 17, 2012 - 08:34 pm:

Timken HT wheel bearing grease (RED) in mine, no problems, one with a seal, one without !! 1913's not 10's.
Royce, you converted me , l used to run oil down the oil fill hole, made a hell of a mess every drive, the grease seems to stay in there.

David.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gary Hagen on Friday, May 18, 2012 - 03:50 pm:

I wonder who has the most experience with running an original two piece timer? Kim Dobbins says and I quote. The only brass timer I have is on the '10 and I don't drive it enough to know much about its' performance.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gary Hagen on Saturday, May 19, 2012 - 02:20 pm:

Here is a quote from another one of my early "T" friends. I read the forum sometimes but not too often. The two-piece timer is the same as the one-piece timer except the lid comes off and the nut is different. It will have the same problems as the one-piece.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Saturday, May 19, 2012 - 05:18 pm:

If that is true then it won't have any problems. I agree there is not any significant difference in the design of the early timers compared to any later Ford roller timer.

I think you should never have any trouble with any Ford roller timer if it is kept lubricated with an appropriate grease and cleaned when necessary.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Warwick Landy on Sunday, May 20, 2012 - 08:30 am:

Royce and Gary-
The 09 to 11 two piece timer is vastly different in design to the later model! I am surprised after all the comments and postings this still has not been acknowledged by some. The timing cover is unique and will not accept the later model timer on it. The brass two piece timer relies on the roller alone to hold it on. It does not have the later designed spring clip to hold it in position. The timer cannot be removed for service before removing the roller. To remove the roller you must remove the brass cover and extract the pin that holds the special roller in place. The whole brass timer assembly rotates on the camnut surface and between the timer plate hole. A brass machined surface that runs between two hard steel surfaces! Guess which one wears first. The brass timer wears allowing excess movement and ingress of hot engine oil. The whole assembly does not have the benefit of a felt seal or modern seal to stop the oil getting in. Electrical connections,hot oil, nice conductive brass case all, a recipe for electrical dramas. I have taken a heaps of pictures of the complete different assemblies which I will put on when I can get back to my desk computer later in the week. In summery, If anyone wants to tour big miles in a car equipped with a two piece timer be prepared for regular inconvenient service stops and poor running or upgrade to the later timing cover and timer and you will have years of trouble free touring. Read back to my last post on this subject. If the original design was any good it never would have been changed.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Sunday, May 20, 2012 - 09:40 am:

Warwick,

Everything you mentioned has been said in this thread. Indeed the two piece timer requires a unique engine front cover. Check out post #3 in this thread at the top of the page. You can see all the pictures you want, again right on this page already.

Ford changed the timer design several times over the 1909 - 27 period to make it simpler to manufacture, assemble, and service. This was to improve profits and ease of maintenance. However the basic operating design is unchanged, and reliable as hell.

You won't have any drama if you simply keep it lubricated and clean it every so often.


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.
Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration