Starter Motor differences

For everything to do with Dolomites, Toledos, FWD cars and Dolomite-based kitcars.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Sundowner

Starter Motor differences

#1 Post by Sundowner »

I expect that you folk already know all this, but for me its all new and exiting stuff......

My Sprints starter motor packed it in the other day. The local auto electrician told me it needed another armature. I had a quick look around down here and found nothing so I bought a re-built starter from Robsport.
When it arrived I spent a gazillion hours trying to get the thing to fit, but couldn't. The bolt holes lined up with the studs OK but it just wouldn't go into place. Just to see if I was the problem, I tried the old starter and it fitted easily.......phew.
When it arrived I had noticed some small differences in the casting around the rear of the starter and in desperation I dismantled both the new and the old units, attached the old casting to the new unit and fitted it up OK. The thing is now in the car and operating as it should.
I understand that some Sprints used bolts to secure the starters and some, like mine, had studs and nuts. Could this be the the reason for the difference in casting?
The photos attached show those differences, with the biggest one being the slightly smaller hole for the ring gear and its slightly different angle. You'll also notice how the solenoid is mounted differently too.

Anyway, as I mentioned above, the car is now operating again, :D but I'd like to know what was going on here....if you know, that is.

Cheers,
Rob
Attachments
DSC06720.jpg
DSC06720.jpg (98.36 KiB) Viewed 702 times
DSC06719.jpg
DSC06719.jpg (92.61 KiB) Viewed 702 times
DSC06716.jpg
DSC06716.jpg (97.24 KiB) Viewed 702 times
User avatar
sprint95m
TDC Member
Posts: 6503
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: Caithness, Scotland

Okay.......

#2 Post by sprint95m »

It was only a small number of early Sprints that used bolts, the starter remained unchanged for the change to studs.


Early Sprint starters didn't have a spacer between it and the engine backplate but when the starter was redesigned
later a spacer was used.
So if you had the spacer I suspect that the new starter would have been okay?


I am surprised you couldn't source an armature locally because I thought these were common to Lucas starters of that era
across a range of cars.




Ian.
TDC Forum moderator
PLEASE help us to maintain a friendly forum,
either PM or use Report Post if you see anything you are unhappy with. Thanks.
User avatar
xvivalve
TDC West Mids Area Organiser
Posts: 13586
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 1:13 pm
Location: Over here...can't you see me?

Re: Starter Motor differences

#3 Post by xvivalve »

They sent you a TR7 starter; look at the difference in flange casting shape to the RHS of your photo's, it is very subtle
User avatar
Mad Mart
TDC Member
Posts: 8532
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:48 pm
Location: Winscombe, North Somerset, England
Contact:

Re: Starter Motor differences

#4 Post by Mad Mart »

Yep, I had a similar problem a few years ago. The flange on the TR7? starter clashes with a protrusion on the engine block. I just Dremeled a notch out of the starter flange.
Sprintless for the first time in 35+ years. :boggle2: ... Still Sprintless.

Engines, Gearboxes, Overdrives etc. rebuilt. PM me.


2012 Porsche Boxster 981 S


Image
Sundowner

Re: Starter Motor differences

#5 Post by Sundowner »

Thanks Gents.
Rob
Post Reply