13/60 Exhaust valve part number

[oldbury863]

Ive decided to renew the exhaust valves on my 13/60 (engine no GE73067HE) but different suppliers seem to be quoting 2 different part numbers namely 126858 or 144939. So are they both the same part?

Seems an odd thing to do if they are the same!

Edited August 30, 2022 by Craig

[PeteStupps]

Just looked in my 1300fwd parts catalogue (13/60 GE head and valves are exactly the same as 1300fwd). It lists both those numbers and in the 'remarks' says "Alternative to 144939/126858.." so either will fit.

I'd speculate that 144939 is a later hardened steel version to deal with unleaded fuel in the US market. But that's a guess.

NB there are some cheap sets of NOS valves on ebay. I had a new exhaust valve from James Paddock fail and destroy a rebuilt engine, after about 1000 miles in 2019. Not blaming paddocks at all. Very possibly it was a one-off defect and I was just unlucky. But once bitten, twice shy!

[PeteStupps]

... by the way, why have you decided to renew the exhaust valves? Presumably it's part of a head rebuild not just a whim!

[oldbury863]

Its a rather long story but as part of my nut and bolt restoration over several years, I rebuilt the engine (not many miles ago) but have been dogged with running problems particularly regarding that nasty stromberg (IMO). I previously posted my concerns about float valves.  I have fitted 3 new float valves (!) and still they stick (mainly shut) whenever the car has been left a couple of weeks without running. A tap on the side of the float chamber with a hammer gets it running again, I blame nasty modern petrol! I have fitted a new mechanical pump, then I tried an electric one and now I am back to a mechanical one but with a fuel regulator also. At one point earlier on, the engine kept flooding badly and I was concerned that damage may have been done from washing of the bores. Even the oil smelt of petrol so I carried out an oil change.  I have always felt the engine has a degree of lumpiness particularly at low revs and was running on 31/2 cylinders rather than 4. I have checked the ignition timing and tried electronic ignition too. I recently carried out compression tests and cam lift tests but found nothing obviously amiss.  I decided to remove the head and was surprised at the amount of carbon build up considering how few miles had been driven. To be fair the car has been started up from cold many many times now in an attempt to get it running properly so that probably hasn't helped. What I did notice on the head was that cylinders 1 and 4 were far more sooty than 2 and 3. I used blue hylomar when I originally fitted the carb and manifold to minimise the likelyhood of leaks. Why should there be a such difference between cylinders on an engine that has been rebored with new pistons, new valve giudes etc etc? I dont know if anyone else has spotted this, but when I examined the inlet manifold, the design of it is such that the intake splits horizontally so 1 and 4 intake is below the intake for 2 and 3. Wouldnt that arrangement encourage 1 and 4 to run richer where the mixture might be denser? Im probably clutching at straws here, but I have decided to try running the engine with a Toledo manifold and SU carb instead. I know there are plenty out there that would consider such a mod as a backward step but I'm going to give it a try. Ive always preferred SUs anyway. Removing the float chamber lid on an HS4 is a piece of cake compared to a Stromberg. The Toledo manifold might look like an inferior product being a 'log' design, but might it distribute a more even mixture to all 4 cylinders? It also begs the question as to why Triumph fitted a totally different manifold to the Toledo when all they needed to do was alter the stud positions on the Herald one to suit an SU? The expected slight loss of power (58 vs 62BHP) from this conversion does not bother me.

Anyway, back to my valves.......When I rebuilt the engine I had the head skimmed, new guides fitted and valves lapped by a local engine rebuilder. Only now, having removed the valves, have I seen the seats and athough they are not bad by any means, I cannot remove all of the pitting on 2 of the exhaust valves by lapping.

It may well be that they were like that when I took delivery of the head as I never saw them.....

Having originally spent in excess of £1000 rebuilding the engine (it needed almost everything renewing and an acid bath clean),  I have to admit my frustration at still not getting such a 'simple' engine to run sweetly!  I live in hope.........

[RobPearce]

I think you're in danger of throwing money at the wrong problem in your frustration. STOP. Take a step back and re-think it.

1 hour ago, oldbury863 said:

What I did notice on the head was that cylinders 1 and 4 were far more sooty than 2 and 3.

That's not surprising. The soot is because you've been running rich, probably from all the cold starts and no long journeys. However, the inner cylinders inherently run hotter than the outers, so they tend to burn the soot off better. Also:

1 hour ago, oldbury863 said:

Wouldnt that arrangement encourage 1 and 4 to run richer where the mixture might be denser?

It possibly does, a bit. The reason for the design is to avoid it being a "log", though, so that the mixture is more even. In reality, it wasn't entirely successful, hence the re-design for better emissions performance on the Toledo.

1 hour ago, oldbury863 said:

The expected slight loss of power (58 vs 62BHP) from this conversion does not bother me.

The power loss is apparently not real. The figure quoted for the Toledo was measured using a different standard (ancillaries on rather than off) so the real-world power of the Toledo engine is possibly a fraction more than a 13/60.

1 hour ago, oldbury863 said:

I had the head skimmed, new guides fitted and valves lapped

Have you been using fuel additive? Lapping the valves removes the "lead memory" that protected them from unleaded petrol. It won't have caused any real problems in the minimal use it's seen since but it's worth using some Castrol Valvemaster once you're doing any decent mileage.

2 hours ago, oldbury863 said:

Having originally spent in excess of £1000 rebuilding the engine (it needed almost everything renewing and an acid bath clean),  I have to admit my frustration at still not getting such a 'simple' engine to run sweetly! 

Newly rebuilt engines are no less susceptible to setup problems than old, well run-in ones. My Vitesse took me two years to debug after I rebuilt the engine.

What spark plugs do you use? The same conditions that cause the sootiness will often kill modern plugs, especially NGKs.

[PeteStupps]

Understand your frustration but, as Rob says, sorting out all the snags after a rebuild can often take longer than the build, and be more perplexing.

Can you get any decent photos of the valves? I may have seen something similar to what you describe, on my Spitfire head last year. Will see if I can find a picture 

[PeteStupps]

This is the only shot i've got, but it shows the pitting I found after about a year and maybe 2000 miles. This with hardened valve seats, and brand new exhaust valves. 

I wondered about it at the time and lapped them very thoroughly, but didn't get rid of all the pitting. It's one of those things I put completely out of mind until now!

The car has since covered about 4k miles, including the RBRR and track days. So it hasn't noticeably affected performance yet. I'll be interested to see how they look when I next pull the head off...

[RobPearce]

That sort of pitting is perfectly normal and won't go away with lapping, in my experience. It doesn't seem to cause any problems.

[oldbury863]

Thanks very much for the replies, the pitting on my valves is similar to, but not as bad as the one in the photo so thats reassured me that I'm being too picky!

Along with many others, I have experienced premature failure of several 'pattern' parts (and wish I'd kept the originals!) so I'm not too keen to exchange my old valves for new ones of unknown origin that may be inferior to the ones I already have.

A quick glance yesterday on ebay, I found 3 people selling 'proper' Stanpart valves...........all based in the USA unfortunately. Postage, customs, VAT etc make them a no-no as far as I'm concerned so I'll be sticking to my originals now.

I'll post an update when things have progressed (or not!)

[Wendy Dawes]

If you search on eBay try searching Triumph Herald engine valves and there are several sellers with NOS available in this country, both inlet and exhaust valves. They’re selling at around £45 per set but are genuine new old stock  items - definitely not Chinesium 

 

 

[glang]

I would think very carefully before changing valves. Whenever you change something you are taking a risk and have to way up the benefit against possible failures. New components, even NOS, can break or in your case not fit properly in the guides which presumably where reamed recently to suit the old valves.

Your compression readings are good and I guess your predicted annual mileage fairly low so I think the old valves will last you out.... 

[Rosbif]

2 hours ago, glang said:

Whenever you change something you are taking a risk and have to way up the benefit against possible failures.

I think every owner should have that hung on a wall close to where the tools are kept. So true.