NG 850

[chris lambert]

The images taken are shown below:







Chris

[halbe]

Hello Clive,

I took my photo's without the flash.
Could your block be of an MG D?

Good luck

Halbe

[Simon]

Hello Clive & Chris,
This looks like an MG engine (red bits) that has had the block replaced at some, possibly because it froze or had some other fault early in its life. The new block would have come from the spares department and would not have a conventional engine number as it had never been an engine. Also note the long studs for the sump which would be necessary for the MG aluminium sump. To eliminate the possibility of it being a J type block can you check that the cylinder head studs are 5/16 inch diameter. The numbers cast on the side of the block, namely ?? 32, would indicate that the block was cast in 1932. To leave no stone unturned it might be worth checking, if the crank is free that the stroke is 83 mm to eliminate the very very remote possibility that it is a 750 cc engine.
Good luck, Simon

[chris lambert]

Thanks for that Simon. Here is the best I can do via Photoshop to bring out the letters and numerals stamped onto the flat plate.



I can now make out a couple of the characters. This is what Clive saw: 2/1922C under this CJ and under this J72.
Chris

[chris lambert]

Simon, Clive,
The characters on the block look like (to me) as being 13 7 32. Now if that is a casting date and this is a Minor engine and not an MG block it would have to be one of the last few produced, as the Family 8 changed over to the s/v version about then. Having said all of that, the engine no. is still a bit of a mystery, unless someone can confirm Simon's theory that replacement blocks weren't allocated sequential block numbers. My reason for questioning that hypothosis is that we know many more engines were produced than chassis frames laid down and yet these engines were all stamped with sequential engine numbers. Perhaps these were produced as completed engine units whilst the block in question is just a spare block.
Mind you it could still be from a J type. Will the MG boys know on the Triple M site?



Chris

[Ian Grace]

Without thinking too hard (just home briefly for lunch), so don't quote me, but it looks like a standard J2 block to me - date is right, fat head studs and ali sump studs. I'll ask Bob Clare - MMM Registrar.

Edited to add - J2 engines numbers had AA prefixes, e.g. AA128. J3's had AJ suffix, e.g. 1103AJ, J4's had J4 suffix, e.g. HC1/J4. So it's anybody's guess!

[chris lambert]

Clive has sent me a revised image of the engine no. plate. Here it is:



His sump is very obviously not Minor or M type:



Chris

[Ian Grace]

Thanks Clive - got the pics. I will forward your query to Bob Clare and see if he can throw any light on it.

[Ian Grace]

Success! Bob Clare has cracked the code for us, and just sent this very comprehensive reply:

Hi Ian,

Ah - OK I've re-read your e-mail and - yes - 72 is the product code for the
earlier J engines (without the later additional front outrigger crank-shaft
bearing - those were code 117 and started at serial number 2500AJ).

Engine number 1922AJ was originally fitted to chassis number J 3097. We
know it lost that engine in 1/36 as shown in the factory files. It was
often the case that engines removed from customers' cars were repaired and
put into stock as spares. Some of these were re-used by the factory and
others (like this one I think) were sold to the trade. History does not
relate where this engine went after it was repaired and re-bored 20thou
oversize (as indicated by the "C" designation - "A" was stabdard bore, "B"
rebored by the factory 10thou oversize, "C" 20thou etc.).

I would be very interested to know where this engine came from.. Do you
have any previous history, did the person you got it from have a J Type and
if so, what chassis number is it?

All interesting stuff for our archives.

Kind regards.
Bob

So Clive, can you tell us anything about the source of this engine - other than it came fitted to your saloon? Did the previous owner have a J perhaps?

Incidentally, I think Bob is wrong about the oversize markings. Here's a clipping from M 129 on the topic:

Here is what the Morris Owner of June 1932 had to say on the subject:

“Regarding the markings adopted for Morris pistons, the complete range of pistons comprises five groups, of which "A" is the nominal or standard size. The remainder are considered oversize and the increase in diameter between each group is 0.25 mm. They are designated B, C, D and E, the latter being obtainable only to special order.
Each group is then divided into twenty-four individual piston sized ranging from -13 to +10. These figures refer to hundredths of a millimeter, and not thousandth's of an inch as is commonly supposed. Consequently, the variation in diameter between two consecutive pistons is only 0101 mm or rather less than half a thousandth of an inch. For example, size A-10 would indicate a standard 57 mm piston with a diameter equal to that of the bore minus 0.1 mm.
In selecting a piston at the works, the following example can be taken: The piston clearance (which incidentally, should always be measured at the skirt) for the Minor is 0.11 mm to 0.12 mm. Assuming that piston A-10 is fitted and as a result of wear the skirt clearance has increased to 0.18 mm, then the following deduction applies:
A-10 piston fitted
Skirt clearance 0.18 mm
Skirt clearance required 0.11 mm
Difference 0.07 mm

Therefore A-10 piston plus 0.07 mm equals A-3 piston needed. Naturally, it is impossible to accurately forecast the piston size which will be needed after reboring, since this is entirely dependent upon the size of the cylinder bore when cleaned up. Careful micrometer readings should be taken of each bore, when after deducting the requisite clearance, you will arrive at the piston size. The letter "P" on the piston crown indicates that the piston is of the Morris parallel type.”

[cammy]

Wow!!! I am so impressed. I will buy a micrometer to go with my hammer. In the meantime I will take a picture of the pistons tomorrow for perusal.
I can supply details of owner in 1941 if this is any good. You may possibly be able to Cross reference if there is a record. Otherwise all I can tell you NG 850 seems to have spent early years in the Kings Lynn area.

[chris lambert]

Kings Lynn was also the early home of its cousin VG

[cammy]

I have come to the conclusion after seeing Halbe's pictures that NG 850 is a very rare vehicle and was probably an experimental version of the Minor. It was obviously made by somehow getting six coats of paint to stick together in the shape of the body and then spraying a thin coat of rusty metal on the inside. In an attempt to provide fixings for the interior trim mouldings were made of sawdust and wood fragments which were then pinned to the metal layer.
The entire structure was then strengthened by bits of agricultural iron mongery at each joint.
The experiment was probably not repeated as the first rain shower disolved the sudo wooden mouldings.
Ian will probably discover that this model was designated MM MFI (bodge 1).

[chris lambert]

Clive,
I don't know if this might be useful to you? Its available on eBay now:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1930-s-VINTAGE-MO ... dZViewItem

Chris

[DF9053]

Clive,

My understand of the rear inner wings on the coach built saloons is that all but the very early cars had pressed steel and therefore moulded sections instead of the wooden fabrication shown in the VG pictures.

Cheers
Jeremy

[Ian Grace]

I'd always though that all the OHC saloons and early SV saloons had wooden wheel arches. What can other owners tell us?