TRExp

TR6 Tech Forum

40 yo starter, rebuild or replace

Moss Motors
AutoShrine Sponsor
AutoShrine Sponsor
AutoShrine Sponsor
AutoShrine Sponsor

poolboy Avatar
poolboy Ken D
Sandy Hook, MS, USA   USA
Well heck 'tirebitter' since you feel this way, why don't you ?
"Meanwhile I still am wondering how it is that nobody here has ever looked further into the "more torque" claims or done any actual meaurements. Many folks seem to just go along with the idea that a gear reduction starter is better without any proof beyond "it says so" in the catalog description. "

. Hide banner ads & support this website by becoming a > Gold Supporting Member <
ed.h Ed Hollingsworth
Omaha, NE, USA   USA
As someone who managed to mostly stay awake during high school physics class, my interest gets peaked when I hear about a starter that produces MORE torque at HIGHER RPMs with LESS current draw.

As we all remember, the power output of a motor is its torque multiplied by its RPM, times a constant. That mechanical power can be converted to the electrical power needed from the battery. Conservation law tells us that power in has to equal power out (assuming there is no internal energy storage, and heat losses are considered power out).

Now, replacing a stock starter with a gear reduction unit doesn't change the torque needed to spin the flywheel. It also doesn't change the minimum RPM needed to start the engine, so the mechanical power needed to crank the engine would appear to be unchanged. So where does this promise of LOWER current draw come from?

In an attempt to answer my own question, without the advantage of having ever touched a reduction starter, I surmise that the motor used in these GR starters may actually be a permanent magnet (PM) type. This would explain the claims of smaller size and lower weight. The advent of very strong rare earth magnets allows very strong fields in small spaces. A PM motor does away with the heavy field coils in series (or parallel) with the rotor windings, and thus eliminates much of the resistance losses.

Since a PM motor is more efficient at higher RPMs (within limits), it turns out that the gear reduction is necessary to allow the motor to run where it is happiest.

So if I'm right in my armchair theorizing, the main improvement in these starters comes from the more efficient motor. The gear reduction part is just something that had to be grudgingly included to make it work. Most of the marketing copy implies that the magic is somehow in the gear reduction.

Can anyone confirm or deny this so I don't have to get out of my easy chair?

Ed



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-17 01:05 AM by ed.h.

tirebiter Jeff Garber
Dighton, MA, USA   USA
Ed,

" So where does this promise of LOWER current draw come from" I'm not sure there are any claims Ed, that these starters draw any less current. I included the current draw as part of my wondering why these are accepted as being "better". I'm glad you were able to stay awake in physics class :>winking smiley

But right you are, regarding the use of permanent magnets. I bet you already know what happens to permanent magnets over time and with exposure to heat and vibration.

FYI here is an exerpt from an article you might like to read :

"In the quest for ultimate performance, the car crafter's perpetual search for horsepower is perhaps only paralleled by his infatuation with reducing weight. Aluminum blocks and heads really help, but more often, removing 25 pounds from five different places is the likely avenue to success. Starting in 1993, both GM and Ford began building more efficient starter motors that were also lighter and smaller, and these quickly became known as permanent magnet gear reduction (PMGR) starters. Before you fire up the gear reduction email onslaught, let's be clear that any good gearhead knows that gear reduction starters are not new. Most car guys know the distinctive whine of gear-reduction starters used in Chrysler products dating back to the early '60s. The difference with this new breed of gear reduction starters is the addition of permanent magnets that do not require bulky and heavy electrical field windings to increase the electric motor's output. Permanent magnets allow the starter to be significantly smaller, especially when compared with classic starters used in muscle cars from the '60s and '70s.

and the link to said article

http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/ccrp-1207-lightweight-pmgr-starters-junkyard-builder/

Ken,

How do you suppose I should do that ? Would you be willing to swap stater motors in and out of your engine to do the testing ? Even if you do, and the results are conclusive one way or another, do you think anyone would change their mind about the gear reduction starters ? That's my point. Maybe these starters are not as good as the marketing makes them out to be.

Many folks seem to believe the marketing claims, more than they believe real-world numbers ... but that is entirely off-topic. On topic, I'm wondering if the gear reduction starters actually spin the engine over as fast as a properly working stock starter does. Why I'm concerend is that nobody seems to know but many are all over the goodness of the gear reduction starter as if it is gold. I guess I'll just have to live with it.

. Hide banner ads & support this website by becoming a > Gold Supporting Member <
ed.h Ed Hollingsworth
Omaha, NE, USA   USA
Tire--

Here's one such claim for lower current draw from BPNW:

" This is a Heavy Duty Gear Reduction Starter for a TR6. 100% bolt in. Give up on your battery robbing old starter that you hope will start the car on a hot day and put in a modern starter that draws less amps and works great."

Given that these new starters use more up-to-date, more efficient motors, I don't really doubt the claim. They should be able to produce the same torque/speed with less draw, or more torque/speed with the same current draw as the stock motor.

I just think it's interesting that many (even suppliers, apparently) seem to think that it's the gear reduction that is the improvement.

Ed

Punkdogstr6 Doug Lawson
Culver City, CA, USA   USA
The starters only purpose is to rotate the engine for starting. Once that happens it becomes dead weight that you haul around.
When paired with a good battery and solenoid the original starter worked well and lasted long if not abused so why would you need "higher torque and more RPM" ? The answer is you don't but, everything eventually wears out so where or how does one get a 40 year old starter returned to it's original spec. for an economical price ? I once knew people who could rewind armatures and fields thus making a motor as good as new but no more. Economics of China washed that away and the quest for better MPG brought us lighter starters with reduction gears and permanent magnets.
Since the power / work required to start up remained constant why not use a smaller motor run through a reduction gear drive and reduce dead weight of the motor. You could say that they ran the equation backwards from when they needed larger motors and batteries to turn over the larger engines.
Do they spin the engine faster with more torque , yes but who cares as you don't need the " more " you want the less that is in the weight and cost.
Less is a lot harder to sell to people who a generally are wanting more and to engine people RPM and torque are standout words that hook that fish to the line. Less is not but here it turns out to be the real more.
My starter is the original heavy monster and it works great but if or when it's time comes I will buy a high quality permanent magnet Chineese starter because of the less being more. Will it last as long as the heavy original ? I doubt it . Will it make my engine start better ? Nope. The old heavy does that job very well.

Joeblowv1 Avatar
Joeblowv1 Joe Blusnavage
Trenton, NJ, USA   USA
Whoever mentioned a Flywheel in a flat rate box - its like they were designed for them. They tuck in there too perfectly.


Anywhosle - I actually was having a conversation about the noise the solenoid makes when its still spinning but not catching as you're trying to start your car. My triumph is not in pristine rebuilt condition, buying it right before winter and trying to get some cash together for parts after the initial purchase (broke college student here) has not allowed me much time to work on it...the new leaf spring I have is staring at me with longing. Anyway you gotta crank it over a bit to get it started, and invariably when it doesn't start, you hear the WHNNNNNN of the solenoid slowing down/not engaging all the way cause the motor wouldn't start.

Anyway, the point of all that is that I think I'd miss that noise if I put a new starter in. Its weirdly endearing.



Yeah I mean, your car is cool and all... but does it spit fire?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-18 09:23 AM by Joeblowv1.

tomshobby Avatar
tomshobby Tom Smith
Windsor, WI, USA   USA
I fitted my new starter when the engine was on the stand. That way I could easily verify the fit with the ring gear.



Tom Smith
1976 TR6
1974 Midget

. Hide banner ads & support this website by becoming a > Gold Supporting Member <

Attachments:
engine 031.jpg    37.4 KB
engine 031.jpg

Punkdogstr6 Doug Lawson
Culver City, CA, USA   USA
Joe,
When I was in college I not only lived out of my VW bus I push started it for months. Luck being there were hills with parking spaces and to this day I'll let it roll start if able.

Punkdogstr6 Doug Lawson
Culver City, CA, USA   USA
Tom,
That looks like it's going to get cooked sitting there. You might be better off with an original to get it off the header.

. Hide banner ads & support this website by becoming a > Gold Supporting Member <
poolboy Avatar
poolboy Ken D
Sandy Hook, MS, USA   USA
Enlighten punkdog, Tom.
Tell him how many miles it's been like that.

tomshobby Avatar
tomshobby Tom Smith
Windsor, WI, USA   USA
OK Ken, First thing is that it is not as close as that photo looks. We have driven our TR6 over 56,000 miles since that photo. Been coast to coast through 28 states and the 3 western Canadian Provinces. When we went out west on a 6,000 mile trip we pulled a trailer and spent a lot of time in the mountains. Twice in our travels we had to drive without a clutch which meant using the starter to get underway while in gear. Once was on a trip to Door County Wisconsin where we were on vacation. On that trip the clutch went out on the way up so we finished our trip going further north and eventually driving back home. On the other we drove across Alberta Canada from Provost to Calgary. On the Provost to Calgary trip we were pulling a trailer. Photo is on Mt Rainer.

In other words I will be leaving the starter as is.



Tom Smith
1976 TR6
1974 Midget



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-18 08:14 PM by tomshobby.


Attachments:
IMG_4069.JPG    36.5 KB
IMG_4069.JPG

Punkdogstr6 Doug Lawson
Culver City, CA, USA   USA
Wow !
Guess they are also fire proof . It looks like it's resting on the header.

tomshobby Avatar
tomshobby Tom Smith
Windsor, WI, USA   USA
Doug, here you can see that it is not as close as it looked. It is actually under and closer to the engine so if the photo was taken from an even lower pov it would show there is more clearance than you were thinking. Also the ceramic coating on the header keeps things cooler. And the other photo shows how the starter drive can be easily checked. I wanted mine to engage as far as possible without the larger part contacting the ring gear.



Tom Smith
1976 TR6
1974 Midget


Attachments:
engine 055.jpg    50 KB
engine 055.jpg

engine 063.jpg    35.1 KB
Sign In or Register to view this photo
Tgt6 Avatar
Tgt6 Joao Simoes
Ann Arbor, MI, USA   USA
1973 Triumph GT6 MkIII "GT6 Cabriolet"
1973 Triumph GT6+ (MkII)
Does it matter if you use 30wt or 5w40?



A penny for your thoughts but everyone gives their 2 cents' worth...somebody is making a penny.

Joao

197? GT6 Convertible
1965 Volkswagen Karmann Ghia Coupe
1950 Dodge Meadowbrook

hogan1945 Avatar
hogan1945 Silver Member Douglas F
Woodbury, MN, USA   USA
1968 Pontiac GTO "Tempest"
1976 Triumph TR6
1976 Triumph TR6
1976 Triumph TR6    & more
An all original TR6???? Won't add anything to resell value. We don't own Hemi Cudas, we own a British marquee icon!!!! Pass the Beer Nuts




. Hide banner ads & support this website by becoming a > Gold Supporting Member <

To add your reply, or post your own questions




Registration is FREE and takes less than a minute!


Having trouble posting or changing forum settings?
Read the Forum Help (FAQ) or contact the webmaster





Join The Club

Sign in to ask questions, share photos, and access all website features

Your Cars

1980 Triumph TR8

Text Size

Larger Smaller
Reset Save

Sponsor Links