Tiny Tiger model 400

[factory 487]

On 1/10/2020 at 5:33 PM, Wallfish said:

The original engine is the one I rebuilt but that shaft protrudes out too far to work with the generator. If it was indeed the original engine, it came with it but that doesn't mean anything.

I even opened it back up to have a look see and everything is good. I'm guessing that shaft is from a different engine but I thought the cases were all pretty much the same. I miss David, he always has the part # info to validate this kind of stuff. Hope he's doing OK

 

That is very odd, the shaft on my TT Model 400 doesn't look any different from other TT engines as far as I can tell, I need to have a closer look but I think only the tapered part sticks out (on your engine part of the parallel section also sticks out).

 

Did yours have one of these bodged sections of stud with a nut riveted on, holding the armature on?

This part is longer than the standard Model 300 TT.

 

David

[Wallfish 697]

Someone was in that engine before and put the wrong crank half in there. Swapped out engines but swapped a new crank into the first engine and everything is good to go

[factory 487]

On 1/15/2020 at 2:13 AM, Wallfish said:

On 1/14/2020 at 5:56 PM, JUST O&R said:

So there is two tapered shafts one short and one long and the keys don't make any difference?

The keys and the taper are the same. The shaft that was in that engine is for a different style engine and therefore it's longer. Plus it was only one side of a different shaft I believe. The other side was right or at least it works perfectly fine. I believe it's because the engine I have uses the plastic bearing cages and that longer shaft is from and engine with the newer roller bearing and 2 washers on the side. This is exactly where David always shines as he could probably provide exact part #s, exact measurements, which engines, DOM, ect. ect. That guy is incredible!

 

I've found a possible match for the slightly longer backshaft in the April 1964 parts list, it gives gives 42-12 as the backshaft without keyways (used after SN #006072) and 42-18 as the same backshaft for use with A-131-4 thrust bearing assembly. However this assembly is neither shown on the diagram or given a separate number/entry in the parts list and no mention if any other parts are changed to use the thrust bearing either.

 

Also the 1971 price list states 42-12 (without keyways) use 42-16, which is the same shaft but with keyways.

 

Anyone else confused, I certainly am.

 

David

 

PS I need to check the 1961 to 1963 info that isn't scanned too.

[JUST O&R 237]

This may be why we see some unit with and the same unit without a keyway.  Some of this is confusing

[Wallfish 697]

No need to worry about the key ways on a short tappered shaft crank end unless it has the old style clutch with the cork friction linings. Those clutches used the key ways. Not sure if anything else ever did or not but I haven't seen one yet

[CNew 404]

On 1/5/2020 at 5:05 PM, Wallfish said:

SO, complete engine rebuild is in order.

 

So did you end up replacing the plastic bearings on the 400 with new style metal ones?

[Wallfish 697]

Nope. I must be the only one that doesn't have an issue with the plastic cages. Keep oil in the fuel and don't let it scream over 6300 rpm and it should be fine. None of my stuff are workers anyway so no big deal on the plastic cages.

[JUST O&R 237]

That’s funny I don’t replace them

unless there’s a problem. It’s not like we run them all the time.

[Wallfish 697]

In fact, I like the plastic cages because there super easy to clean and re-install. Just throw a dab of grease in the hole or on the rod and put'm in there.

Unless you're referring to the same design but metal instead of plastic. The wire cage type are a PITA and messy. Just did and engine with them.

[CNew 404]

I’m certainly not opposed to keeping and re-using the plastic ones, just didn’t know if they were known to fail frequently.  Two of the ones I have look to be in ok condition. There is one though that the plastic has cracked all the way through so I’m guessing it should probably be replaced.

[factory 487]

19 hours ago, JUST O&R said:

This may be why we see some unit with and the same unit without a keyway.  Some of this is confusing

 

18 hours ago, Wallfish said:

No need to worry about the key ways on a short tappered shaft crank end unless it has the old style clutch with the cork friction linings. Those clutches used the key ways. Not sure if anything else ever did or not but I haven't seen one yet

 

I think the reason they sometimes appear is explained by the price list, they discontinued one older backshaft (with no keyways) to reduce parts inventory at the factory and to keep the other backshaft (with keyways) available for all older engines with or without the clutch.

 

David

[factory 487]

On 1/6/2020 at 2:21 AM, Wallfish said:

 

Finally checked the engine type on mine, it's also a type 112, sn #018611.

 

With all the mention of replacing plastic bearing sets with the metal versions, I try & re-use all parts where possible including those plastic cages if no damage is obvious, remember there is a finite supply of spare parts for these engines.

 

David