Timothy Keith-Lucas

Consider narrowing down the issue a bit. Take one side of a jumper cable and clamp it on the big terminal on the starter motor itself (not the relay on top of the starter if you have one). Touch the positive pole on the battery with the other end of the jumper cable. Did the starter spin? If yes, you can eliminate the starter motor and the battery as the problem. Now use MV8s test lead to supply power back at the starter switch, and so forth. Good luck with it.

That's one gorgeous car. Your flames look closer to what flames really look like when a speeding vehicle is on fire than do most. If you're hauling buns after your exhaust manifold fell off and a fuel line ruptured the flames go straight back. Usual representation of a bat-out-of-hell car look like a barbeque with too much charcoal lighter.

Amen on sources of error, MV8. The FAA/TSA seems to be thinking that if the battery is not too big and is in your carry-on, cabin staff can put out the fire while the passengers pray, scream, and dig in their bags for fresh underwear. So far, I have not heard of it happening.

I beg to disagree. Quoting from your FAA post " batteries are limited to a rating of 100 watt hours (Wh) per battery." I'm travelling with a GooLoo automobile jump-off battery, rated as 76 watt hours, at this time. It went through TSA at the Orlando airport.

" Not all that fast but corners like a scared rabbit."

If your jump box is (as most are) under 100Whours, you can take it through TSA and use it as backup for all your electronics. I grabbed one out of the trunk of my Miata and brought it with me to Puerto Rico for a family event - great to have in airports and BNBs. Just remember that it has to be in your carry-on; they don't want them in the luggage hold.

Ok. I'm going to be comfortable with calling her a 948. At the minimum I won't be overstating her displacement, and it seems by far the most likely bet. If I ever take her head off, I'll be sure to measure it. Thank you all for both sharing your wisdom with me and engaging in a really interesting discussion. I've learned a lot more than just her likely displacement. God rest ye merry gentlemen. --Tim.

She raced in "FP"

That may be as close to certainty as I can get until I experience a "Catastrophic failure," leave broken parts and oil all over the road, and then have other reasons to pull the head. Thanks for your wisdom.

I was hoping to resolve the issue without taking the head off to measure the bore and stroke. The car was factory assembled, and I think we've established that it started life with a 948cc engine, but the term "race prepared BMC "A"" could hide all sorts of mischief.

Not quite sure that I understand the question, Scott, but my casting marks are identical to those posted by MV8 above, ergo it at least started life as a 948cc engine. I have an email into Hayes Harris, who knew the car in the early 1960s when it was racing - he was a kid hanging out at the owner's garage. He's now the owner of Wire Wheels, a sports/racing car dealer in Vero Beach, Florida and sold the car to me. His ad for the car did say that the engine was "a race prepared BMC "A" series..."

Quote "803, 848, 947, 948, 970, 997, 998, 1070, 1097, 1098, 1275, but who's counting..." Pretty soon you rev it up and a piston breaks through to the water jacket.....spoils your whole day.

Grinch! You would do that to an 80 year-old kid's dreams a few days before Christmas? Shame on you! That is a very reasonable concern, and thank you for bringing it up. I'll check with Hayes Harris of Wire Wheels in Vero Beach about any history of serious engine work. He knew the car while it was racing (1962-66) and before it went into storage for 56 years. Thanks. --Tim.

BINGO! Behind the carb heat shield, behind the exhaust manifold, "950" along with the previously found "2A 799," exactly as in your photograph, MV8. I can rest merry (being sort of a gentleman) this Christmas, because I finally know that I have a 948cc engine. Thank you all and Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays to you all.

Casting marks: On the engine in the car at present, left side rear of block, 2A 799 On the original engine, same location, sitting in my shop, 12A 497 How does that decode?

Good morning, 7Westfield, and thank you. So a 1098cc will not have "9J" but may have another casting ID like this "16J"? Could you help me with the location of this mark? Is it "below the carbs to the right of the fuel pump" as MV8 says for "950"? Thank you.

Thank you so much, MV8. You are a wonderful source of wisdom. I will grab a mirror and go looking. I do have access plates on the left side. Best wishes, --Tim.

Could someone both confirm the displacement of my engine and explain how they confirmed it? I have it as 1098cc, but John Watson says more likely 948cc: "Austin Healey Sprite (Mk.1 'frog-eye') engine" which was a 948cc. It's an America model (despite RHD) The engine number is AEA 17 RS 19576, which I don't know how to decode. The frame is 1962 S2 #1160. The car raced in SCCA FP in 1962-66. Thanks a bunch.

Savagete, your cheapest working enclosed trailer is a 7x12 single axle with a V nose (for the winch). Here's one for $4,500: https://sleequipment.com/products/enclosed-trailer-7x12-7x12ec?variant=44752867328181&country=US&currency=USD&utm_medium=product_sync&utm_source=google&utm_content=sag_organic&utm_campaign=sag_organic&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=21382879339&gbraid=0AAAAADsodPoRr5D06suEGRV-OJ5ItoRmN&gclid=Cj0KCQiAubrJBhCbARIsAHIdxD-6eR2gJ41YQvnmpQYDbHP42jAPqJLZXAv2f7A_BPRB7qR34DcVaXgaAqsHEALw_wcB Your Cat is 5'7" wide and 11'0" long. It will fit. Keeping it to a single axle lightens the trailer to your towing advantage. You can't get through the door of a 6x12 because it's 5'2 1/2" wide. The door width on a 7x12 is about 6'2" Believe me, I researched this issue every way and sideways to find the cheapest good way for us to move our two antique cars. The 7x12 enclosed and the 6x12 utility trailer will haul either the Seven or the Ford Model T. Most trips the T is in the enclosed trailer and the Seven is on the utility trailer.

Towing a Seven with a Miata might put the Miata's clutch at risk, but whatever floats your boat. Yes, an open single-axle utility trailer (6x12, very common) is the cheapest and lightest way to go. Rigging up tie-downs is one trip to Harbor Freight. Weld a little winch on the tongue and replace the very heavy tailgate with aluminum ramps. That's what I did and it works. I do know how much each trailer and car weighs, and that's important, but I have no idea what the tongue weights are other than they 1. are substantial, and 2. do not interfere with the handling of the towing vehicle. Vovchandr is right. Don't overthink it. Buy a trailer the car will fit on/in and work out how to load it and tie it down.

Personal opinion, I think that you have a fair amount of leeway here, to the point that I would not worry about it. If when you have everything loaded up the rig is out of balance, you'll know it and can shift your tools and spare tire, or even shift the vehicle it self. In the future, you'll know how to load it. Negative tongue weight and neutral tongue weight is obvious - the tongue rises and the back end of the trailer hits the dirt. That will result in lateral oscillations that are scary. If you experience that, just stop. Don't counter-steer, which will increase the oscillations. Too much tongue weight means that the rear end of the towing vehicle is depressed, the headlights point out owls, and steering and braking becomes a problem because the front wheels aren't making contact with the road. For both of our trailers tongue weight is above what one person can lift. Calculations of ideal tongue weight seem to leave out the characteristics of the towing vehicle's suspension. Best tongue weight for our Ford F150 and for our Dodge Caravan would be different. In both cases you want the towing vehicle to drive normally, so think in terms of the normal rear end load - a pile of dirt in the bed or two kids in the rear seat. Load up and then look at the rig from the side. Does it look OK? Then drive about a bit. Did it sway or under steer? Did it try to swerve when you put on the brakes? If you do feel the need to measure tongue weight, you're probably in the range of a bathroom scale.

OK, here we go. First photo ordinary 7x12 enclosed trailer for my wife's Model T and my Seven. Second photo inside the front of the trailer with the winch, controller, and double wire that goes to the truck battery. Note chocks and 2x4 rails. Third photo the back end with rails and tie-downs. The outside rails guide the Model T wheels and the inside rails guide the Seven. Fourth photo is detail at the top of the ramp. Since the rails for the Seven are inside the wheels, the rails have been crudely cut down to prevent the Seven bottoming at the ramp/trailer bed joint. Overall, it's a cheap rig, $4,400 for the trailer and a few hundred for the winch, wiring, and 2x4s. When we need an extra garage bay either the Seven or the Model T is stored in the trailer.

Good morning. We have 14 people for Thanksgiving dinner today, so give me a day or two to photograph the enclosed trailer we use. I don't think that you'll have to worry about weight distribution. While there is very little fore-aft adjustment available, the single axle is 5'0" from the back and 7'0" from the front of the 12' box. Any car put in that space that does not have its CG in front of the axle is going to have some serious handling problems. And that's the point. As long as you've got tongue weight, the trailer is not likely to start oscillating. As long as the tongue weight is not so much that your headlights spot owls, you are OK. As Vovchandr suggests, any old full-sized pickup truck will pull the enclosed trailer. The Dodge Caravan strains - lots of gearing down even on flat Florida roads. We'd like that van to last another 100,000 miles. Pulling the enclosed trailer plus car seems like abuse. On the other hand, the open utility trailer plus my 7 is under 1,800 pounds, and the Caravan is happy again. We have a ratty old Ford F-150 that does utility work and pulls the enclosed trailer quite well.

In all, I think our modifying stock enclosed and utility trailers saved us a bunch of money with minor added inconvenience. Both trailers get used for other tasks, as well.

A 12' enclosed has 12' in the square before the triangular nose. Sevens are 11' long. We have a small winch in the V with two leads to the truck battery, and both the bed and the ramp back door have 2x4 tracks that keep the wheels straight as the winch pulls the Seven (or my wife's Model T) in. The front wheels hit chocks, so the front end is held between the taut winch cable and the chocks. At the rear end we have tie-downs that secure it both fore and aft. Open trailers: You're not tending toward them, but if you do a 6x12 utility trailer will do it if you take off the tailgate ramp and use 8' aluminum ramps from Harbor Freight. Same winch rig. Most of the open trailers I see above are aluminum; that ups the price a bunch. Our 7x12 enclosed cost $4,400 and the open trailer $1,900 three years ago, but we live near the manufacturers. It's raining right now but if you want pictures I can post them in a few days. The down side of cheaper steel trailers is that they weigh more. For going a distance, the enclosed trailer is not comfortable behind a Dodge Caravan but the open trailer is. An SUV with a bit of muscle would pull either, I think.