I know a man who lost his garage over trying to remove springs by hitting them! The best way is to use a puller. If you have the facilites design and make your own. If not William McKenzie make just such a tool.

I nearly buggered another component trying to dismatle it with a "persuader". I have now learnt my lesson and will always use the sustained and controlled force of a puller/pusher to get stuff apart.

With regards to the spring eyes, if the spring isn't particularly special i.e. a flat ruby one. It is probably cheaper to get hold of another rather than fixing the original.

How about reaming out the spring ends with an expanding reamer and then make up oversize bushes,if you have access to a lathe!
Last time I removed springs I loosened the fastenings, took the car for a drive down a moderately bumpy road, they just dropped out after, and no it didnt split the chassiss ends open!!

Andy - Half an hour after I posted the question I had the same brainwave and have been to see my local 'man with a lathe' who can do as you suggest. Thanks for the tip. I will have to ream the eyes a little to take out some ovality. For the future I'd still like to know if there's a way to remove the springs without specialist tools.

The metal of the spring eyes will be quite hard and likely to take the edge off expanding reamer blades. If you have access to a lathe and expanding reamer it would be better to make up new one piece bushes to be a drive fit into the worn spring eyes and then clean up the holes with the reamer. Fit washers to each side to replace the top hat part of original shape bushes and don't forget to drill a grease hole! This way you don't lose the grease out of the gap between the bushes before its had a chance to lubricate the pins.

Martin

I would follow Martin's recommendation. Seems the most straight forward. As to getting the springs out, taking all the fastenings out and driving the car around has always worked for me.

STEVE

PS: Martin, I was most impressed with the performance of your 20 when we were running together last weekend. Big car with a big engine but suprisingly nimble. Has it got the torque to put it in top and just leave it there?

Hi Nick,

Oversize bushes are available here. They will need filing to suit the shape of your spring eyes (rather than trying to make the eyes round). Alternatively, if the spring eyes are not too badly worn, I have got away with tinning standard bushes with solder and squeezing them into the bushes, then reaming to suit.

David

Steve

I hesitate to answer your question as others have had their knuckles rapped for discussing non-7 cars on this forum, neither have I any wish to hijack this thread, but perhaps I can get away with it if I compare the characteristics of the 20 with the 7.

The only figures I have found for the 20/4 engine I have seen quote 45bhp @ 2000rpm. This from the 3610cc 4-pot job. The normal running weight of near enough 2tons giving 22.5bhp/ton. The seven is quoted as 10.5bhp @ 2400rpm and my 7 tips the scales at 12.7cwt (both including 2 passengers & luggage) giving 16.5bhp/ton. This accounts for the 20 being at least a gear better on the hills. It does seem to have oodles of torque at very low speed and will pull cleanly from about 500rpm but it still needs the lower gears, especially on the roads encountered on the Pennine Run.

Considering it was designed around 1918-19 it performs remarkably well and is much more stable than a 7 but nowhere near as nimble. Acceleration is poor in comparison mainly due to the gigantically heavy flywheel resulting in gear changes taking around 10secs to complete. Try setting off up hill in 1st then go for 2nd. The car has stopped and is rolling backwards before the engine has slowed enough to get the next gear!

Whilst I'm on the subject of design, just take a quick glance under the bonnet of a 20/4. This will immediately dispel the myth that Stanley Edge designed the 7. The 20 was on the road long before Edge worked for Austin yet the 7 design is so similar to the 20 it had to come from the same drawing board.

Edge was a very good draughtsman but it was Herbert Austin that designed the cars.

Sorry for the ramble

Martin

.

"Edge was a very good draughtsman but it was Herbert Austin that designed the cars."

......... did I hear a sharp intake of breath?



Mike

> "Edge was a very good draughtsman but it was Herbert Austin that designed the cars."
>
> ......... did I hear a sharp intake of breath?

I hope not. I think that is a very good summary of what almost certainly happened.

David

Stanley Edge must have been more than just a good draughtsman. If you look at Sir Herbert's designs for the seven opposite page 32 of Wyatt (2nd.ed), you'll see what I mean.

Lance,

Actually those 'designs' you mention are only preliminary sketches. Sir Herbert designed the Austin Seven - Stanley Edge was what we would today call a Design Draughtsman - he did the detailed draughting and that often included elements of design / calculation, eg valve spring rate, wire thickness and number of turns.

David

I am interested to see that David had O/S bushes. However ,like him I have "tinned" bushes, on many occasions, using plumbers bar solder. Then squeeze them into position using a vice and ream. AS an added bonus it stops grease coming round the outside of the bush.I recall some years ago I had to use a Porta power hydraulic ram to push out the spring. THe ram had all sorts of fittings . I used a wedge to fit in the coil end of the spring to gain secure purchase.The other end against the chassis cross member.Perhaps your local Body or hire shop could assist..

Couldn't agree more. Although the design concept of the 7 is outstanding, there are certain details (and I guess we could all name one) which just had to be the work of a 17 year old. But, I've got into trouble for saying this before.................

David Cochrane's O/S bushes did the trick. A quick bit of fettling with a file had them shaped up and well and truly pressed in and tight. Thanks David.