Talk:Commer TS3

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Trucks Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trucks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of trucks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TrucksWikipedia:WikiProject TrucksTemplate:WikiProject TrucksTrucks articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tried to import this engine into America

My father was part of a company that tried to import this 3 cylinder engine into the US in the 70's. I got to ride in a truck and boat powered by this motor. Then Chrysler bought out the factory and closed production down. It was to be named the Rocket 140 in the US if memory serves me correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieselrudolf (talk • contribs) 22:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Access

How was access for maintenance obtained? I don't think the Commer/Karrier vehicles of the time had tilting cabs. Presumably there was a trapdoor in the floor. I'm surprised this engine never became more popular because of its simplicity. Perhaps the large reciprocating masses (two connecting rods and a rocking lever) were a problem. Biscuittin (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to other contemporary engines (usually vertical inline sixes) they just didn't need much maintenance. No valves, so there were no valves to grind or tappets to adjust. No cylinder head to lift off, so no great need for access from overhead hoists (it was all chain blocks and gantries in those days, not hydraulic jibs). The injectors (and there were only three, close together), injection pump and oil filters could be done through a small hatch from above.

The most common "repair" on these engines was probably replacing a broken quill shaft or its coupling, and that was done from the front. Piston rings and bearings were done, when needed, by taking the rocker covers off at the sides. This was quite easy on underfloor bus engines (easier than most other jobs on a laid-flat Bristol engine) and if awkward on lorries, at least it wasn't often needed.

There's an excellent video here http://www.flickr.com/photos/22455491@N02/6851656418 showing a pulled engine being started up when lust lying on the floor. It shows how well balanced the engine was - can you imagine doing this with a vertical engine? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has actually been tried. Look at this: [1] Fortunately, I didn't have anything to do with it. Biscuittin (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe it! They tried it twice. [2] Biscuittin (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I agree, the TS3 is very well-balanced. Biscuittin (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

A section has appeared that claims that this engine was developed from the Junkers aero engine work, via Napier.

Is this true?

Is there any supporting evidence for this?

My understanding has always been that the TS3 was developed as a clean sheet exercise by Rootes people, mostly after they moved to the recently acquired Tilling-Stevens Maidstone plant, based on general principles for opposed piston uniflow diesels, and the closest mechanical analogues were from Sulzer, not Junkers. Nor was there any involvement within the UK by Napiers. Nothing I've read on either the TS3, nor on Napiers, supports this. The engine design and its engineering details also bears no similarity to Napier work. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They may have been confusing it with the Leyland L60. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.137 (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Commer TS3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]