That's what friends are for. MGF VVC with they all do that .

[MGJohn]

This one bought at a bargain price by my sons' friend Nathan :~



So, 9am this morning :~

Son No.1 said:

.
Dad, can I borrow your ..????
.

Electric Drill and wire brushes, Camshaft locking tool, Electric Tyre inflator, smaller Torque Wrench and E12 socket and .. numerous other bits and bobs.

This was the scene soon after I arrived with said ... bits and bobs... Oh yes Dad, a K-Series Oil Filter ~ Yes, I had an OE MG-R one... :lol: .... :~



They soon got stuck in cleaning up the cylinder head ~ block interfaces :~



^^ Many hands maketh light .... or should that read ... Spoil the ...











Both metal dowels present so no need to fit new. The cylinder head appeared to have been skimmed before but, using my engineer's straight edge, the head certainly didn't need doing again so was ready to refit to the block, but first the MLS Cylinder head gasket followed by the head saver shim :~





My CAMshaft locking tool in place with both Pulleys correctly aligned :~



All back together ~ Nathan had thoughtfully photographed the various coloured connectors with his camera phone which saved guesswork putting them all back :~



Then back reassembling the various parts stripped from the car to allow good access to the engine and components.



It was fast approaching darkness when they fired up the engine for the first time ~ having first rotated it [U]manually[/U] several times to ensure no metal-to-metal contact. Oh yes, some new 10-40 Oil and a new OE MG-R Filter fitted.

Then all four tyres inflated. They all 'looked' fine but, some had only 10psi ~ that is misleadingly typical with modern low profile tyres. One was completely out of pressure but looked OK.

Very useful tool this tyre inflator. Plugs into the cigar lighter socket and does the trick up to 35 psi.



Now ready for the off :~



Whilst previously :~



Click this link :~

http://smg.beta.photobucket.com/user/MGJohn/media/...

The car has both Tax and MoT but Nathan has not arranged Insurance on it so far. So, I was asked to take it for a spin with my son following behind in my Rover 45.

Took it for a ten mile gentle trip watching the temperature gauge like a Hawk. I had in mind that all K-Series cars are tricky to bleed the cooling system, not least the MGF/TFs because of their engine configuration. The lads had the engine idling for over half an hour prior to the drive and the gauge needle static all the time just below the mid-way index. Good sign. During the run I took it up to around 4,500 rpm. No problems and that gauge read normall throughout. Then my son had a turn at the wheel with the owner alongside. He can drive other cars under his policy provided he has the owner's permission. So he and the owner set off on the return journey home with me following. I had both front windows open to listen to the MGF's engine. It sounded superb and later, Martin admitted he had taken it up to 7,000 rpm. Methinks a tad early to do that but, he was confident of their work.... He's done quite a few K-Series in the past few years, including three of his own VVCs.

Back after the run, Nathan treated us all to a Chinese Curried Chicken and Boiled Rice nosh-up. Boy oh boy, we had a good appetite by the time we'd finished another job well done. So another half decent MGF VVC lives to fight another day ... good eh.

Oh, yes, that's what friends are for. My son has recently bought a house which is in need of quite a bit of decorating ... Nathan will help.

Yes indeed, that's what friends are for ...
.

[Wicker Man]

Thanks for sharing the photos. Looks like a job well done! How long did it take, start to finish?

[MGJohn]

Wicker Man said:

Thanks for sharing the photos. Looks like a job well done! How long did it take, start to finish?

Easily done in a leisurely DIY weekend and that's with frequent breaks. Within a day if need be. The lads were thorough spending much time cleaning and preparing. That being the way to a really good job and longer term reliability, rather than simply renewing the gasket. For instance, cleaning the coolant hose locations of corrosion crud build up on the coolant elbow, exhaust manifold interfaces etc. Leaving that on can lead to coolant and exhaust gases leaks.

I took a short vid of my son with my drill .... the valves and combustion chambers already treated to a clean up.

http://smg.beta.photobucket.com/user/MGJohn/media/...

Engine access in the MGF/TF is not bad at all if you remove all the hood and various parts enclosing the compartment as they did. What appears extra work removing stuff actually saves precious time in the overall job. There are a lot of myths surrounding these cars. One such being the job these lads have just done is and engine out task.

Fortunately, the K-Series engine in these and similar cars is one of the easiest 16 valve, double overhead camshaft engines to work on. Even the higher spec VVC engine in this car is not difficult to work on.

Neither I or the two lads have any formal training in these things. Just access to the wealth of information on the web and the simple desire to do a good job, which unfortunately and sad to report, is not always the case when entrusting such work to professionals. Contrary to popular belief, it is not Rocket Science....

One of the main reasons I take time to post these threads is to simply show what any ordinary Joe can do for themselves. I know they are appreciated and even some have been inspired to tackle a similar job themselves successfully.

[wildoliver]

Not saying this to be a jobsworth at all as I end up having to do similar things to yourself but you do realise that if the car doesn't have an insurance policy on it active then you can't drive it on "other cars benefit" don't you?

Don't get me wrong you might have a traders policy or the car might have been insured on someone elses policy but if not don't assume just because you can drive any car with the owners permission that also applies to cars without insurance.

As I say not being a pain just don't want you to discover something like that at a roadside with a t5 behind you.

[Steffan]

wildoliver said:

Not saying this to be a jobsworth at all as I end up having to do similar things to yourself but you do realise that if the car doesn't have an insurance policy on it active then you can't drive it on "other cars benefit" don't you?

Don't get me wrong you might have a traders policy or the car might have been insured on someone elses policy but if not don't assume just because you can drive any car with the owners permission that also applies to cars without insurance.

As I say not being a pain just don't want you to discover something like that at a roadside with a t5 behind you.

The situation with driving uninsured cars (ie cars not covered by insurance directly themselves) is a real quagmire currently. I specifically carry a Traders policy for not a lot of money, because this area is so poorly defined under other car cover. That covers me for any car roadworthy or not, insured directly or MOT or not that I am driving. Had this for over ten years simply because the situation is so unclear legally. I drive so many cars in the year I think it is money well spent.

It is certainly true that most policies offering other car cover now require the other car to be insured by someone. The days of offering insurance on uninsured cars as an assistance to the drivers insured fully comp on other cars is long gone. Too many fiddlers insuring a Metro fully comp and driving a Subaru etc. Not any more.

[MGJohn]

Things like this make me Wild Oliver! Livid even ...

Can you point me to the legislation that clearly defines this PITA requirement?

By the way, check the Vid link in my OP where Motor Insurance cover ... is covered.

[Magic919]

Just read your own policy. So much incorrect information gets posted on this topic.

[wildoliver]

Hi John I suspect that generally it comes down to your terms and conditions, most policies I've had on the driving other cars benefit section have included the caveat that it must have the owners permission, be insured and not be in relation to the motor trade (massively paraphrased).

It is effectively another ball ache when collecting new cars.

Nice F by the way.

[MGJohn]

I have read every one of my Certificates of Insurance carefully since I took out my first Policy in 1959. I have never seen that caveat about the other car needing to be insured.

Plus, back in those far away days, I was an Insurance Broker placing Motor Road and Motor/Motor Cycle Racing Risks and handling claims with Lloyds of London when I worked in the City. Obviously things have changed in the meantime but, not my understanding of how important it is to check your Certificate of Insurance EVERY time.

[marky911]

MGJohn said:

I have read every one of my Certificates of Insurance carefully since I took out my first Policy in 1959. I have never seen that caveat about the other car needing to be insured.

I'm not a nit-picker John and new to this forum due to a possible MGF purchase, but you do need to watch those bloomin' insurers on this one.

The caveat isn't generally stated on the certificate, that will just say the usual "The insured may also drive any car not belonging to him etc, etc."
It's all in the policy booklet though in the small print.

I even rang my insurers up once as I was borrowing a mates car. They said "We don't require the other car to be insured as your third party liability covers you but, if the Police stop you and want to be awkward we wouldn't get involved in a court case." Make of that what you will. I asked for the first bit in writing but it never came.

Anyway, not wanting to turn this into an insurance topic, well done to the lads on the car. Handy lads definitely.
How hard is the roof to remove? and does it all line up no problem when refitted or does it take a load of aligning?

ETA - Cool minivan!

[MGJohn]

marky911 said:

MGJohn said:

I have read every one of my Certificates of Insurance carefully since I took out my first Policy in 1959. I have never seen that caveat about the other car needing to be insured.

I'm not a nit-picker John and new to this forum due to a possible MGF purchase, but you do need to watch those bloomin' insurers on this one.

The caveat isn't generally stated on the certificate, that will just say the usual "The insured may also drive any car not belonging to him etc, etc."
It's all in the policy booklet though in the small print.

I even rang my insurers up once as I was borrowing a mates car. They said "We don't require the other car to be insured as your third party liability covers you but, if the Police stop you and want to be awkward we wouldn't get involved in a court case." Make of that what you will. I asked for the first bit in writing but it never came.

Anyway, not wanting to turn this into an insurance topic, well done to the lads on the car. Handy lads definitely.
How hard is the roof to remove? and does it all line up no problem when refitted or does it take a load of aligning?

ETA - Cool minivan!

Which document do the Police ask you to produce when checking if you are covered?

[marky911]

Yep very valid point. It's all a bit of a grey area though and I've met some bloody awkward coppers in my time. I'v emet some great ones too mind and I'd say the balance has been well in my favour with the things they've let me off for compared to what they've done me for.

My worry is if a car I'm driving comes up on their ANPR camera as having no insurance, will they want proof that the car insured by me as well as a main insurer/owner? It's safer for me to not bother although sometimes it would help massively for moving cars round or when borrowing a mates car that isn't insured etc.

Anyway, no matter. There are bigger things to worrry about.

[MGJohn]

Yes, not just awkward coppers but some less clued up about such matters. There's a difference. Fortunately only a very few like that in my experience.

Few months ago my good lady asked if I would pick her up after her late night firm's do. No risk of drink-driving that way.

I used her MG ZS 120 we've had for ten years come May. So well into the early hours with hardly a car about, I pressed on bit ...

Passing over J11 of the M5, I noticed a dark three series come off the M5 exit slip road sharpish and tuck in behind me on the bypass. Closer than really needed on the empty roads. Followed me like that for a few miles.

Been there done that before so keeping in mind it's either a plain clothes mobile plod or, ne'r do wells up to some strokes, as a series of larger roundabouts approached I decided to put the nippyness and handling of the ZS to good use. Soon put quite a distance between me and the 3-Series each time. All within the speed limits of course, just in case. Shrewd move that. When about a mile from home, quickly nipped around a smaller roundabout again leaving the 3-series behind who then caught up quickly with the Blue lights flashing merrily away.

I pulled over straight away and lowered my window.

Bib said:

.
Bit brisk their Sir....just a routine check for alcohol.
.

I rarely drink and never when driving.

They had already done the document checks before pulling me over and knew the car was Insured in my good lady's name with a named driver ( spouse ). They asked my name and my answer satisfied them that all was well and they bid us safe journey.

That was both an amusing and pleasant experience. In over fifty years of driving and riding I have been stopped many times as I like to travel in the early hours. Doing that thirty-forty years ago meant you hardly ever saw another vehicle on a hundred mile run in the early hours. Do that run during the last decade and you will see trainloads of dozens six axle articulated trucks grinding away even around 2am. I was once held up for over an hour on the M6 along with thousands of others at 1.30 in the morning.

It did not used to be like that. Far from it.

My son said:

.
Dad, did you really do over 100mph on the North Circular and the Police car move over and wave you by ?
.

Yes son. On more than one occasion.

Imagine that happening today ..

Youngsters today, don't know theyze born ...

[marky911]

Excellent. Yep even in my 35 years the roads have changed dramatically.

When I was young you rarely saw more than one car per household either and I'm only talking about the 1980s.

[na]

I'm glad wildoliver put about insurance cover because I thought exactly the same but also thought I'd leave it for someone else to say as most people make assumptions about insurance based on general knowledge rather than reading their actual policy and loads of disagreement ensues - note, John you say you know your insurance cover so I'm not arguing or disputing you

a lot of people think if they have 'fully comp' (that is just a name/term that is used by people) that they can drive other cars third party but not all 'fully comp' has this in the policy

these things are not PITA legislation but a contract agreement within the insurance, some classic insurance (so I'm told nothing I'd accept) don't allow the car out after dark this is all to do with the insurance agreement and not any PITA legislation

named drivers on policies are another ball game

I've got 'classic' insurance, again 'classic' is just a term used generally mine is actually called Specialist Vehicle Insurance

I have 'fully comp', in reality it's Comprehensive (Comp)

in the section of my policy called Driving other vehicles it has that the usual plus usual exclusions of cover including :-
Any event which happens when the insurance is not in the name of an individual person

that's just my policy

edited: the word struck through was typed in error

Edited by na on Saturday 23 February 17:14

[MGJohn]

na said:

I'm glad wildoliver put about insurance cover because I thought exactly the same but also thought I'd leave it for someone else to say as most people make assumptions about insurance based on general knowledge rather than reading their actual policy and loads of disagreement ensues - note, John you say you know your insurance cover so I'm not arguing or disputing you

a lot of people think if they have 'fully comp' (that is just a name/term that is used by people) that they can drive other cars third party but not all 'fully comp' has this in the policy

these things are not PITA legislation but a contract agreement within the insurance, some classic insurance (so I'm told nothing I'd accept) don't allow the car out after dark this is all to do with the insurance agreement and not any PITA legislation

named drivers on policies are another ball game

I've got 'classic' insurance, again 'classic' is just a term used generally mine is actually called Specialist Vehicle Insurance

I have 'fully comp', in reality it's Comprehensive (Comp)

in the section of my policy called Driving other vehicles it has that the usual plus usual exclusions of cover including :-
Any event which happens when the insurance is not in the name of an individual person

that's just my policy

ALWAYS read the Certificate of Insurance.

The PITA aspect relates to legislation, largely ineffective to deal with certain aspects of car use and related Insurance. Legislation which for the average honest and legal car user, is a PITA.

It did not use to be like that. Effective policing would be better and far more effective "Legislation" rather than box ticking.

[na]

MGJohn said:

ALWAYS read the Certificate of Insurance.

quite right

and always read the details in the associated paperwork/booklets

if in doubt contact and ask your insurers or agents before as it's cheaper and easier to argue with them before than after

[tr7v8]

I checked a while ago & whilst having a far from cheapest main car policy, my AA one says the other car MUST be insured in its own right. This is buried in the booklet NOT on the certificate.

[MGJohn]

Common misconception: it is not the car that is insured, it is the Policyholder that is insured to drive the car or cars the subject of the policy. Many policies, such as Third Party only, do not cover the car at all only the policyholder or named drivers .... on the certificate. The certificate should always detail who is entitled to drive and what cars can be driven.

The Driving Other Cars ( DOC )section detailed on the Certificate should either specifically EXCLUDE the driving of other cars, or detail which 'other' cars can be driven subject to certain conditions.

DOC Conditions: On all my certificates of insurance, it clearly states which cars can be driven and never specifies they must be insured elsewhere. When driving other cars under that section, the cars are never covered. Only the Insured/Policyholder is covered for the basic legal requirement of Third Party cover.

When DOC is included on ordinary Motor Insurance Policies, named drivers are never covered under the DOC section, only the single Policyholder/Proposer/Insured. Otherwise there could be say four additional named drivers on a certificate and that means five cars could be on risk at any given time. No way would any company survive long allowing that. There are special Motor Insurance available for companies running fleets for their employees and those obviously are tailored to suit and cost!

DOC is invariably excluded with young and/or inexperienced drivers. Otherwise, a teenager could buy and insure say a Micra or Metro and drive Dad's Porsche, Ferrari or even my Rover 620ti all of which require rather more experience to drive without mishaps.

Worth repeating, ALWAYS read, check and double check your Certificate of Insurance. Memorise the salient details. It could save you making a bad mistake which could be costly and all too easily done owing to ignorance, laziness etc.

In a court of law the wording of the certificate is what will be the deciding factor with regard to who can drive what car. Also worth repeating, it is the DRIVER/Proposer/Insured named on the certificate that is covered to drive. Not the the other way around. As previously stated, the car may not be covered by choice of the proposer or as a result of the Insurance company's underwriting guidelines for any given driver risk.

Some very wealthy folks can lodge funds so that they are their own Insurance. Very few do that but, some do....

[na]

sorry John but on this occasion you are wrong

. . . as you also have to take into consideration the law of the land and changes to it (June 2011)

if you had driven the car and your son (sorry I meant Nathan) had given you permission to do so then potentially you could both have been in trouble

http://www.mib.org.uk/Home/en/default.htm

http://www.mib.org.uk/Motor+Insurance+Database/en/...

and your son (sorry I meant Nathan) would be held responsible - https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/uninsured-veh...

Edited by na on Friday 1st March 22:32