Right, done my detention now.
Would be tempted to disconnect all leads to the starter motor, then make up leads direct to a known good batt, (leaving the last connection undone obvs!) while leaving the existing batt connected as usual to the engine etc. So this would mean connecting a negative lead to a mounting bolt. To eliminate every fecking connection to the starter that could have gone wrong,
Then turn the key to "ignition", wait till the glow plug light goes out, then manually make the connection to the starter. (The little lead, is it called the "exciter"lead?) which will also need a positive connection to the known good batt, or from the positive big connection to the main part of the starter.
If all is well with the starter it should turn the engine over and start.
If not it must be the starter.
EDIT.
Actually, this is probably just too feckin old skool for a modern car, so instead, I'd do as above but leave the key alone. shove it in neutral and just see if connecting it direct to a good batt turns the engine over.
If not, as Col says, it sounds like the sort of nightmare intermittent fault inside the motor part, UNLESS doing this, the solenoid doesn't move.
 
Last edited:
From what I understand from yer posts earlier... yer fitted the stater on the engine and powered it directly and it started the engine. Was it really powered directly at the time?
 
From what I understand from yer posts earlier... yer fitted the stater on the engine and powered it directly and it started the engine. Was it really powered directly at the time?
Yes, jump lead.
I can't understand how it fixed itself twice then failed twice. Fail is total on the bench too.
 
Could there be a mechanical fault that means the starter is getting an extra load. I mean that its out line, the ring gear, the mounting flange or are the number of teeth right. Its a long shot and I'd personally be spending my time on the earths and cable ends, but I have a had starter problems when they were not lined up right.
 
Could there be a mechanical fault that means the starter is getting an extra load. I mean that its out line, the ring gear, the mounting flange or are the number of teeth right. Its a long shot and I'd personally be spending my time on the earths and cable ends, but I have a had starter problems when they were not lined up right.
If the teeth were chewed up/worn it could just not be engaging. Maybe try turning the engine over about 10 degrees with a socket on the crank, then trying again. This would move the worn teeth on the ring gear out of the way, enabling it to start, if this is the issue.
I have had this problem too.
It used to be fairly common practice to take the ring off and refit it the other way round, i.e. front to back to get a few more miles out of it.
But that is really old skool!;););)
Personally I think its most likely an electrical fault with the brushes or internally on the armature or summat.:(:(:(:(
 
I'm no expert on starters but I know this, if it won't turn over, hit it hard with a lump of wood whilst someone else holds the key in the start position, if it still does nothing and you are 100% confident in the wiring, the starter is a bad un and time to replace it.

Col
 
New starter arrived from Germany this morning, well, a recon one anyway.
It's also an OE Paris Rhone so identical to the faulty one.
Will stick it on Wednesday as it's a two man job really and can't get help until then.
 
Dunno, nor did the 'expert' in brummiestan know either.
Interestingly the new recon starter came with a data sheet with graphs on and stuff showing amps pulled on and off load, RPM, Bendix engagement times , brush voltage etc etc.
 

Similar threads