You jogged my memory, the Churchill too is 12 TPI and I believe the OTC tool is 14, when I'm home tonight I will check.
That one on eBay, would be the best one, IMO.
The threaded shaft is massive with very fine threads.
Generally speaking the bigger the shaft and the finer the threads, the more pressure it can exert.

EDIT:
The OCT tool has 14 TPI and the Churchill has 12.

 

The big shaft is the adjuster, there is the smaller one inside that which then applies the hydraulic pressure (I think it is a grease/oil filled piston inside the larger shaft) hence the huge force. I havent used it that much, but it comes out when nothing else works ! My one also has a 3 legged puller attachment too so you can use the same hydraulic centre piece for more than one application. Mine is a Sykes Pickervant one and pretty old now, but it does work well. Pic below shows the mechanism so you can see roughly how it works, probably even better than the Churchill tool IMO

 

Tilly if I stated that on the JCNA site I will correct it but am pretty sure I did not. Until yesterday I had never measured the TPI. I did measure the TPI in both the J1 and J7. The comments about cost are of course true but on average both tools (weight about 14 LBS) move back and forth over this continent for $50. While the J1 is asked for less than the J7 the J7 did over 50k miles in shipping two years ago. There is no doubt you can find other tools to do the job on sold wheel hubs but for wire wheel hubs the J7 is really he only tool if the hub is on well. As to the ball bearing-on both the J1 and J7 rotate under force. So good luck to all and perhaps a Canadian member will take up the challenge that went unaddressed. BTW the Mexican Clubs do not seem to have the same thoughts on this subject.

 

This is what you wrote on JCNA

Jeff Martin
Thu, 2013-08-08 22:36
Re.: Churchil Hub Puller

George, you wouldn't happen to know how many threads per inch is on the Churchill tool ?
Once I make up my mind about this I'll post how things went.
I did a search here and nothing came up about the Churchill tool or related hub posts so I figure the forum can use some info on the subject.
Thanks !

George Camp
Fri, 2013-08-09 06:48

Re.: Churchil Hub Puller

I measure 12 TPI


http://www.jcna.com/re-churchil-hub-puller

I guess that is why Jeffr1 would assume the tool was 12TPI ?

 

Thanks All,
I hope I did not create too much discourse!


I also received my Heritage Cert today, I am not sure it clarifies things much! As you can see it shows it as a MKII 3.4! Well at least I now know it is fully numbers matching!

 

So thanks for citing the quote--but it confused me so I went to the tools and now I understand. There are 3 versions of the tool--The J1 forged body-circa 1950--the J1 made from billet Circa 1965 and the JD1 (from billet but different design circa 1980. The second and third type are 14 TPI but the earliest version is 12 TPI. Sorry for the confusion and thanks again for the correction.


As to the certificate that is exactly what it should read. The VIN sequence is MK2 and would be recorded to that production book. The fact that the US market has a badge changed on the boot meant nothing to them. The handbook issued was of course a MK2 book. Glad your numbers matched.

 

Great news re matching Numbers, although that is what you would have expected as you knew the history. Interesting to see that this sat around for a year after manufacture before it was shipped.

George, I can see why there was some confusion, no problem.

Just to clarify my mind George, am I right in deducing from your info re US 340's that there were no 340's with the 340 VIN numbers imported to the US, they were all VIN sequenced 3.4's badged up for the US market ?

What was the issue re compliance and the 340's ? Being in the UK, I haven't seen this info. Why didn't the factory show them as 340's on the register even with the 3.4 VIN numbers do you know ?

I find this fascinating.

How's the recommissioning going gijsen ?

 

The 340 (Vin sequence IJ 50001 onwards and IJ80001 and onwards as well as the 240 IJ 1001 and IJ 30001 on) did not meet the New DOT or NHTSA standards. Jaguar had limited resources so they concentrated on the big seller--the E. Think of common parts on the E and MK 2 and it is obvious. The MK 2 would have to had a dual braking system--new rocker switches-loose the leaper--new intake system--and on and on. As Jaguar was ready to introduce the XJ6 in the US (which replaced the MK2/420/and 420G) it seemed pointless as well as expensive. The true 340s (small bumper) was not legal to import in the US but Canada and the ROW it was. We see 340s and 240s in the US from time to time and they all came from Canada or the UK as used (and old enough for the exclusion laws)>

The 340s sold in the US in 1966 and 67 carried MK 2 vin numbers--think about it there were no 340 vin sequences to use and as it was only a badge change for One world market why would they.

As to what a true 340 certificate might say I can not say. From the above you might rightly decide we do not see many and I do not think I hae ever seen a cert. but as it is a Vin sequence change I would be shocked if the cert did not recognice it as a "340" and not MK2. They did publish a 240/340 'new" handbook (which we do have on file).

So hope this helps. One last comment! Due to the price and appearance of the MK2 some folks have imported 340s and attempted to convert them to MK2 specs--not all that difficult.

 

Thanks George, that great info, now makes complete sense why they used old stock MK2's and badged them 340 to so they are selling the "new" model, but the old stock didn't have to comply with the new regs so they almost HAD to mark them up as old Mk2's on the register, otherwise they wouldn't meet the standards. I guess that is why it wasn't that well known as they were basically getting around the reg's.

I haven't yet got a cert for my 340, I will order it and post it here when it comes through.

Great historic info George thank you.