Graham Ness

Thanks to Colin for the link to the TriumphExperience site regarding repro windscreen capping.. an interesting thread there. But as Pete first suggested, and as I had pretty much concluded, the solution seems to be to use the holes as defined in the new capping and carefully drill new holes in the windscreen frame. Thanks all.

I have decided to replace the aged aluminium windscreen capping on my Mk3 Spitfire. I've drilled out the old pop rivets and removed the old capping, which was also securely fixed in place by silicone sealant. On lining up the new capping, I see the rivet holes between the capping and the windscreen frame don't line up. Is this usual? Do I simply drill new holes in the windscreen frame and proceed? Someone must have already asked this question somewhere on the forum, but I can't find it. The capping must have been replaced at some time on the past - Triumph wouldn't have used silicone sealant to fit the capping, but the frame only bears a single set of holes to mount the capping. I just want to check before proceeding to drill additional holes in the windscreen frame. Thanks, Graham

Thanks for the response, Colin. The dash top cover is several mm thick, so will need to be trimmed rather than folded. But, having slept on the issue I think I'll try to go with your approach.. tighten down the windscreen frame onto the seal, cut the new dash top to fit behind the frame and seal and secure it in place with the three bolts and cover/attachment plates (611669 - Spitfire uses these, I don't think GT6 does) that secure the back of the screen frame and seal. Clearly the rubber seal is meant to do just that (seal), but did you use any sealant between the scuttle and the seal, and between the seal and the windscreen frame? I had planned to run some DumDum (Butyl) tape sealant between each.. but am I just being neurotic about water ingress at that point? Hopefully a job for this weekend. Thanks again for any and all input.

I am about to refit the windscreen frame back onto my Spitfire Mk3 and plan to replace the damaged dash top cover, which was poorly fitted by someone in the past. The original dash top is still in place, but in an awful state. I will be leaving that where it is. Should the front edge of the new dash top cover be trimmed to sit against the back of the windscreen frame to scuttle seal, or should the new dash top cover sit under the seal? I have some DumDum sealing tape which I plan to place under the seal/on the scuttle top to try and make it all water-tight. Any wisdom from others who must have already done this would be appreciated. Thanks.

Hi Colin, Points taken.. and thanks for the advice. Cheers, Graham

Hi Colin, that would be wonderful, thanks very much. Given the relatively small amount I need, a whole pack does seem a bit excessive - since I'll probably not need any ever again.. I'll PM you a postal address. Thanks again. Graham

Thanks, as always, to all for your valued inputs. Graham

I've been completing repairs to the dash/scuttle top on my Spitfire Mk3 and am shortly to refit the windscreen frame. A previous owner had used some form of silicone sealant between the scuttle top and the frame seal - which had trapped water and contributed to rusting. What is the general advice? I am fitting a new frame to scuttle top seal, but should some additional form of sealant be used between the scuttle top and the frame, or should it be fitted dry? Similarly between the seal and the windscreen frame itself. Any wisdom born of experience on this would be appreciated. Thanks, Graham

If intermittent horn, then check that the 'earth strap' wire is in place on the steering column 'universal joint'. Mine played up for a while until I realised this was missing. Made up a new one, and problem solved. It basically makes a good electrical connection between the two parts of the steering column. Graham

Or is the relative strength of the bolts a greater consideration than rust resistance here?

a slight variation on my original thread.. Ignoring concerns about originality for the moment, has anyone fixed their Spitfire windscreen frame with stainless dome nuts above the dash (instead of the standard chrome headed bolts) screwed into a stainless stud with suitable washers and nut below the scuttle/dash? IMHO the stainless dome nuts are slightly better looking than some of the chrome bolts available - and will be more rust resistant.. Thoughts?

The windscreen frame is off my Spitfire for some dash-top/scuttle repairs. The previous owner has at some time used a mish mash of bolts and washers to re-secure the frame to the car and I thought I'd try to do the job properly on reassembly. Looking at various guides and parts books I see (starting from the top) a chrome headed bolt, a plain washer, a cover/attachment plate, the screen frame, the scuttle, a medium sized washer (505627), a spring washer, and finally a nut. I'm OK on all of this - except the medium sized washer (505627). What is so magical about this item that it is 'no longer available' from any of the suppliers I've researched? There is a lip underneath the scuttle that will preclude using a washer that is too big, but too small a washer may result in washer and nut starting to pull through the scuttle - which is what was happening when I dismantled it all. Does anyone have a sample 505627 that they can measure for me? It is simply the biggest washer that you can fit under the scuttle that does not foul the lip? Seems like a dumb question, but I thought someone may have some wisdom on this. Thanks. Graham

Thanks for the feedback. I am familiar with some of uPol's products, but had not come across Fibral. I shall do some reading-up now and invest accordingly. Yes, it may not be the most ideal solution for the purist, but since this car is already a series of compromises and would never be entered for a concours competition, I won't lose too much sleep. Thanks again.

Wanting to take advantage of the lockdown and the good weather, I decided to attack some of the (hopefully) superficial rust on my Spitfire Mk3. While I knew the sills needed some attention along the seams, I decided to turn first attention to the dashboard top/scuttle where the windscreen frame rests on the scuttle. Rust was clearly bubbling out from under the windscreen frame seal. Having removed the windscreen frame it became obvious that a previous repair has included the addition of copious amounts of silicon sealant at the rear edge of the seal - as opposed to the front edge.. where it might have at least impeded the ingress of some water. I've cleared away the sealant and there is evidence of some (fairly professionally applied) filler in the scuttle already from an earlier repair. However, creeping rust has eaten into the scuttle and created a few small (<5mm) holes in the metal. So, how acceptable to clean up the rust, slightly enlarge the holes to remove some more of the rust, apply rust treatment, fill and repaint? I've already applies Kurust to the affected areas before I proceed further. The holes are just to the door-side of the left hand screen wiper shaft and normally concealed by the windscreen frame seal, and access underneath is somewhat limited - even with the glove box removed. Should I consider applying some fibre-glass support under the scuttle before starting on filling above. I'd quite like to avoid a 'minor' body repair becoming a major headache. I thought that there may already be a thread on this somewhere, but couldn't find one. Was I just looking in the wrong place? Thanks for any constructive feedback that anyone might have, I am sure this must be a common problem. Maybe I need to turn my attention to the sills for now and see what nightmare awaits me there. Thanks.. Graham

The original reason for removing the pistons from the carbs was to check the fuel levels in the main jets. Having almost got over the needle differences.. I now noticed that the fuel level in the rear carb appeared much (much) lower in the jet. Opening up the rear float chamber.. I discovered it was empty. If I'd simply hit the carb with a spanner to make sure the float valve wasn't stuck (as it was), then I would probably have not noticed the needle length differences. I've fitted the fixed needle pistons from my other carb set and checked the rear carb has some fuel and - hey presto - an engine that runs on all four cylinders.. albeit a bit lumpily. Time to set up the carbs a bit and re-check the timing with a strobe light. I remain intrigued by the difference between those two needles. Incidentally, both needles sit fully in their respective black collars, but the longer thin part of the collar on the longer needle protrudes from the bottom of the black collar. Give than one is bent, I may purchase a new pair, check they're the same and fit them anyway. Thanks again, Graham

Thanks for the prompt feedback.. don't you guys have better things to do on a Bank Holiday afternoon than wait for questions from the likes of me? (believe me, I do appreciate your inputs) Good point about fitting in the collar, since the needle length from tip to start of the first shoulder looks the same. I only noticed it because one needle was sticking out of the bottom of the piston more than the other. And now that I check more closely, I note the shorter AAN needle has a curve in it.. someone has (accidentally?) bent it slightly. The biased needle carbs are not Waxstat, so I could try swapping over the piston and needles. That would be a quicker (temporary?) fix than ordering and fitting replacement needles. I'll try that and report back.. Thanks, Graham

I've been having problems with the fixed needle SU HS2 carbs fitted to my Spitfire Mk3 and rather than investing more time trying to solve the problems there, decided to fit a pair of biased needle HS2 carbs that I inherited sometime in the past. I've fitted the carbs and briefly had the engine running.. but it has since failed to start. Well, it starts but misfires and then seems to run on only 3 cylinders. I've checked timing, spark and fuel delivery, and all seemed OK. So I thought I should next check carb float levels. On removing the piston from each carb I noticed that the needles appeared to look different. I removed the needles and can confirm that each needle clearly has AAN stamped on the neck near the top. But the two needles are clearly different.. see the photograph. The overall length is different by about 4-5mm and the longer needle has a longer thin part of the neck. So, to my question. Are all AAN needles the same? Well, clearly not, since I have two different ones here. Should they match in all ways? Has a previous owner changed one needle and not the other? The shorter needle was in the rear carb. if that makes any difference. I've got to get the car going in the next week for an MOT and don't really want to swap the carbs back again. Should I simply order a pair of new needles, check they are identical, fit and continue? Any constructive feedback appreciated.. and any input on the difference in these two needles.. Graham

actually, I think I've just answered my own question. A dry assembly is likely to be better, to avoid the creation of a grease based grinding solution. At least if steel splinters do form in there, they will fall away and hopefully do no damage. Grease would retain metal shards and create a grinding paste. So a 'dry assembly' it is..

Just to milk this thread a little further - but on the topic of the gearlever linkage, not the servo take-off pipe.. I have just taken delivery of a linkage service kit for my Spitfire Mk3 and note that the domed washer that was nylon in the past - is now replaced by two steel components. Ignoring the various pros and cons of the nylon item (mine is trashed), should any lube be put on the upper side of the retaining washer (128373) and the domed steel cap (119573), or should the two steel items just be left to rub together unlubricated? Any constructive comments would be appreciated. What have others done in the recent past..? Thanks, Graham

My Mk3 Spitfire recently passed its MOT with no advisories, so I was feeling somewhat proud. But as has been said before, pride comes before a fall. Since the MOT I have had a reoccurring problem with the brakes. The brake pedal goes to the floor with little or no resistance, with resulting loss of brakes. If I pump the brake pedal, there is little or no change, which rather eliminates the idea of an air-lock in the pipes or slave cylinders. Apart from which, the brakes performed perfectly for the MOT. I tried bleeding the brakes and all seemed fine for a day or two and now the problem has occurred again. If I take the top off the brake master cylinder and pump the brake pedal, air appears in the master cylinder reservoir. The fluid level does not appear to go up or down when the pedal is depressed or released. Before I start another futile master cylinder strip down (I only recently replaced the master cylinder seals, though this is the original master cylinder), does anyone have any ideas borne out of experience? The air bubbling up in the reservoir would presumably indicate that air is being drawn in past the piston and seal, into the cylinder - which presumably wouldn't happen if the piston has jammed in the cylinder. I have serviced master cylinders before so am confident that I reassembled it correctly, but if one of the internal components has failed, could it lead to this problem? Any advice appreciated.. Thanks, Graham

Hi Pete thanks once again. That was the sort of advice I was looking for. I'll try some experimentation and see if the car's performance is transformed.. I simply wasn't sure if the pistons were exchangeable; but I'll try (in due course) and see what happens. Graham

Hi Pete, thanks for your comments - and I can't fault any of them. But what I was hoping for was some more sage advice from those with fuelling experience about the pros and cons of sticking with the original AUD257 'Fixed' metering needle carbs, as opposed to fitting the later AUD441 Swing 'Biased' needle carbs. I guess it can be argued that SU considered the later Swing needle carbs as a development/improvement, but what views do other members have on the benefits - if there are any? I have a pair of '257' carbs with modified/butchered pistons. I could replace the pistons at whatever price that might be; or simply swap the '257' carbs for the pair of apparently good '441' carbs that I have. I can't believe that I can simply swap the pistons from the fixed metering carbs with replacement pistons, can I? Swapping the carb pair seems like an easy solution, but are the later carbs any better? Incidentally, cleaning the jets and their bearings has largely addressed the 'sticking choke' problem. Graham

My Spitfire Mk3 has been difficult to start recently, and the limited movement available on the choke cable indicated something probably wrong with the carbs. On inspection I found that the jets were not moving when the choke cable is pulled. Assuming that the jet bearings were simply gummed up with old evaporated fuel, I removed the carbs and the jets and cleaned the whole lot up. On reassembly I find that the jets are still jamming slightly in their bearings and not returning to the fully up position. A quick push with a finger makes them return, but it is a bit inconvenient. I’ve also noticed in the past that a previous owner has removed some metal from the front (air filter side) of both carb pistons. Don’t ask me why; perhaps they thought it might improve performance. See the attached photo.. So, to my dilemma. I have a pair of old AUD441 carbs that came to me in a box of bits a few years ago. Research indicates that these probably came from a Mk4 Spitfire. Should I invest time and money in rebuilding the butchered AUD257 carbs from my Mk3 with new jets, bearings and needles; or should I simply fit the AUD441 carbs and see what happens? The only change I appear to have to make is the block the engine breather holes in the AUD441 carbs. Alternatively, since the jets seem to move very smoothly in their bearings on the AUD441 carbs, could (should) I remove the jets and bearings from the AUD441 carbs and fit them to the AUD257 carbs. It should be noted that the engine seemed to run OK in the past with the original AUD257 carbs and their doctored pistons, though I sometimes wonder how well it would run on a properly set-up set of carbs. Thanks in advance for any advice.. Graham

Hi Roger, From your photos, it looks like both wires are the same colour (red with a blue tracer?), and I don't recognise that connector. Is there one electrical contact in the connector, or two - in other words, are the two wires (presumably) connected together in parallel? All I can think of is 'rear fog light', which may have been a requirement in some geographies when your car was assembled. I am assuming you don't have a rear fog light switch that doesn't seem to do anything? In a 'general guide to car wiring standards' that I have, Red/Blue is documented as 'Front fog lamp fuse to fog lamp switch', which seems unlikely since your photograph was taken in the boot, wasn't it? Graham

I have a starter motor which was given to me in a box of mostly Triumph bits. It is a Lucas M35J pre-engaged type which I suspect may have come from a Dolomite, or have come from some other Triumph engine that may have had a Dolomite flywheel fitted - to suit the starter motor. Does anyone know how I can confirm my theory? I could attach some photos, but all you'd see is a pre-engaged M35J starter motor. The starter pinion alloy housing bears a casting number that looks like '54247454ABDE', with what looks like an 'F' below the final letter 'E'. The unit looks like it has been professionally refurbished, since it bears a professional-looking orange 'Tested' sticker. It has been used, the pinion shows some signs of wear. I can't use it on my Spitfire, but I suspect it could be of value to someone else and plan to sell. The distance between the mounting bolts is the same as that on my Spitfire starter motor, and the (unidentified) starter motor appears to have the same distance piece/spacer (131570) as my Spitfire. Any help in identifying it would be useful and may ultimately help someone trying to get their car back on the road. Thanks, Graham