Jump to content

A TR7 16V

Forum User
  • Posts

    151
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    Lytham St Annes
  • Cars Owned
    1971 Herald 13/60 Convertible
    1973 Mimosa Dolomite Sprint
    1977 Factory TR7 Sprint

Recent Profile Visitors

168 profile views

A TR7 16V's Achievements

Expert

Expert (4/14)

9

Reputation

  1. Only a few years later: Here's a 44D4 I've removed the vacuum advance unit from. What I wonder about Peter T's one is, how the plate the advance unit normally moves is held fixed? If you just take the advance unit off and blank the hole with one of these £4 plates, it would flop about massively. I've a vague memory that if you use a longer setscrew to hold the points plate down, it jams the moving plate against the fixed plate. Or perhaps the plate from a 43D fits. So, as you can probably see, I've attached a long set screw to the pin and put a knurled nut on it, so I can change the advance without slackening the bolts holding the distributor to the block. There's a strongish coil spring on that setscrew, to hold it all tight. Gives about 20 degrees of adjustment, about 1 degree per turn. It only fits under one of the points plates I have, one with a wide slot for the pin to move around. The one I have with a narrow slot pushes the setscrew down, so the spring fouls the tops of the mechanical advance mech pins. It seems a little odd that the plates are different, as they are both from 44D4 A's. But the trouble is Lucas... That's a rotor arm from a 25D4 Herald dizzy, BTW. Needed it because the 45D electronic ignition unit fouls the normal 44D4 one and the 45D one is too long a reach. The mod to the advance would work with points and a std rotor arm as well. I will be fitting it as soon as I can expect the rain to hold off long enough.
  2. I've got a 13/60 one with no extra holes in it. But it's been re-varnished by a PO, and they may have gone through the veneer here and there. Also the glovebox lid don't match. So it may be a start if you're up for re-veneering one. It's no use to me so just postage or free collect from St Annes, (too) near Blackpool. Graham
  3. Had another inside door handle brake on the Herald the other day. And while I turned it round 90 degrees to use the other set of holes, I found I didn't like it that way. So I bought a pair off eBay from ANG. But the odd thing I did note is that they sell them with and without the plastic escutcheons, with the ones without being a few pence more expensive than the ones with. So I bought the ones with. Interestingly, I did need the escutcheons, as the outside diameter of the bit of the new handle that goes through and the hole in the escutcheon is 16.25mm, where the old ones were 15mm. Hence, the new handles don't fit in the old escutcheons. Moreover, I reckon that if you file the holes out to take the new handles, the walls of the old escutcheons will a bit thin to hold the pin through the handle and drive shaft. I assume filing the new handles down to fit the old escutcheons is a bad idea: too much work and may weaken them. I mention all that in case ANG spot the error and drop the price on the ones without or up that for the ones with escutcheons. The other small problem I had was that one of the holes the pin should go through was a bit too small and I could get it through. The thing was that I hadn't checked the pin in the holes in the handle first, and trying to get it to fit in situ when the hole was too small was more than a bit annoying: it's a fiddly job in the first place and that problem caused a certain amount of blue air. I could have gone and got a drill, but as the pin went through the other way far enough to hold, narrow end of the pin into the driveshaft side of the smaller of the two holes, I just did that. Anyway, with the new escutcheons and the pin in the way it fits, they seem fine – a slightly tight fit on the square shaft, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Graham
  4. Nope, never had that problem or the desire to avoid seeing the instruments. Indeed, I was taught to continually look down at the instruments every few 10s of seconds or so while driving. Having them off while driving in the dark is dangerous madness in my book. Turning them down a bit, despite the cost of the rheostat, might make some sense. But I've had enough cars with adjustable instrument lighting and never set that anywhere but full. The 73 Doly Sprint don't even have that, just on with the sides. Mind you I don't know if the early 1850 it's based on had such adjustment: that being a proper production car, not one where they made exactly enough (to within less than 100 in 73) to get and keep the FIA Group 1 homologation they needed for the British Saloon Car Championship becoming a Group 1a series from 1974. The "a" in that is another interesting subject.
  5. Why? I'm sure that will be contentious, but I really don't see the point of separating sides and interiors either way. And, from what's said about later Spitfires, it sounds like Triumph/BL agreed. What I have, even if it's wrong from the originality perspective (but still reversible) makes sense except for the third, side lights only, position of the column switch which replicates the first position out on the master. And even while that third position is currently pointless, I can see how I might use it if I fitted front (or front and rear) fogs. In that case I would power the sides (and instruments) and the mains and dips (optionally through the column switch) off the first and second positions of the master and the fogs off the second only. I'd want another warning light for them though - I so hate those twits (or spelt with a different vowel) who drive on rear fogs cos it was a bit misty earlier in the year. Graham
  6. I just bought a LHD decal for the indicators and a RHD one for the lights - I had to keep the RH cowl on the right as I have an overdrive switch on the column. Cost more than £2.50 though. What I would like to do is to put a two axis switch on the left side, up and down for turn lights; forward and back for mains and dip; and a spring biased pull for flash. But I can't even work out how to put a standard column light switch on the left in a spare overdrive cowl I have. If I could to that, I would then modify the original column light switch so mains gave normal wipers, dip gave intermittent and the biased pull powered an electric wash pump. The old wash switch then could be replaced with a control pot for the intermittent wipe speed. Graham
  7. I didn't think that mine did that, and I checked and they don't. I worked out that's because a PO connected the sides to the same first position output of the master light switch as the instruments, so the side lights come on at the first pull of the master switch, and only connect to the feed into the column switch when the master is all the way out. That the side lights should always be on with the instrument lights seemed so right and logical to me, that I never questioned it. And as I've never ever wanted to drive with just the instruments lights on and can't imagine why I ever would. I have no intention of "correcting" it. Graham
  8. I still want to know if swapping the master cylinder and keeping the push rod will move the pedal up or down. And the holes in mine are a bit worn - the 8mm clevis I think got sold is only tight in the pedal arm, and quite slack in the fork. I do see that replacement rods with forks are available, but I think I want a slightly bigger bore. However, I'm still worrying a bit that 3/4" is a more bigger than I want. I got a reply on the 5/16 UNF thread fork to fit the LR 0.75" cylinder, and it takes and comes with an 8mm clevis pin. I really do like the look of the pin clip it comes with. I feel like the R clip on the one I got to replace the one in the car sticks out too far and might split the boot in time. Graham
  9. Think that this one might be better: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/224547870126?hash=item34481895ae:g:g28AAOSwWl5dwqu- I'll ask them what the pin diameter is, as that's not given in the listing. Graham
  10. But then I lose the ability to adjust the pedal height. Will it naturally come to the same height with the same rod in a different cylinder? Graham
  11. The last two posts seem to suggest that increasing the pedal force by 1.44 won't be that big an issue. In which case the next problem is to find a fork with a 5/16th thread? Lots of M8 x 1.25mm pitch. Don't suppose anybody knows the thread on a Land Rover S2/3 handbrake link? Graham
  12. While I've got some clutch movement back by replacing the pedal, bracket, and clevis pin, I would like to see If I can get just a little more. So I was thinking of a bigger bore master cylinder then the 5/8th (0.625)" one I have in, which will get more slave travel for the same pedal movement, but stiffen the pedal a bit. Pete Lewis suggested a 3/4"e LR one as a cheap option, which they are. But they don't have the fork for a clevis pin. They aren't expensive either, but I don't know what thread is on the piston pushrod on the LR cylinder. The good thing there is there's an opportunity to use the thread to set the position of the pedal. But I recon that 3/4" bore will take 1.44 times the force to move the pedal, but, obviously, 1.44 times as much clutch movement. 1.44 times sounds a fair bit more force, but it's leg work and the pedal is light enough now. So I wondered about a 0.7" bore TR cylinder, which would only take about 1.25 times the force and still give me a bit more clutch movement. So, has anybody done any such thing and/or got opinions? And if anyone's used the LR one, can they give details of the clevis pin fork I would need and how much heavier the pedal becomes? Graham
  13. Just to check the size of thread on the outlet of the master cylinder is 3/8 unf? Graham
  14. I wondered if it would need some heat, but yours just pressed out. I'll give a try, though my vices are more modest than "Record" ones. Graham
×
×
  • Create New...