JohnD

1.6-3.2mm toe IN

Vizard can show you how to do it: http://www.scribd.com/doc/12986341/Tuning-Standard-Triumphs-Vizard Many decry his opinions and mods, but they seem to do me proud. And as he suggests. more than half the work that gives a benefit is in the inlet and exhaust ducts, niot just in the chambers. He says, and I agree, that a drill just won't spin a stone fast enough to cut cleanly and quickly. An air-driven die grinder will drive the tool at 14,000 plus rpm, which will also allow a burr to work. Burrs cost more than stones but last much longer and work much quicker. And if you do work on the chambers', it's essential thereafter to measure their volumes. They must be the same, within 0.5mls, and only then can you know the Compression Ratio, and how much to skim off the face to compensate for the metal you have taken out, or to increase the CR. JOhn

Useful, online engine building guide: http://www.totallytriumph.net/spitfire/engine_building.shtml John

Joachim, A number stamped on the head in the factory tells you what it was intended for in the factory. How do you know what has been done to the head ever since? You measure the chambers. Easy to do so, with a burette and glass cover square. Then whatever reshaping of chambers and skimming of the head that has been done since, you can be certain what their volume is. Measuring the stroke volume of the block needs merely the measurement of bore and stroke, simple to be sure of the numbers. Then you can work out the CR. If you need more detail, may I suggest my own article on this?: http://www.totallytriumph.net/spitfire/skimming_your_head.shtml JOhn

But where will I keep my emergency chocky bickie? Oh, stuff it! Why dos this site may pictuires so bloofy diifucult? I've uploaded obne to my galley. HOW THEW DO I PUT IT HERE? IF THATS THE WAY YPU WNAT US TO UPLOAD PIC WHY DON'T YOU PUT A BUTTON FOR DOING THAT, INSTAED OF "CHOOSE FILE", WHICH IS JUST AN INVIATIONT BE SNUBBED WITH "TOO BIG" boG OFF!

WooHOO! Please note. In that pic, I attributed the table to John Thomason, of "Spitfire & GT Originality" fame, some of whose data I added. That's wrong. The author of the excellent articles "Suspensions Sussed" was Carl Heinlein, then a TSSC Club Officer. John

Hope this works. JOhn

Glad the stats heloed, but doubt if you could read them! Never found a good way of posting that information on a website. has to be a picture and this blasted site with its measly pic allowance won't let me. The pic is only 46kB and it's "too big" Jhn

The Courier, No.158, August 1993, p31 (TSSC magazine) Plus some data from John’s “Guide to originality” Eye distance Model No.blades Blade thickness(ins) Spring Rate Lbs/in Free Arc ht(mm) Free Fitted GT6Mk 1 8 0.25 305 ? ? ? Mk2-3 6 0.234 185 116 1022 1048 Vit Mk.1 11 0.219 270 123 1012 1048 Conv. 11 0.219 270 131 1017 ? Vit2 all 11 0.203 215 165 1012 1064 SpitI,II,III 7 0.219 166 135 1035 1048 Spit IV, 5 0.38 110 ? ? ? 1500 (bottom two 0,25) Herald Sal 11 0.219 270 136 1012 1048 Conv. 11 0.219 270 ? ? ? Coupe 8 0.219 202 ? ? ? Estate 7 0.313 510 88 1036 1051 CourierVan 8 0.313 552 ? ? ? Lowered, or 'cambered' ? ? ? 95 1035 1048 ? = Not known. Can anyone add these? Regret, no spring height data for Spit Mk4/1500 Free arc is height of spring centre above ground when stood upright, off car. Eye distance: “Free” is with spring in as above condition. “Fitted” is on car NB: Fitted height: For every 8mm increase, wheel camber goes 1 degree negative.

A weak spring would raise the drive shaft away from the chassis rail. Richard, there is a witness mark on the chassis? This isn't rubbing on the spring shackle? Which would be a weak spring! And is it on both sides? I'd say this as an extra-strong spring, forcing the wheels and drive shafts downwards. If it's only one side, could be misinstalled spring, non-central, needs moving towards the side that fouls the chassis rail. Otherwise the cure, and an excellent additional mod to a strong, stiff spring would be to put a spacer under the spring. This will lower the car and raise the half shafts, without the extra load of a hundred weight of cement (or potatoes) in the boot. John

Inertia switch, Alan, good point. NOT the old Lucas one, but a modern one like this AS fitted to Land Rover. Range Rover, Peugot/Citroen/Renault, MINI, Old Rover/MG, Honda, Jagaur/Ford, Alfa Romeo, Uncle Tom car producer 'n'all. Available cheap in eBay ,but always ask for the connector as well, else it's difficult to wire it in. JOhn

And mount the pump properly. Unless you use the correct rubber bobbins, it DOES sound like a "demented woodpecker". See: And use that length of earthing cable! Rubber is a good electrical insulator, as well as a sound insulator. JOhn

This may be a better use for an old tax disc holder. Of course a Triumph would have a chocolate digestive. John

Bin it. No Spitfire needs a servo, unless the driver is unlucky enough to have weak right foot. John

http://tecb.eu/onewebmedia/Tuning-Triumphs-over-1300cc-by-vizard.pdf That and unleaded exhaust valve seats. JOhn

Of course it overpowered the Dellortos, Clive! It was a Silvertop! Pressure 6-7psi Flow 35 gallons (US) per hour A little solid state Facet, as I recommended, will deliver only 1.5-4psi and 25 gallons/hr, and for half the price You can't shoot rabbits with a elephant gun! Or if you try you look a little foolish! Good point about the cut-off switch, Roger! Rather than an OE Lucas one, as fitted to Pi cars, get one as fitted to Land Rover, Peugot, Ford, Maserati, Citroen, Honda, Uncle Tom modern car maker and all. Less than a tenner from eBay, but always ask for the wiring connector as well! http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_odkw=Fuel+cut+off+switch&_from=R40&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.XInertia+cut+off+switch&_nkw=Inertia+cut+off+switch&_sacat=0 John

Yes. Many available, just choose a suitable one. Facet solid state is small and cheap. This one won't overpower a carb: http://www.fuelpumpsonline.co.uk/facet-solid-state-fuel-pump-road-40104-15-4psi-5-p.asp John

Just a reminder. Yes, this board uses the same respected and reliable software as the TR site, which is obvious when you compare them because they look identical too. Strange, when otherwise they keep eac hother at arms length. But that other semi-Triumph site, Sideways, also uses the same software, does NOT look the same (no surprises there when you consider its origins) AND, quote from Sideways, " You can upload up to Unlimited of files (Max. single file size: 2GB)" Sideways has no club behind it into which members pay significant membership fees, no secretariat of paid officials, no Directorate of Management, and when it was threatened with closure was up and running on a different platform, on different software (as at present) with all the archive in place, in only two weeks. What is it with the TSSC that makes it so constipated in its attitude to the Board and the digital age? John

Do not forget that the "Stromberg" was designed at the behest of Standard Triumph, which did not want to pay royalties to SU. By replacing the sliding fit damper piston with one with a rubber diaphragm, they got around the patents. Otherwise, both are 'constant depression' carburettors (as is Ford's Zenith brand) with no particular advantage, except that SUs are available in a wider range of sizes, so that those who wish can fit a bigger one - whether that has any advantage or not. John

Aidan, Nil nisi carborundum! I fitted Dolly Sprints to Old Blue Vitesse. Land Rover wheel studs, and spacer - 8mm, I think - fixed the front and an even thinner one the back. Problems were; front, fouling the brake caillipers, but I had fitted Austin Princess 4-pots. Rear, the radius arm. A GT6 arm is angled more inwards so might be no probs. John

What did happen to the dinosaurs? Oh, yes, they are all DEAD! Did any of you, anyone at all, read The Marshal, and the item from the Editor saying that he realised that there would be some who were stuck in the 19th Century unable, or did not wish to receive an online journal? And that a print version would continue to be available? John

Christoph, Rust on a manifold really doesn't matter - they are solid castings and will never fail through corrosion. And Manifold 2 "needs new studs", I presume where it bolts to the down pipe. They are a sod to replace, so I'd go for M.1. The biggest difference between the six manifolds was when the head changed, from Mk.1, all-ports-in-a-line, to the staggered ports at Mk.2. John Thomason's Originality book doesn't mention any other Mk.1 differences and shows a 'fused' primary manifold as Mk.1, while my Mk.1 Triumph WSM shows then as separate, so I don't think that is important. John