Colin Lindsay

They all need a fibre washer, or some kind of additional sealant, either to make them easier to remove again, or else just to stop leaks. I'd personally fit one as a matter of course.

Don't forget you can change the lever, which means you can find a pump of the same size and change it over to suit your Vitesse. I've bought brand new pumps for less than the price of a refurb kit, and either swapped the levers, or used the new parts on my old unit. The seller of this refurb kit has it listed for all Vitesse from 1962 on. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/TRIUMPH-GT6-VITESSE-TR2-TR4A-VITESSE-AC-DELCO-TYPE-FUEL-PUMP-REPAIR-KIT-EP8052/372922604897?fits=Car+Make%3ATriumph&epid=11036800021&hash=item56d3eb5d61:g:FY8AAOSwNaBeJx0g

Not easy to get at, but I've measured the top (longer) side as 150mm, allowing for the bit that is in behind the other panel; lower edge is 120mm and it's 60mm wide. All approximate as the tape is bent at all kinds of angles trying to get in there, but it's as close as I could get it. It will be the same width as the bracket it attaches to on the support tube, allowing for the overlap around the edges.

It could be an early, or late, MK2 loom, but it should be like for like - same connectors as original. If the original lights take bullet connectors then that's what should be on the loom. I know some have variations - for example my Herald 1200 loom came with no connection for the heater blower - and there might be extra wiring for certain optional extras, but the basic loom should be a straight fit with the connections exactly where they are needed to be, as per the original. I'd take photos of the old loom set beside the new; good closeups that show the differences, or at the very least a good comprehensive list of what the problems are, and let the maker know.

That would sound feasible if my stabilised 1200 had not had a screw-fitting 6-screw sender. Problem is that it was last on the road so long ago that I can't remember how the needle moved! Must go out and shake it! (BTW I've edited the earlier post with a few links and more info)

All I've been able to find is a screw fitting - part number 213411- with either a solid cased body and spade terminals, or an open-body design with screw terminals, but no distinction between stabilised or non-stabilised. This brings me to the thought that the actual senders are the same, and only the gauges are different - would this be feasible? - but if there is a difference, the screw terminals are from the earlier cars and the spades from later models. Mine have the model numbers FT3331- 06 and FT3331-56; the first also has the letters MM1 stamped around the edge. The estate version is TB1114/007 but nothing on any shows stabilised, or not, and Mick Dolphin says that part number is from the Spitfire Mk3. This link goes to the Revington TR site and explains some of the changes in the TR range, but not the Vitesse / Herald models. https://www.revingtontr.com/productimages/docs/00001735/is0011-fuel-gauges-and-sender-units-issue-3-5925692.pdf

Yes, therapy is wonderful these days. I can't fault the AA, they brought my TD5 all the way home from Kendal after it blew a top hose on the M6, right the way to Stranraer, onto the boat, off again and home at the other side. I was more annoyed at missing Stoneleigh and losing two nights hotel refund. I still left the AA after their prices went through the roof, and they pestered me for months afterwards with silent phone calls until I answered one day and told them to leave me alone, after which - they did.

Morning Tom! Just back in from the garage; I mocked up a rear tub using old valences I have salted away trial fitted to the convertible tub I'm working on at present. Firstly - the measurement from the vertical face of the wheel well to the centre of the valence bulge is about 5 3/4 inches, maybe 5 1/2 if the valence is pulled inwards to meet the side valences. Here you can see the green side valence is mounted over the red rear valence; it was the easiest way to do it one handed and still use a camera, but it shows you the curves. At the wheelarch end the valence fits like this: If I fit the green side valence under the rear valence it fits like this - approx as it's only held in place by finger pressure: I tried again with a different side valence and the contours are quite good: It bends down to an acceptable contour that will be hidden by the rear overrider: And this one too meets the front edge at the wheelarch: So as you can see the panels are all very close to each other and require minimum fettling or flexing before finally fixing in place. The problem with that tub is that the rear wing is incorrectly fitted, you can see in the first photo how the lower edge bends upwards but I'm hoping it's just the side closing panel that has been incorrectly fitted, and a replacement one of those will sort it out. My advice is to fit the side valences to a good contour with the wheelarch, and then work on the rear joints; remember that most of this area is hidden by the overrider but will also bend into place with a little bit of fettling. Hope this helps!

Easiest way to check is to look for a stabiliser, or the wiring for one on your loom. My early Herald has the 6-hole fitment but a stabiliser on the back of the speedo, hence I know which it is. Where would the stabiliser be on the Vitesse? Herald is rear of the speedo; I'd suspect that the single-gauge Vitesse would be the same if it had one fitted. All I've been able to find is MK2 2-litre from 1966 onwards, but my Herald from 1963 thereabouts had one, and I'd be surprised if Triumph changed only the Herald and not other models too.

*** Thread drift alert *** BUT: where did that car go? KOD *** F, wasn't it? I remember that he built it from totally original parts, all NOS stuff.

https://www.johnrichardssurplus.co.uk/winguard-non-switched-interior-lamp-plastic-lens-and-body.html https://www.johnrichardssurplus.co.uk/bedford-vauxhall-interior-lamp-7194237-6220-99-808-3842.html I've found a couple of cheaper alternatives, in case anyone else is stuck, from an absolutely fascinating site that's going to cost me a few hours later in the weekend. Now that I know it's Wingard I can keep a lookout.

A few years back I was on a query at the top of the country and recorded the miles, as straight a run as I could make it - 85 miles each way, which avoided the motorway and followed some quite narrow and hilly, but more direct, roads. When I tried to claim for mileage I was told that Green Flag - by whose wisdom all routes are calculated - made it 69 miles. I've tried it since for a laugh, in different vehicles, and always end up about 15 miles short of my destination. I hope Green Flag never come to my rescue, it'll be a long way to push the car to meet them... however: don't modern speedos all read slightly optimistic ie a slightly higher speed than the car is actually doing? .

I think (must go look!) I have early Herald fans with the half-moon balance setup; any idea how they would have originally been balanced?

got it, many thanks - reply sent.

Found one.... remember these things? Always looked like some kind of Chinese martial arts weapon, liable to take your fingers off as well as your nuts... 😮

Can do, but it will be tomorrow? I'm thinking you mean the closest point of the rim of the wheel well to the rear edge, to the centre of the valence bulge?

Box spanners! That takes me back. Do you remember the odd-shaped ones you used to get for bikes? That's a great illustration of what I mean: you can use modern tools all day long, but one of those brings back so many memories.

Yes Adrian, will PM you. Sorry, been very busy doing absolutely nothing; the time is flying by and I've no idea how it goes in so fast. Or: PM me if you will.

If I remember correctly, and this was 2002 or therabouts, that white Herald was fitted with a new rear valence and side valences and the rear valence in particular required a lot of bending to fit properly; I think it was fitted all along the top edge, then the overriders were tightened right in while the valence was pushed inwards to permit tightening, and then the valence was bent in at the bottom by hand pressure to meet the side valences. You can see the pop rivet which I used to secure it in place. Once in place it stayed there and the overriders could be removed again for body painting.

Never tried driving a phone, so will stick with the car for now; however I've heard that logic used before - why drive a rattly old Triumph when you can drive the latest modern? Haven't yet been able to locate a phone app for compressing coil springs...

Can't you make a stretch Vitesse? Saloon or even better, estate? Bet you Top Gear could have done it.

I think Johnny means that moving the fan back from the radiator will reduce the effect ie the suction through the fins; not being technically trained in such it's my concept that a fan close to the rad will suck more air through the rad; further back increases the gap and may allow a modicum of air to be drawn around the sides rather than through. Maybe only a minute amount in the scheme of things?

It was very hard to photograph mine with the white rubber bumpers on, but it appears to be a good contour match between the overrider and the valence on top, but underneath there is a gap, mostly taken up by the rubber seal. I've only one fitted to this car so couldn't check for a match at the other side.

Neater than mine; I replaced all four rubber mounts on the GT6 engine fan, replaced the radiator and the engine valences and shrouds and only then started it up to find the fan wobbling alarmingly. I thought all of the bolts were tight before I put the tab washers on. I don't really want to have to remove the shrouds, drain and remove the radiator and adjust the fan...

I wonder how much of that is moisture getting through the seams, or condensation? My estate roof is just a big sheet of cold metal behind the headlining and moisture must gather on it when driving in the cold. Before fitting the headlining I've stuck a sheet of insulation on it, more to keep the heat in the car than any other purpose.