JonLow

I am in Chatham and as far as I have ever found out, or been informed there are no "Triumph" workshops left in Kent. Searches and online requests only show general classic car facilities, usually very upmarket prices, fine if you have Jags or such like. So any leads would be of great use to me also.

I looked at Canleys, because they used to be known for their quality spares. However, the picture of their stainless steel nuts do look a bit grainy and dull. Maybe I should ring them and ask them if they are really good finish.

Just brought the Spit 1500 out of the garage and noticed the chromed wheel nuts are flaking off the very thin layer off chrome plating. Now I bought a new set from Rimmers less than 2 years ago and have only 600 road miles and yet half of them are peeling off the chrome plating already, complete rubbish quality. I would have expected a copper plate coat on the steel to make sure the chrome bonds well, but no chance, just cheaply produced items. Can anybody recommend a quality supplier, presumably stainless steel is the only answer these days. I am worried but looking at the usual suppliers and the items they show are either not the same shape as the originals, or the picture shows the stainless as very pitted. Anybody happy with there replacement wheel nuts they have purchased? Thanks.

I looked closely at the all the usual suppliers, including James Paddock and also Wins International, where I bought mine from. All of them look identical in suppliers pictures, all seem to have longer type grease nipple. Seems a call to the manufacturer had them stating they do not balance them. Maybe they are more accurately assembled these days.

I have had a bad propshaft that vibrated like heck at higher speeds, (not UJ's), admittedly a couple of decades ago. All the balance strips were still attached, nothing lost. I had that balanced by a firm 25 miles away, but they have stopped doing props now. However, just had a definitive confirmation from my supplier: "I have just spoken to Manufacturer , and apparently they are not balanced . Having said that , i have sold many of their propshafts , and no one has complained about being out of true". Guess I will just give it a go and see.

I have a late O/D Spit 1500 that had the CV joint/gaiter type propshaft. The gaiter/boot is by now perished and weeping grease, also movement in the splines/UJ. These types of props have not been available for some time, so I did buy a used example stated as very good on Ebay, but that turned out to be not so very good. So looking at the replacement props they all look identical, generally same picture used. It looks to me there must be only one manufacturer that supplies all the parts suppliers. However, the price varies wildly with the top two big supplies up to almost £100 more than some. I contacted couple of suppliers and was assured that the props are balanced, so I bought one from a good parts supplier. It looks good and feels good, but there is no sign of any balance marks, or weights. So my question is has anyone bought one of these universal props in the last few years and how did they find them? There is no one near me that balances props, so I am trying to get a feel of whether I can expect this prop not to have balancing problems. Thanks, Jon Low.

Hardhatharry, This has been well covered by a previous topic: https://forum.tssc.org.uk/topic/7101-windscreen-seal-spit-1500/ I have had many issues trying to get a good seal, so see my two entries in the above topic pages. COH Baines seal was excellent, proper vulcanised join and they mould it into a frame for a few days to shape properly. As far as the absolute rubbish screen seals that everyone seems to sell, I gave up with it, left it off like just about everyone does. You will pay a stupidly expensive price for a bit of cheap silvery plastic coated insert trim that does even look like it will follow the curvatures. I had mine fitted by two guys that do the Stag windscreens for Faversham Classics. They struggled for ages but eventually got it done. But the plastic insert does not lie down that flush and in the corners it lifts off a bit. I took the insert out as it just didn't look right. Nobody much seems to notice there is no trim on mine, or a lot of Spits, looks fine without it. Some people have managed a miracle by finding an original good condition screen insert, that is the only way to get a proper fitment I believe. Jon Low.

Chris, Thanks for the reply. In the light of no other suggestions help from you would be appreciated. I think maybe as you say if you could measure the boot seal from the edges that should be easy enough. For the front and maybe the bootlid also a picture, or two would help as I can scale the placing from the decal positions. Thanks very much, Jon Low.

Thanks all for the thoughts so far. The Spit 1500 was my wedding car, bought back as a rotten garage find. I have restored it and had many crying fits and temper tantrums over the two years refurbing it, mainly over the repro spares being either just plain wrong, not fitting, or rubbish quality. Trouble is I have this thing about trying to maintain the car's soul, by keeping as much of it as possible as original parts. The car did make it's new maiden voyage to Malvern and back recently. So I think I will add the door pin replacements to my every growing list of "things to redo properly over the winter." I will chance buying replacement pins from one of the best possible sources, Chic Doig. Any more thoughts, or observations are still much appreciated. Jon Low

Just completing a full restoration on my 1500 and I have some original bonnet and boot lid stickers from way back when. I wish to use these as they seem to be better clarity than current offerings. However, I am determined to get them exactly perfect as per original placement. I could not take pictures of the placement before I started restoration, as the car had been resprayed, (in Mazda red!!!!!) and also different font stickers made up. Anybody have the exact placings dimensions, or photographs that I can use to scale out where they should go? Many thanks, Jon Low.

Any have any advice on replacing small Triumph door hinge pins? My door gaps are quite good, but the doors drop when opened, appears to be wear in the pivot pins. I have read in some of the American forums that various people have bought pins from the two big UK suppliers and found that they are not a good replacement, requiring a little of machining to get them to fit into the hinges. Various pins also offered on Ebay. Anyone replaced such door pivots? Any recommendations, or warnings, please?

Anybody able to inform me how I can decipher the electrical plug and connector symbols shown in Haynes manuals and similar. I have searched the book and cannot find any sort of reference to work out what the symbols mean. Thanks for any info.

Going to need a new hood for my 1500, assuming I get the refurb sufficiently done to get to the car to the club Malvern Weekend in August. My plan was to stop off at Don Hoods at Birmingham on the way and get them to fit whichever version of hood I decide upon. However, just rung them to see if this would be possible and it seems they are taking bookings for fitment from November onwards! Can anybody please recommend any other really good hood makers/fitters that might be on the way up from Kent, or in the midlands vicinity? Although I fitted the last hood to the car (20 years ago), I wish to have this done once and have it looking/fitting the best it can and so be a job that will last me out and not need doing again. Any suggestions greatly appreciated. Jon Low.

Anybody replaced their boot back board that covers the fuel tank with a remanufactured item? I purchased a new unit from the biggest parts supplier, (no names!). The new unit was not made from hardboard, as per original unit, but from thinner compressed paper material, similar that may be used in shoe boxes. I duly fitted the back board last October. The car is near full restoration completion and stored in a new, insulated double garage. However, upon opening the boot in April this year I was dismayed to find the back board is warped and has mould or spores spots on it. Rather odd as no moisture of any sort seen anywhere on the car or in the garage, nicely dry. I did buy a new light unit to go in the board, but unsurprisingly, the light unit did not fit the board cut-out hole. The light unit was so poor quality I could only use the contacts from the new unit in the original light unit and cut the board to allow fitment. Having spent thousands and thousands of pounds on spare parts and found maybe 25% of them I could not, or would not use, my question is, can anyone recommend a more substantial, or satisfactory replacement back board from any supplier please? Thanks.

I rang Faversham Classics, near me, who specialise in Stags. I asked them about screen sealant and they do not have anything in their screens, no mastic/sealant and they seem to think there have been no issues reported. Maybe I will just leave the screen in as it is and see how it goes. I think I will remove the new, poor fitting aftermarket screen surround as it does not satisfactorily follow the screen surround and in fact it holding the outer rubber off the screen in a couple of the corners. These small buckles will invite dust and water in around the glass, so hopefully it will settle onto the glass better with no plastic surround. Any more observations, chaps?

Bought the 1500 screen rubber from COH Baines and it looked good straight away, the join properly done - vulcanised, not just super glued. Easily fitted in the frame and I left it there for a few days to make sure it stayed formed in the corners. I had arranged for the screen to be fitted by a windscreen firm, the original guys there do the Stags for Faversham Classics. With this rubber they pulled it out and fitted it around the glass and then fairly quickly fitted it into the frame and it looked a good fitment. They also warned me that the plastic "chromed" surround would be a pig to do. But they did get it done but the new surrounds did not seem to want to follow the frame corners very well and could only be fitted by cutting the surround a bit shorter. But although it is in, it does not look too good a fit, looks like the preformed corners do not line up perfectly! However it is in and I am in two minds whether to leave it there and see how it looks or can be fettled when it gets warmer, or take it off altogether like most people seem to end up doing. However, it occurred to me after the windscreen guys left that the screen was in with no mastic sealant around it. I have looked at various forums and there seems to be a lot of people advocating no sealant needed. However, the original screen and another spare one I have both have had sealant when fitted, showing original dried bead of black mastic as original. So now I wonder what other peoples thoughts are, as although it might be O.K. with no sealant, not needed, I worry that water must ingress into the rubber channels and in time must rot and mould to grow. Thoughts/advice please anyone? Thanks.

I have had a Spit 1500 windscreen surround bought from Canley Classics, so thought it would be a good fit knowing Canley's good reputation. However, finally needing to get the screen in I checked out the surround and was not sure how it fitted, which way round in fact to get the plastic trim to clip on. The rubber had set with a couple of twist in it and I had great deal of trouble getting it to fit inside the frame. The join did have a small split in the join, which came apart whilst trying to get it to fit the frame. I ended up getting a professional windscreen company to come and have a look at the task. Engaged the same firm that does the Faversham Classic's Stags. First issue was to get the rubber seal in the frame. Due to the twists it was decide to leave the rubber in the frame for a week or so to set the rubber straight, take the twists out. Second attempt by two guys from the windscreen company managed to get the screen mostly in, bottom and sides. That took about an hour and a half, but they were not happy that the top would pull down enough without breaking. Read in this forum about COH Baines rubber surrounds and so contacted them. They confirm that their mk4/1500 rubber is formed on a frame and left to set the shape and then the join is vulcanised - not glued! They sent me a few pics, showing below. I have not used them before, but have ordered a rubber surround and will update when I get to evaluate it. COH Baines have been dealing in all sorts of interior mouldings, etc, for over 80 years and in fact supply some of the major parts suppliers. They seem to sell a lot of items for Spitfire/Herald range, although most items do not show up just by clicking on Triumph model. Did seem more shown when I looked for the type of item first, then by model, so try to hunt around their website.

Spitfire 1500, had the wheelbarrow exhaust on it years ago, first time I owned it, didn't mind the loudness of it then. Now however after a full rebuild I am looking for something above standard, but not too loud that it gives a headache on longer drives. I did buy a second hand Bell semi-sports rear box, (BSTH5417), but cannot seem to satisfactorily work out how that mounted up under the boot. Oddly the single bracket is bent over at 90' and the under chassis pipe does not seem to line up very well to where I think the back box should be - picture attached. Speaking to the Club Office I was enquiring about the Bell semi-sport system offered by the TSSC, but not getting any real definitive help with this model as I was informed that this type not kept in stock and are special order only. So not able to be given any specific technical help with this type of box and of course Garth the shop manager is no longer around. Has anyone bought this semi-sport box and can give me an appreciation of the exhaust note level. I also suppose I could fit the full sport, wheel barrow system and fit a centre fitting dampening section. although I cannot seem to find anything like that for sale, only with full systems. Also seen the "cherry bomb", mild steel universal mid boxes, which I have used in the past, but not really keen on these as they are large bore inlet/outlet only. Anybody able to make any observations, or advisories please.

I knew it would not bring enough difference, but I have removed the rubber washers and just left the ali spacer at the front bulkhead to see what affect it might make. It does only give about a 3/16" improvement, no where near enough and of course as expected it does affect the panel and bonnet gaps. Just doesn't make sense why the steering shaft is so low in the bulkhead aperture. The rack is set right and the bottom column support is fully loosened off, not affecting anything. The top column support is a two piece sold support that cannot be adjusted up or down as it bolts solid to the under dash framing. I suppose it is possible to get the top half of this mount machined down 1/4", or maybe more, that would bring the steering shaft higher up. It is ludicrous to consider this, but I just cannot work out why I have this situation, what has changed.

Checked my dismantling pictures and I had ali spacers above the diff, rubber washers at the chassis waist points that each take a inboard seatbelt mount. Then as I stated, bulkhead had an ali mount + rubber washer. As I mentioned previously, my bitsa racer, as in my profile picture, only has one ali spacer at the front. But I would always think it best to put things back as the manufacturer set them up, in this case spacer + rubber washer. I thought I would buy the chassis mount kit from one of the very few old school suppliers that you can still rely on, ie, Chic Doig to make sure I got the appropriate bits in the kit. The attached picture shows only a pair of rubber washers, so I reused an original pair for the waist mounts. So as I need to move on with this issue I will try with removing the front rubber washers and observe how much that helps the steering shaft positioning and check how it affects the panel gaps.

Pictures of the original ali/rubber shims on the chassis after the body removed. Plus current ali and rubber shims under front bulkhead. The pictures make the body look a horrendous distance above the outriggers, but it is about enough to get fingers between body and chassis. I replaced new for old, like for like and at the moment the panel gaps are very good, just the steering column through the bulkhead seal issue. I can try it without the rubber washer, or with just a thin rubber pad but it must have an effect on the panel gaps, or at least the bonnet gaps.

Pete, thanks for the quick response. Yes that could affect it, but I connected the column shaft through on to the steering knuckle and then set the lower support in it's slots. That way the shaft is straight, I would need to force up the lower support a long way in it's slots to correct the level in the bulkhead seal, then the steering would be very tight I guess with such a bow in the shaft. So no round of applause yet! Thanks.

Spitfire 1500 full rebuild. Refurbished the steering column and rack - new column bushes and rack bushes and setup. All installed and setup really good, nice tight steering with new UJ type knuckle. However, the steering column shaft is too low as it passes through the bulkhead rubber seal. The shaft sits at the bottom of the bulkhead hole and I cannot line up the two seal securing screws into the clips, screws sit too low also - see pictures. The body has been off a respray but I took note and pictures of the body/mounting washers. There seemed to be a few varying of spacer kits from suppliers. All the original washers where single aluminium or rubber, except the bulkhead ones which had a single ali washer with a rubber washer on top. I replaced like for like from the kit, from Canleys. Everything looked good with body panel and bonnet gaps fairly good. I did not take out the steering column for the sprayers but everything fitted back in O.K, top and bottom clamps holding really firm. But I am stuck with the steering column too low and the seal cannot be fitted correctly, as shown in the pictures. So if I cannot adjust in any way the top clamp and the column shaft looks inline with the steering rack splined spigot, what has changed, or is wrong? I undid the steering rack U clamps and checked the new bushes to see if the rack could be moved up a bit. It can be rotated slightly in the bushes, but that does not lift the spigot/shaft much at all. So the only change on the passage through bulkhead seal would be if the front body was lowered a bit, ie, by removing one of the two mounting washers. I did check on my other competition bitsa Spitfire mk2/3 and it has only the single ali spacer at the front bulkhead position. But as I have mounted the body/chassis kit exactly as it came off, surely the double washer at the bulkhead must be right. Having had Spits for just coming up to 50 years, I have never come across this situation in the past with body off jobs. So any ideas anybody, or anyone come across this issue as well. It seems an issue I cannot work out. Save my sanity please! Many thanks.

Thanks again everyone that has contributed so far. I guess best process, as some suggest is to get the car back on the road and then see how heavy it feels and maybe adjust to the method of getting the car moving, then steer. Then after that the Easysteer and others aren't too intrusive in fitment. But main issue for me is whether my wife could still drive the car. She has had multiple intestinal cut and shut surgeries and two spinal rods and screws surgeries, so I will have to wait and see how things pan out. Many thanks all. Jon Low

AHA! I do have that clip. But when I look at the parts list of all the major vendors that clip IS NOT shown on the late 1500, only on the earlier versions, as shown in your diagram above. As I have the later type column with the box type covers over the column switches, I assumed that clip was only on the earlier columns and that is why it is not shown, oddly, on the late versions. I had dug out that clip from the box of non fitted, left over items that inevitably builds up. As I had previously fitted the clamp to the column it looked obvious to me that the clip is the wrong shape to fit the outward profile of the clamp centre hole. However, with your usual excellent expert knowledge I duly took the clamp off again and was flabbergasted to find the clamp has a recess to take the clip! Clip duly fitted and column now rock solid. It still peeves me that all late 1500 parts diagrams and also the official 1500 Repairs Operation Manual only show the clip on the early version of the steering column! However, job done and I can stop thinking the world is conspiring against me. Sanity saved by the usual good advice from Colin Lindsay. Surely by now Colin you should be promoted to 6th Dan Triumphero? Much appreciated.