DanMi

which should be exactly the same as the ones that came out which is what I have been saying, just look at the size info on the existing thrust washers and buy the same, if then the endfloat is too great the crank is worn , which is not likely here as endfloat is not terrible. Or am I being stupid and they are not stamped with any oversize as big ends and mains are

agreed but if the crank was ground for a standard and a plus 0.005 then that is what would come out and what I would replace. if replacing like for like ( I did not mention standard or otherwise) does not bring within spec then I would get it to a machine shop, I guess there is always a trade off between cost and longevity. I also have no issue using oversized thrusts if that is what the crank/block is machined for, but I wouldn't do it to accommodate a worn crank/block

It does not matter how much the thrust washers have worn, they are bin fodder. In my opinion if the same size (new)as existing does not bring within spec then get it to a machine shop for a grind to the next oversize, I would not mess with trying different sized thrust washers as if the crank itself has worn then the bearing surface may well be not perfect so it won't last long

without seeing the gauge I can't tell and the exact measurement doesn't really matter here, my main point is that you need to look at the existing thrust washers / bearings as the crank may have already had a grind and they may be over-sized already

the small dial is telling you that it has gone round less than once if it was 1.68mm the small dial would be 2/3 of the way between 1 and 2

you will not know what size that you need until you get the old ones out, a dial gauge will not tell you if the crank has already been ground and oversized fitted. I think that gauge is reading 0.68mm (it can go both ways hence the red numbers going anticlockwise and the small gauge is about 2/3 of the way to 1mm, but that's not terminal just a bit worn. The bearings should have a mark on the back to indicate the size eg std or +0.05 so look at them before ordering new, same goes for the mains and big ends

GMC205Z will be made by county and GMC205 TRW. The original metal cap certainly won't fit the TRW one so the extension won't. Though I have run with the brake master cylinder as a gmc205 for over 30 years with no extension and no problem, though mine is a MK2 spit so slightly smaller type 12 callipers

Owen at Park Lane was prototyping MK3 parts years ago so maybe worth a call

balance is really most important for a nice idle, once the throttles open a bit any small difference will have a tiny effect

Don't always trust what the owner says, I have seen quite a few 3.5j early wheels listed as 4.5 as they have a ruler measuring the wrong bit. There were no spitfire 5.5j wheels so the listing was not correct unless maybe Ford or aftermarket wheels

I thought that spitfires only got 5J for the late years not 5.5

The gasket clearly has a hole each end for the rocker oil feed at the rear, so it would seem that gasket manufacturer has made it so that it works either way.

https://www.martrim.co.uk/car-trimming-supplies/clear-window-material.php

and replacing entire shells with brand new is perfectly acceptable as is replacing motorcycle engine panels and restamping with the original engine number. What I really don't understand is why anyone would do such a good restoration whilst ignoring/faking the cars ID. It is not a case of triggers broom as if it was it would have body parts from various cars, it is pure 1965 MK2 (having looked at the extensive auction photos) maybe with a few later mechanicals eg engine. If that car was to be crashed any insurance assessor would refuse any payout.

I have no problem with cars made up from parts so long as some of it relates. That car has a MK2 chassis early MK2 body tub, early mk2 doors MK2 bonnet MK2 boot lid Mk2 roof, Mk2 interior, nothing on the body is MK3, if the body tub came from a mk3, I would accept that it was made from parts

for faded black plastic gentle heat from a heat gun works wonders, the colour just reappears. even on coloured plastics, brought the colour back om my daughters topper dinghy pretty well as well

All of the modern replacement floors have the seat nuts set at the MK4 spacing. If using MK3 runners you need to drill 2 new holes each side the actual pan is identical. Carpet sets will fit all the holes are not cut or at least not on any aftermarket carpet set that I have seen. There is a slight difference in the profile of the propshaft tunnel but I do not think it would affect the carpets. My carpets are a non moulded set in a MK2

of course it matters, It is fraud however you look at it

but it likely detracts from it's legitimate owner if it is a stolen car. I have no problems with Bitsas

I'm afraid that looking at the price paid confirms my suspisions. If that car was correct ie a genuine Mk2 with a later engine it's value would be crca £12000 sold for ££5625 which is the price of an usable but ratty 1500 not a beautiful MK2

If you can get to a local meet I would do so and have someone look at the car. As if I am right (an I do not want to be but am 99% certain) you need to look at getting a refund as that car is worthless although a beautiful car

I really don't know, but something is not right, MOTs could be from a MK3 that was crashed as could the receipts. That is not a MK3 and has no MK3 components that I can see. Maybe a MK3 was destroyed and a car stolen and given it's ID. So ye you may have MOTs for a J reg MK3 and sales docs for a J reg MK3 but the car you have is not a J reg MK3. I think that it is a stolen car that has been rung (badly)

make up your own minds. For a MK1/2 in that condition the price alone should tell you something, It should be circa £12000 https://www.handh.co.uk/auction/lot/lot-1970-triumph-spitfire/?lot=57174

That's not the point, the cars ID is wrong there is only one reason for that and that is that it is not the car on the documents ie it is a ringer (probably stolen), would you buy a car that was registered as a 2018 VW Passat which when you looked at it was clearly a 2013 model

Whilst it looks a really good car I have to question it's provenance. The body, Chassis etc is clearly Mk1 or early Mk2 the engine 1500. There is nothing from a 1970 MK3 except possibly the commission plate. So if that plate has an FD commission number it has no place on that car. I accept that Bitsa cars are fine, but I can not see why anyone would restore an early car and then put a MK3 commission plate on it (at least not legitimately)