JumpingFrog

None of them were seriously gone, but had rough patches where the surface hardening had gone through. And in these situations if you're rebuilding with new bearings (a decent RLS8 bearing is £50!) you aren't going to risk a subpar shaft. Rotating by hand they felt relatively smooth, as smooth as 40 year old hardened grease can feel! Probably it takes some time for them to get loud. Maybe with the mileage most do you could just fit such a used shaft, pump some new grease into it and it'll do five years before it becomes bad. Most shafts you buy will be from cars that were dismantled when they reached the end of their mechanical life in the late 80s (bottom of the value curve?), so it makes sense to me most used shafts are in such a condition.

Well, I popped off some emails to B&B/FirstLine and also to AP Racing this morning, and hats off to them, B&B/FirstLine already replied, with scans of original technical drawings from 1965 for the 76149/xx series! White has a higher clamp load. Specs: Dark Blue: Load at Peak: 556 - 485 daN, Load at Valley 227 - 156 daN. White: Load at Peak: 579 - 507 daN, Load at Valley 325 - 254 daN. Although I don't exactly know what load at peak and load at valley mean... But also seems the blue spring units are designed for a thicker friction plate: Gauge plate thickness (from their drawings this is thickness of the clutch plate): Dark Blue: 0.286 - 0.284" White: 0.261 - 0.251" Diaphragm material thickness: Dark Blue: 2.30-2.22 (mm?). White: 2.45-2.37 (mm?). Probably more than anyone wanted to know, and yet I still don't quite know if they're interchangeable, suspect not.

Thanks Pete, did a bit more digging... There are other numbers on them that look like the production run, e.g. 74D45 sounds like 45th week 1974 to me, the 76149/XX numbers are definitely the part numbers. AP website mentions that colours tell you the clamping load, but seems to be different for every product line: https://apracing.com/drawings/2018 Product Catalogue/High Performance Clutch.pdf Doesn't look like they make 6.5"/165mm clutches anymore either... Mini pages mention the same thing, but again, the colours for those clutches don't really help me: https://www.minimania.com/DIAPHRAGM_SPRING___Pre_Verto_types_926

Looking for some knowledge that's maybe been lost to the sands of time. What do AP Borg & Beck clutch numbers actually mean, I rediscovered a few NOS 6.5" clutch covers I had in storage, and they seem to fall into two categories: Box and clutch marked 76149/35 with a splash of blue paint on the diaphragm springs. Box and clutch marked 76149/24 with a splash of white paint on the diaphragm springs. Are these actually different in anyway? I thought maybe it was something to do with clamping force, but struggling to find much online... Thanks, David

I've taken something like 10 of these apart, all removed from scrap Heralds in the late 80s. I think out of 10 I got 2 usable shafts. None of the assemblies had failed bearings, but on all of the 8 scrap shafts the needle roller bearing had eaten into the shaft. For the time and effort I think it might be worth just buying new shafts, although make sure not to get the type I had that fall apart after a few thousand miles, see: and https://sideways-technologies.co.uk/forums/index.php?/topic/7973-spitfire-drive-shafts/

Just to add, I don't know about fitting a single rail, but I have a Vitesse prop (sliding spline) on my Herald with a 3-rail OD gearbox, the propshaft is an incredibly tight fit, and you might need to space the engine mounts forwards by the 0.5" difference (as in the table from Canley's). As Clive said basically, it will fit, but will put strain on your mounts and probably not ideal long term.

Mann W724/1 also fit, and big. Seem to be selling them off recently, £1.80 each on euro car parts last time I ordered them: https://www.eurocarparts.com/search/501590199

Diff is definitely not the standard one, explains your speedometer not reading correctly. Exact ratio best ascertained by holding one output still and counting turns of input to output. Nothing you can really do other than change the speedometer for one with the right TPM (turns per mile). Later diff is if anything an upgrade, stronger and more relaxed for motorways etc. Original 4.11 is quite short. Highly doubt your gearbox is Vitesse, unless someone has gone to a lot of effort to shorten the input shaft on an early Vitesse 1600 'box. By the way, that return spring on the clutch release arm is some kind of bodge, looks inspired by what the early Heralds had, does the clutch work okay? It shouldn't require such a contraption unless something is wrong. I still see no reason to flip the prop round and risk unbalancing it by swapping flanges over? Most I've seen have the splines fitted at the back.

From your photos of the rebuild, your gearbox looks correct, e.g. small square output flange (5/16 holes), consistent with early Spitfire/Herald 3-sync. Any Vitesse gearbox will not fit a 4-cylinder engine, the input shaft is different. I suspect your diff has been changed, such that it has a round pinion flange with 3/8 holes, the photos from earlier in the thread appear to show the larger output flanges (also 3/8 holes). It will be either a 3.63 or a 3.89, which will explain the speedo under reading (~5% off from 3.89 or ~12% for a 3.63), the standard ratio was 4.11. Probably your garage had the problem that the gearbox end had 5/16 holes, and diff end had 3/8 holes. The flanges can simply be swapped over, and the UJs are identical. But could throw the prop balance off so I would question if its worth it.

Chic Doig probably can help you out, or maybe Wins International.

Luckily, I managed to get a set last week. The main reason for going down this path was that I already have a pair of Type 14 calipers rebuilt with stainless pistons that used to be on another car. And even a set of M1144 pads on the shelf. As Colin alluded to, finding the correct disc shield could've been hard, but seems I got very lucky. I think using a Type 16 setup would have been a simpler option. I'm not so concerned about period correctness as long as my modifications are reversible. Thanks for the help everyone.

I think you're better making your own thread and listing what gearbox you have and what issues you're having. If you're up for the challenge, it's definitely doable and relatively simple once you get your head round it. Should just drop in, hope the new box is a good 'un!

That input bearing is toast, and looks like the casing is too. Probably will also have not been kind to the mainshaft tip. Was the bearing anything decent or typical unbranded junk that everyone is selling? Also noticed that seemingly all your gearbox failures have been on the input end, worth checking your engine back plate is absolutely flat. I'm guessing you've already checked, just surprised how many gearboxes you're going through!

Rebuilt several sets of Type 14 and Type 16 - calipers, never had any issue. The only difference I can see between home refurbishment and professional is having the castings vapour blasted and electroplated. But this is aesthetic. The only parts I can imagine being refinished are the mating surfaces between the caliper halves. But I don't see why this would be necessary nor did I ever hear of it. Maybe if your calipers had been really seriously overheated and warped...

This seems to explain it, thanks. TKC3002 suits the revised "top hat" thrust washer (UKC933) and bush arrangement used in single-rail boxes. Moss has a better parts diagram: https://www.moss-europe.co.uk/internal-gearbox-3-rail-spitfire-mki-iv-1962-74.html The changes are shown along side one another (boxes A and B), showing the different gear and thrust washer arrangement. However, I don't completely trust it as it lists UKC3364, instead of TKC3002 - UKC3364 is actually a late TR7 gear for the closer ratio gearset... Looks like TKC3002 was also fitted to late Spitfire Mk. IV 1300s on the 3-rail box as well as the 1500 on the single rail.

This is true for the close-ratio gearsets (1850, GT6 etc.), but as far as I can see these part numbers are all quoted alongside the same laygear - 154829. Although TKC3002 was also used for the later TKC5799 laygear with the bigger reverse teeth. So I'm not sure gear cut explains it. It's always some deep, dark rabbit hole when you start cross-referencing gearbox parts...

Does anyone know for sure what the difference is between the following part numbers: 154479 UKC1450 TKC3002 They're all listed as second gears for Spitfire Mk. IV & 1500 and Toledo/Dolomite gearboxes. My hunch is as follows, 154479 is the original version, with a flat back. UKC1450, I really don't know. I suspect it's just a renumbering of an old Triumph number into the new BL scheme, it seems like this part number is seldom used. And then TKC3002 is the final second gear, I've never seen one, but from photos online it seems to have a dished back. I'm hypothesising that it's to work with the late UKC933 top hat bush? It's probably one for the anoraks, but I'm curious! Are these gears interchangable e.g. can I fit 154479 with the earlier bush and thrust washer arrangement (no UKC933?).

Unless Johny means the 4-pot Princess calipers, but as far as I know it was never a common conversion. Indeed, the last discussion I found about it on here said they were a waste of time: Anyway, I was hoping maybe someone broke an upright and switched to later-style uprights and has the old ones sitting around. Willing to pay a fair price for them of course.

Sorry, I think we have crossed-wires here. The Type 16 ones are for the bigger 2L calipers, these are much easier to find. I've done this conversion on my Herald and finding parts was straight forward. I just want to fit the smaller Type 14 calipers from a 4-cylinder car to my Standard. The parts I want are rare, because they weren't used for long before the Type 14 caliper was introduced along with the later upright design. The later upright I can't use as the Standards have different steering arms. I'm not entirely sure on the rationale for reproducing these in alloy, there are other forgings being made still such as uprights and even steering arms. If I wanted to remove weight, I would start with fitting an alloy caliper, not the mount that is 1/8th the weight. Of course, I'm glad something is being made at all, it's just not something I want to pay a premium for. I'm happy to spend a premium in other areas for quality bearings, decent quality rubber and mechanical parts etc.

There are two different types, one for Type 12/14 calipers and later ones for Type 16 calipers. I need the earlier Type 12/14 type which was only fitted to Herald 1200s (with optional disc brakes), Spitfire Mk. I and Mk. II and also the Vitesse 1600. I could paint them, but I was hoping for a cheaper solution than the alloy ones. Something about fitting a Standard 8/10 with parts that "will reduce all important unsprung weight" is a juxtaposition to me. I will try Chic, I've tried everyone else I know and got nowhere... Thanks.

Hi, I'm converting my Standard 10 to disc brakes and need a pair of early caliper to upright brackets, with spacing to fit Type 12 and Type 14 calipers. All the other parts I seem to have... Unfortunately I can't use the later style uprights with the integrated caliper mounts in this application, they won't work with the Standard 10 steering geometry. And from all suppliers these mounts are only available as a fancy (expensive) alloy type reproduction that would be very out of place on a Standard 10. Picture from the parts diagram (courtesy Canley Classics): Many thanks, David

You have two main routes. 1) Fit a Stromberg CD150 on a Herald 13/60 manifold - easiest to find probably, but needle selection is more limited as the carb is generally less popular. 2) Fit a single SU HS4 or HS6 on a Toledo 1300 manifold - I've done this, the Toledo linkage is weird, I was missing some parts so used those from a Mini which fits well. IIRC the article Kipping did (maybe you can find it in the TSSC archive) said that a Toledo 1300 manifold, modified (ported) to take a HS6 instead of a HS4 delivered almost the same performance as twin carbs. However, I still believe the Herald 13/60 manifold is much better than the restrictive Toledo one but fitting an SU on one would be difficult. FWIW, the Toledo manifold was also used on the late emissions controlled Spitfire 1500 in the US.

Interesting, I didn't know they were remaking laygears, any idea on the quality? And also curious who supplied the laygear shaft, as I have a gearbox to rebuild soon, and prefer to use quality parts where I can get them! Hope the new gearbox is longer lived than your last one!

Dolomite 1300 is an odd-ball, it's the only 3-rail gearbox for a 4-cylinder with a 20-spline input shaft, uses 6.5" clutch GCP244 - https://rimmerbros.com/Item--i-GCP244 I have no idea about 1500 RWDs or what input shaft they had, but also it's impossible to tell what flywheel you have. So you need to take the gearbox out first, and then you will know what clutch you need. If your car has a larger 1500 flywheel, all is fine, you can use a standard 1500 Spitfire clutch. If your car has a lighter 1300/1200 flywheel, you need the rare GCP244 or to fit a full 1500 clutch AND flywheel.

If 4th is quiet, and all others are noisy, then likely the mainshaft spigot bearing has failed, and unfortunately probably destroyed the mainshaft in the process, which is the most expensive part of the gearbox. This is the main weak point of the 3-rail gearbox, all of them had a small 0.5" mainshaft tip. Maybe you can find a better donor gearbox, buying any used gearbox will be a gamble though, but repairing yours will also probably not be cheap. You also can't use the Vittesse 1600 gearbox you have for the mainshaft, as it will be 3-synchro and the mainshaft is different. A single-rail gearbox is stronger, the mainshaft tip was enlarged to 18mm. However, the gearchange is reportedly not as nice (never driven one, can't confirm), and also they are physically longer so you will need a custom propshaft - AFAIK, no standard length prop will fit. Hope you can work something out.