rlubikey

April 17

1 hour ago, PeteH said:

There is a chart, I have seen, which alleges the Uk`s contribution to Carbon emissions is 0.9% of world carbon.

Well Pete, we are about 0.9% of the world's population!

Cheers, Richard

April 13

Not if it's aluminium, surely? Check it with a magnet to be certain.

Cheers, Richard

March 30

22 hours ago, Nigel Clark said:

Be aware, once settled in, these twin box 'wheelbarrow' systems are very loud, so much so that some find them hard to live with for any lengthy journey. For a sportier exhaust sound without a noise induced headache

Taggart65, I can confirm this. I fitted the Triumphtune system back in 1988. "It has a sporty note but not too loud" said the catalogue. Not too loud my arse! On long journeys I had to use earplugs. I was soooo relieved when I found someone who wanted to swap his standard GT6 system for my wheelbarrow. My Spit turned into a refined tenor where previously it had been punk rock. (Do I need to say how much I hate punk?)

My advice is, get along to your local group and see what people have got and ask LISTEN to them. Better still take you for a spin.

My rant about too loud exhausts and the rubbish companies spout just to sell their crap is over.

Oh, except to say that my guess is you probably won't make as much power increase as they say you will.

Cheers, Richard

PS: If you DO get a loud exhaust, I hope you remain on good terms with your neighbours!

PPS: Rant REALLY over.

March 25

4 hours ago, micmak said:

Interesting. I have a tube of heat sink compound around here somewhere. I might take out the module and smear some of the compound under it. Can't hurt.

.....Mick.....

If you've never used it before, you only need the merest smear. (It may be just a smear to you mate ...) Too much and you get worse heat transfer. Also, it looks like bird poo - and it's difficult to wash of your fingers. You've been warned!

Cheers, Richard

March 18

Well, Spitfires, TR7s and Dolomites were still in production when the TSSC was formed, and I was taking my old blue 1981 Spitfire to classic shows in 1988. It would have fallen foul of Colin's pre-1980 rule. I think classic cars are like music and fashion: you get to a certain age then (almost) everything after that is modern rubbish.

Grumpy old git? Me?

Cheers, Richard

February 26

Just now, daverclasper said:

Ah, that Dave. Certainly, Canley are my no one go to

:blink:

Did that come out quite right???

February 26

16 hours ago, RJWW said:

but when sorted has needed little if any tinkering in 20 plus yrs

It will almost certainly have pre-ethanol seals and o-rings. My money's on degraded butyl rubber due to ethanol in modern petrol.

February 25

Check the injectors are all working. On tickover, feel the pipes to each injector in turn. You should feel a pulse which should be the same in each pipe. If not, one or more injector pipes may need bleeding to remove any air that's gathered inside.

As John says, gummed up injectors will give sub-optimal spray pattern. Be careful about checking this as removing injectors from the manifold one at a time means spaying petrol around a (potentially) hot engine bay. The revs will rise as you remove each injector as you're letting air into the manifold, but will return to normal when replaced. Then you do the next one in sequence.

The metering unit works on a vacuum, so if your valve clearances aren't correct this will throw the mixture out of the window. Any manifold leaks, vacuum tube leak, or metering unit diaphragm leak will also upset the mixture as Johny points out. A simple test of the pipe and diaphragm is, with the engine NOT running, disconnect the vacuum tube at the manifold end and suck air out of the end of the tube, then cover the end with your tongue. Does the tube and metering unit hold the vacuum for at least a few seconds? If yes then that's probably not the problem.

Pulling the choke out *just a little bit* when you hit the flat spot is a good tip, and will suggest the mixture is weak for one of the above reasons - or something else!

That's all I can think of at the moment, except to say that the Lucas PI system is generally reliable, so don't discount the problem lying elsewhere. It could easily be the ignition - i.e. coil, points, leads, plugs, etc.

Good luck and let us know how you're getting on.

Cheers, Richard

February 21

I imagine it boils down to two things:-

1) You can load up a Herald far more than a Spit. Positive camber allows for a driver plus four passengers, and a boot full of luggage.

2) Spits are expected to be driven more "enthusiastically" than Heralds. Negative camber gives better handling at the expense of load capacity.

The springs a different to give these characteristics. Does that sound about right?

Cheers, Richard

February 18

I think I'm right in saying that all the after-market alloy rocker cover caps have a completely different bayonet fitting to the original steel ones.

Cheers, Richard

February 17

This is one of those great "what if's". What if Triumph had thought ahead about putting the big six in the Herald right from the beginning? The Vitesse and GT6 wouldn't have had the engine sticking out at the front. The big saloon gearbox would have fitted between the rails. Some other solution for the heater. Lots of head scratching there, but if planned from the start the chassis at least would have been the right shape and it would have all slotted in just snugly.

Dave Picton managed to do engine back 6-cylinder Spits with a big saloon box (without overdrive) so I think Steve's right about it being possible with a normal Vitesse - just minor mods like you'd taken a speed hump too fast!

Cheers, Richard

February 16

4 hours ago, johny said:

The gearbox was originally used in the 948 herald (and maybe something before that?) and although uprated in some aspects it was kept during the whole production time. This was mainly because of lack of room in the separate chassis to fit anything stronger and you only have to look at it to see its undersized!

Quite so! The "Small Car" (SC) gearbox was designed at the same time as the SC engine to go in the 1953 Standard 8. The engine at that time was 803cc and made 26hp. Of course the capacity and power soon went up with following models, especially after the re-branding of Standard to Triumph. The early boxes were aluminium and had a sleeve bearing laygear with a scroll in the shaft to circulate oil. Later boxes had laygear bearings and went to cast iron to minimise flex and perhaps other improvements too. But as you say, the overall dimensions limit what you can do and with a 1500 producing nearly 3x and GT6/Vitesse 4x the power, no wonder the boxes don't last. Of course, our cars were only intended to have a 10 year life. But like Victorian engineering, some last much longer with love and attention. Forth Bridge anyone?

Cheers, Richard

February 15

3 hours ago, johny said:

Oh and does it feel faster with a Maserati filter?

W77 also standard fitment on 1990's FIAT Cinquecento and various 1960's~90's Renaults. So your GT6 may feel slower with the new filter. :wacko:

Cheers, Richard

January 10

2 hours ago, Martin V said:

Hi Richard, with the Mann W77, I guess you have that nearer 7 O'Clock position - did you have to modify the brake union position? I think the height of 59mm would also work on mine clearing the relief valve cap and coming up short of the brake pipe union but would appreciate any comment from yourself.

Martin, mine is a so-called "engine back" 6-cylinder Spitfire conversion. The engine is not only about 7" further back than a GT6, but also about 1 1/2" lower (so no hump in the bonnet). This means that the brake union isn't a problem for the oil filter, but the chassis is even closer. The W77 juuuuust fits between the oil pressure relief valve and the chassis at (from memory) the 8 o'clock position. Hope this helps.

Richard

January 9

15 hours ago, johny said:

Im quite tempted by that small Mann W77 filter as its used in the Maserati 2.8L 24v biturbo V6 engine

Yes, I use the W77 filter with my spin-on adaptor. I get oil pressure, but no extra horses.

2 hours ago, Martin V said:

Clearly says "with filter straight down" obviously depending on obstructions

But then it goes and contradicts itself in para 13 by saying it probably won't be straight down. In any case, I think the instructions were written by someone looking at a TR6.

Cheers, Richard

January 8

1 minute ago, RFC007 said:

Perhaps a twin carb upgrade would be better?

Trouble is, you don't know what's in the engine - cam, valves, etc. What's the engine number? You can find lists of the prefixes and this will suggest where the engine started life. Still doesn't tell you what a re-builder fitted!

Richard

January 8

Yes, the single carb isn't original. Either someone was looking for an "Economy Spitfire" or it's had an engine swap from a single carb 1300 saloon.

As for 1300 vs 1500. If you like revs and working the gearbox, go for the 1300 and you'll be rewarded with a great engine. If you like torque and letting the engine work instead of the box, the 1500's for you. Me? I'm a 1500 person.

Cheers, Richard

January 2

Thanks for the suggestion. I'd rather not remove/disturb a manifold to fit a John Guest style tee, whereas a rubber part can be twisted on.

January 2

Same problem Gary. The central section is too wide for the narrow gap. I'd like a single moulded rubber tee.

My alternative plan is a take-off on the threaded hole on one of the manifolds. I already have a 1/4" take-off and tube to a manual valve under the dash which proves the concept. This is fine for idle, but not enough for starting - a little throttle is required. A 3/8" or 1/2" would easily suffice. But as you can imagine, on the final implementation inquisitive eyes would follow the tube looking for the brake booster, only to find an idle valve!

Cheers, Richard

January 2

Thanks for the suggestion Pete. Yes, I've rummaged endlessly through the parts bins at work but, because the PI manifolds are so close together, there's little space for a tee. Especially when you consider it also needs a little section of hose each end to connect the balance pipes. Besides, I was also hoping for the central arm to go downwards so that the pipe to the idle valve was largely hidden until pointed out.

Cheers, Richard

January 2

Thank you Firefly. Sadly too small for the balance pipes which I think are 1/2"

Anyone know of a 1/2" rubber tee?

Cheers, Richard

December 31, 2023

For some time now I've a cunning plan for my PI to give an automagic idle speed control - so no need for a fast idle cable on the choke. But one implementation I have in mind needs a Tee piece on one of the two PI manifold balance pipes.

While browsing Fleabay, I came across part number 152341 - Stag Tee Piece Breather - which fits on the back of the air box and seems to feed to each inlet manifold - or possibly each carb.

Would some kind soul happen to know - or be able to measure - what size pipe it's meant to fit please?

Thanks, and happy new year everyone, Richard

December 15, 2023

On 14/12/2023 at 14:22, dougbgt6 said:

That's the problem with AI, we've taught the machines to do it themselves.

I was going to say, the problem is it might have been programmed by the same people who did the Post Office accounting system. :lol:

But then I went on to read Pete's post:-

8 hours ago, PeteH said:

I have a son that works on the leading edge of this type of software, at present his function is, as far as he is able to say without sanction, as a sort of "policeman" to prevent, preferably, or contain and repair the efforts of Malware to interupt the "free" use of those benefits the internet brings to society. He don`t (can`t) say a lot, but he is very wary about certain sources of data and information. His "take" on A-I, is that in principle it will be of great benefit to humankind, only so long as the Hackers/Malware providers can be controlled. That means staying ahead of the pack which will be very expensive not trailing it, playing catch-up is a dangerous game.

Pete.

... and realised the hackers/malware/"Nasty Nations" don't even have to hack, they simply put the malicious information out there on the web to "steer" the AI (as it learns) to give the answers they want.

Now I'm really depressed. In fact I've got a pain in all the diodes down my left side.

I think I'll drink my self into oblivion.

Cheers, hic! Richard

December 12, 2023

Is this grot in the fuel tank getting into the float chamber valves? This would be a problem common to both your old and new carbs.

Cheers, Richard

November 20, 2023

Eric, as JumpingFrog says, there's loads of info over on the Standard forum. However, I'm pretty sure the rear carb of a twin carb setup will clash with your clutch m/c. DanMi's manifold may work. I've just put my old TriumphTune catalogues back in the loft, but I'm pretty sure they did a 6-port Weber manifold like that. Alternatively, moving the clutch m/c over to the right and putting a jog in the pedal to keep it in the same place may give you enough space, I don't know. This is what I had to do for my engine-back Spitfire, but the fuel injection takes less space that carburettors.

However, to get a significant number of extra horses, I think an 8-port engine with the consequent in crease in capacity is required. 1300cc if you like revving and working the gearbox. Or 1500cc if you like torque and a more laid-back driving style - like me in fact! In either case, the twin carb setup will give you the same problem. However, a single carb so-called "log manifold" I believe will fit. John Thomason tested this manifold back in the 90's and found a small loss in peak horse power (2~3hp was it???) but more torque and better fuel economy.

Cheers, Richard

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Gallery

Downloads

Store

Events

Posts posted by rlubikey