rlubikey

Welcome to the forum Doctor. The usual problem with the hazard warning switch is that, as it's used so infrequently and the switch is so old, it needs a bit of jer.. jer.... jiggling to wake it up. A gentle pushing, pulling and twisting to clear the tarnish off since the last MOT. However, it sounds like yours may have some problems cunningly hidden by the previous owner for you to discover. In the case of that relay, it seems as if that DPO (Damn Previous Owner) had a bright idea to use a relay, and when it didn't work they just disconnected the wire. I'm sorry to say that in cases like this you may be reduced to arming yourself with the correct circuit diagram and doing a point-to-point check. That is, identifying each wire, end to end to make sure it goes to the right things and nowhere else, and marking off the diagram as you do each one. Not a lot of fun, especially in the camped footwell of a GT6. (At least with a Spitfire you can have your feet out over the boot lid!) But even worse for you as your loom does not have standard colours. I don't envy you! Cheers, Richard

And, due to the magic of thermodynamics (which I've STILL not quite got my head around) this can operate at seemingly MORE than 100% efficiency. In other words, for 1kW electric energy in, you can get 3kW or 4kW or more heat energy out to warm your car, house, whatever. This means that a heat pump is way more efficient than just a simple heating element. If you have air-con, running it in reverse for heating is a no brainer. My ex-colleague bought an M1 BMW and was surprised to find it gave almost instant cabin warmth - not toasty heat, just warmth. BMW had added the extra valve to reverse the air-con and warm him before the heat of the engine came on stream. But yes, when you all have electric cars, long johns and vests and hats will come back into fashion - for those with long commutes anyway! Cheers, Richard

Here you go, Single carb or more ? from back in November. Cheers, Richard

Paula, all good advice. Picton Sportscars are up that way too, just off Jnc. 25 of the M25. No connection except I've been a satisfied customer for over 15 years. He doesn't keep his web site up to date - the phone number is an old one. I have 07853-202021. I wouldn't trust that email either - he doesn't "do" internet, much prefers cars! Cheers, Richard PS: If you visit you may see my Atlas at the back of the workshop.

Hi Mark. That's very sharp of you to spot the make of the Boys' Rivnut tool. I freeze-framed the last episode to try and see what they had and couldn't! I have a Laser 0979 and an Eclipse 2745 ... what do you call it? ... single-handed grip type tool. Do NOT buy the Laser unless you're only using aluminium Rivnuts or you like buying replacement mandrels 'till kingdom come. To be fair to Laser, they did add "aluminium rivets only" to the product packaging ... AFTER I had bought mine! The Eclipse is much better made, but even so I find it very easy to either under- or over-compress the rivets. Maybe I haven't got the feel for these tools yet? Or maybe I just don't use it enough! The advantage of a right-angled single-handed type is that it gets into small and awkward spaces, which the two-handed lever/concertina type on Ebay may have difficulty with. That Sealey drill-assist looks like a neat idea. Especially if you can set the torque so you don't destroy the mandrel. It should be reasonable quality as they specify steel and stainless steel. I hope my random thoughts are of some value. Cheers, Richard PS: I see Laser no longer say aluminium rivets only. They now state that:- Well, the rivets are obviously a consumable commodity, DUH! But their mandrels? Laser mandrels are a little too consumable for my liking. Bitter, moi?

HUB, do your existing bullets have convex glass? If not then could you convert to convex? A glass cutter/polisher could cut down something for you. The Tex rectangular door mirrors common on 70's Spitfires etc, which are copies of the original (Winguard?) mirrors, have fixing holes which are (gets out ruler and measures) 1.5" apart (38mm) Although I see the Tex web site says the holes are 36mm apart, so my figure must be of an original Winguard part in my box of spares. If you specify convex glass that helps the field of view over and above the wider glass of a rectangular mirror. Hope this is of some help. Cheers, Richard

Colin, as a former colleague would say... "You know the great thing about standards? There are so many to choose from!" Hope you've sorted it. Cheers, Richard

Thanks for that one Johny. One anti drain instead of two, but very short indeed. Thanks Nick. I've known about the o-ring issue, but always assumed that because mine didn't leak to the outside world I didn't have a problem. Now I see that I still might. I feel an investigation is in order. Cheers, Richard

I'm also going to try that shorter 714/2 filter next time. I'm convinced that the filter does drain over several days, even with two anti drain valves. If so then a smaller filter will fill quicker. As a bonus, it will be easier to fit my engine-back 6-pot. Cheers, Richard

I think the quantities involved don't justify the tooling costs. When you're making thousands of boxes, setting up a gear cutter to do the different gear sets makes it worthwhile. In any case, I think that parts require special grades of steel, finishes & hardening. It would probably be done in the Far East (cuz it's a bit cheaper) and I wouldn't hold my breath about the quality, would you? Cheers, Richard

I think the oil syphons back into the sump even when the filter's vertical. From reply 66 on the Mann oil filters thread on the Club Triumph forum:- Note that the first section of the above list require a special 5/8 UNF to 3/4 UNF adapter in a 4-cylinder engine, but the 6-cylinder spin-on conversion seems to give you this out of the box. Well, mine did. My own research says about the first two:- W 717/2 has a bypass valve of 1.5-bar W 713/9 has a bypass valve of 0.8-bar There aren't any shorter double-valve oil filters ... unless you know different! To fit one on my engine back Spit with spin-on conversion, I had to raise the near-side of the engine slightly. I did this by fitting a TR6 type engine mount and using the upper of the two studs. You don't have to cut the other one off. The extra height allows the oil filter to limbo in between the oil pressure valve and the chassis ... JUST. Cheers, Richard

Should have said "in third gear when you're using the layshaft." Of course you're also right Pete, flipping into overdrive - especially under power - will add to wear in third gear. Cheers, Richard

Ian - definitely the car comes first! A good one in terms of bodywork and trim - the best you can get. Having overdrive reduces engine revs and helps with NVH - Noise, Vibration and Harshness. It also reduces engine wear and improves fuel consumption, though you may not notice these. However, it's my impression that some people are more sensitive to NVH than others. You may be perfectly content motoring along with the engine at nearly 3500rpm when others find it wearing. That depends on you and your driving style. Get the car then decide - just drive about 20% slower and ask yourself if the engine noise reduction is something you want. My only note of caution is that adding overdrive means at least changing the mainshaft, and many so-called Triumph experts will advise a recon gearbox. I know from bitter experience that a replacement box may not be as good as the non-OD one it's replacing. When you go back after 14 months and say it's started slipping out of 3rd gear and the so-called expert reminds you the guarantee is only 12 months ... ! This is my story from 30 years ago with my blue Spit, but building good gearboxes is getting more and more difficult as good core stock dwindles. The chap building the gearbox for my current project had 5 donor boxes before we found a good enough layshaft, and even that wasn't perfect - I'm told Mike Papworth has no stock of these at the moment. Pete's suggestion of using a taller ratio diff is a good one. Cheers, Richard PS: Don't loose sleep. PPS: Let's be careful out there! PPPS: Good point. Lower revs means more torque to do the same work. And more torque means more wear in the gearbox! (But at least your engine lasts longer. )

Johny, no one's been willing to sacrifice their engine to do this experiment. I can confirm that the "death rattle" was indeed a characteristic of the 1500 engine and my old blue Spit used to make that noise. Then it threw a con rod on the M4 one evening motoring up to Wales - now that really was noisy! Was it because those engines were just thrown together on the production line in the Leyland Group cash-strapped factories? Was it because people didn't service the cars regularly and the oil did way more miles between changes? Was it simply that the Leyland Cost Engineers made the Triumph Engineers cheapen the design too much and longevity suffered? Answers on a postcard please ... These days few of us do enough miles to really "test" the engines and it's been drummed into us that we have to change the oil very regularly and use the best available. (Mobil 1 for me) These days, my PI Spit has faulty seals in the metering unit and it takes a loooong time for the petrol to get through and the engine to fire. This is plenty of time for the oil light to go out. I have one of those Mann double-valve oil filters (which is the devil to fit in on an engine back 6-pot Spit!) and it helps with quick oil pressure the same day, but not if I haven't driven for a couple of days. I've often wondered if we should have an "ignition inhibit" circuit to stop the engine firing while cranking until the oil light goes out. Alternatively, a little oil pump to take oil from the sump (banjo connector on sump plug) and pump via a non-return valve to one of the engine oilway plugs just before the filter. I'm currently a Gentleman of Leisure (pronounced "been made redundant") so you'd think I'd have time to try some of these ideas! Cheers, Richard

That SC Parts Ebay ally tank - the first picture shows a press moulded tank (probably steel) but you have to go to the subsequent images to see the one they're selling. The aluminium is seam welded all round. Was your point Roger89 to ask, would you trust it with being so close to the driver after your disconcerting incident? Not sure I would either! Cheers, Richard

I think I mentioned it in my first post. I hadn't re-read the article then and was going from memory. While John T. doesn't quote torque, his dyno plots do show power through the rpm range. Since torque is rotational force and power is force times distance, I think I'm right in saying that if the power is higher at a certain rpm then the torque will be higher. You would just have to do some maths to find out how much higher. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong! I can thoroughly recommend the Courier Archive dvd collection for research like this as, despite the index not being as reliable as one would like, it still makes reading these old articles a cinch! Even if the index lets you down you can always ask here and some nerd like me will probably know where to look. Cheers, Richard

Actually, an HIF off a Rover Metro/100. I can't seem to find a photo just now, but it comes with the angled adaptors at each end, and the HIF should cope with the exhaust heat in close proximity.

Hi Colin. There's another USA company - Cannon - which also does these downdraught manifolds. The Americans do like their downdraught carbs, don't they! The Pierce has the step down to give bonnet clearance, which my research suggested might be - ahem! - *marginal* with the Cannon! so do take care first time you close the hood (sorry) bonnet, just in case. I'm using a 30' or 45' SU with a suitably angled adaptor. The SU will be angled back towards the rocker cover, which should give me the clearance I need in my application. Cheers, Richard

Found it. The article is "Economy Spitfire?" and is in Courier 216, June 1998, pages 8-14. He got 51bhp at 5k & 5k5 rpm with twin carbs, but only 44bhp @ 5k with the single+log. He comments that you only see a difference in power *above* 4k rpm, as the single carb flattens off, while the twin set up power keeps rising. Below 3k5 the single carb has 1bhp more and he notes the idle is smoother. For economy on a set route (his work commute), he got 33~34mpg with twin carbs but 36~37mpg with the single+log installation. There was a follow-on article by Brett Denis in Nov '98 (Courier 221 pp. 22 to 24) but Brett decided to grind the runners out to the head port diameter, and I suspect he lost some of the torque without gaining any significant power. Why do I know all this? Because I was researching what to do about carbs on my Atlas where I'm sticking an 8-port 1500 engine where a 948cc used to be. Problem is, the side-draught carbs won't fit as the air filters need to be where my hip is. For a long time I was thinking of a solution along the lines of the Log manifold. But now I've bought something from Pierce Manifolds which should solve my space issues. Cheers Richard

Bfg - Just to add to what Clive has said, the John Thomason article "Economy Spitfire" (I'll find the Courier issue for you later - it's missing from the magazine DVD archive index!) was based on the Triumph "Log" single carb manifold as used in the Triumph 1300 and 1500 saloons from 1971 on, not the "Cumberland sausage" used on some Heralds. He speculated that the Log manifold was an economy measure in response to the first oil crisis - or 2nd if you count Suez! Whereas Log manifolds generally have a bad reputation because of unequal flow to the different cylinders, the Triumph design has clever little "bumps" where the mixture goes around the corners to give you approximately equal flow/filling on cylinders 2 & 3 compared to 1 & 4. It also has smaller diameter runners to the ports which keeps the gas velocity higher, and the swirl near the inlet is meant to improve filling as the valve is closing. Well, that's what he said and it's the same argument as Vizard in one of his tomes, and it convinced me. Anyway, John T's results showed slightly lower top-end power compared to twin carbs - a matter of 2- or 3bhp I seem to recall. However, the torque and MPG were slightly better, I forget by how much but it was a similar gain cf. the BHP loss. He also commented, as you and Clive have said, that there's no balancing issue as with twin carbs, so better MPG can be expected in the real world where things are prone to go out of adjustment - if they were ever "in" adjustment in the first place. The bottom line is that he liked it for an ever day driver where economy was desirable, as was slightly better torque as a trade off for top-end power. Cheers, Richard

Having had a pattern part disintegrate and replaced with an old sphere that's now given 10 years of service, I know how frustrating the low quality of some new parts is. Sounds like a metal sphere with a plastic sleeve would solve both problems. Cheers, Richard

Doug, find a mirror - off an old bathroom cabinet or something - and hang it on the end wall of your garage so you can see the far side as you park. My garage is quite narrow but I can position the Spit right up to the opposite wall with total confidence. Cheers, Richard

I don't suppose they have to be square section. Why not just buy suitably sized O-rings? Cheers, Richard

Hi Nick. I'm pleased my suggestion was useful to you! You're not going for Audi's 4.2l V8 in your Spit then? I suppose it's whatever you have hanging around. Keep the updates coming as work progresses. Cheers, Richard

An oil cooler kit is shown as an option at the back of the parts catalogue, so yes, it could be specified. Cheers, Richard