rlubikey

What's wrong is the bad old knees! Cheers, Richard

The USA dual circuit MC always seems slightly different to the UK ones in the pictures and diagrams I've seen.

Hi Clive. Mine is 79mm wide. I don't think they were fitted to UK GT6's, only very late Spits. Don't forget the tub had a little "well" welded in to allow for the extra length, similar to what's behind the battery (which was for LHD USA cars). Also, the bracket is different so the MC sits at a different angle, slightly lower than the clutch. Cheers, Richard

Hi John. Maybe you already know this, but with the twin carb set up which was on Spits and most Dolomites, the rear carb will probably foul the clutch and/or brake master cylinder on your 10. I think I'm right in saying the single carb so called "log" manifold from the pre-Dolomite 1500 saloon solves this problem. Also, assuming you fit the front plate from your 948cc engine on to the 1500 so the engine mounts are correct, you'll need to increase the size of the hole for the larger 1500 crank - a simple enough job. I think that just about covers it. Apologies if I'm teaching you to suck eggs! Good luck with your search and installation. Will overdrive be next on the list? Cheers, Richard

No Johny. I think you'll find they're too long and much more upright than the heavily angled Spit stick. Cheers, Richard

Steve, as Pete suggests, first test the oil pump using the electric drill trick. As the pressure switch function is unknown, just take off the oil pressure switch and see if oil comes out. If you have a bit of tube the right size you can direct the oil into a suitable container. Then, I would suggest taking the rocker cover off & spark plugs out and checking the pistons and valve gear operation as you turn the engine over by hand. Squint down the spark plug hole; are the pistons going up and down or have you thrown a con rod? Are the valves moving in their sequence or is a valve stuck, push rods bent, or broken cam shaft. Hopefully you have a suitable spanner and as you turn the engine by hand you can feel for anything nasty happening inside. The point is that these tests can be done without running the engine and making any problem worse. Cheers, Richard

Ahh! We'd moved on to 4-valve heads, thanks guys. In any case, I knew that filling only has 1-bar (normally aspirated) but exhaust has lots more. Not forgetting of course, that you have to empty the cylinder to make room for the inlet charge. I presume this is why the inlet is only slightly bigger than the exhaust, but that experiment/calculation is one I'm very happy to leave to others! Cheers, Richard

Hold on John. Circumference is Pi*d but area (hence volume of the penny on the shaft, assuming thickness is constant) is Pi*r^2. There's a power of 2 on the area. So a larger valve will have less contact area in proportion to the volume, assuming the thickness is the same. There is indeed some sense in the smaller exhaust valve running cooler theory. Or is that what you and NM are saying? It's been a long evening in the pub! Cheers, Richard

HOLD ON!!! According to Paul Richardson's article on Dennis Barbet, page 70 of the October 2006 edition of the Courier, Dennis joined Standard-Triumph in summer 1961. It couldn't have been him who did the trunnion oiling work for the Herald, because that was 1959. Confused, Richard

A bit like these Clive? Cheers, Richard

I keep thinking about cutting a seal out of Viton sheet so I can pop in a warmer thermostat in winter and a cooler in summer, without having to use a new paper seal each time. Having a slightly warmer thermostat makes a big difference to the cabin heater! Cheers, Richard

How about studs - or longer bolts with a nut - to pull down the H-frame, then put the chrome bolt in once the carpet's compressed? Cheers, Richard

Thanks Guys. Will do battle with my Courier DVD index when I get a moment and see what comes up. If Bern knows, that would be great. On-Line searchable data base sounds excellent - lots of work but big dividends. Thanks again, Richard

Make no mistake, I use oil on the Spit trunions and always advise others to do the same. However, I am interested in the changeover from grease in earlier Standard cars and the reasons for the change. Do you have the date or or the edition of that Courier please Dave? The basic layout of the front suspension of Standard cars in the 50's is the same as ours - vertical links with lower trunions. The only difference is they had Burman recirculating ball steering boxes rather than racks - probably because they were tied in because of a supply contract. The service interval for greasing trunions on the Atlas, Atlas Major and I believe all Standard cars in the 50's including the TR2 & 3 was 1000 miles. The TR4 of 1961was 1500 miles. This was extended to 3000 miles for the Leyland 15 of 1963 (a re-branded Atlas Major), but the trunions, vertical links and the grease specified were all the same as the earlier van according to the parts catalogues. By 1967, the TR5 specified OIL every 6000 miles, and this was the same so far as I know for the Herald family from 1959 right through to the end of Spit production in 1980. So, was the main driver for these changes to extend the service intervals? Was there some internal design change to the trunions for oil lubrication, which meant that the TR4 and Leyland 15 remained on the grease regime, despite Dennis Barbet's work? I'll probably find out when I read that Courier article. Cheers, Richard

Adrian, I've never seen one before - well, not on a Spit anyway. But I bet a previous owner put it there to stop the "Womble's Nose" in the carpet which the gear stick emerges from getting cut by any sharp edges on the ball joint below. I wish I'd done something like that to protect my carpet Cheers, Richard

I'm confused - it's the same (rated) current in each wire - the high beam wire takes its current, and the low beam takes its current. The ground wire takes the combined current - I seem to recall this is a slightly larger diameter. The cables from the battery to the switch take the combined current, but have much larger CSA (Cross Section Area) and therefore much higher rating. Cheers, Richard

I think that's how they do it Doug. It means you don't break the current to the dip when you flash, which should (marginally) prolong the life of the bulbs and, because it's only momentary, you won't over heat the lamps. Well, that's the theory! Cheers, Richard

Thanks NM. I've got this nagging feeling the windscreeens were a different height (slightly taller) for the later cars (Mk4/1500 Spits and Mk3 GT6) compared to earlier models (Mk1/2/3 Spits & Mk1/2 GT6). Anyone care to comment? Cheers, Richard

Paul - no, you keep the Spitfire glass and door channels. The front edge of the glass against the windscreen isn't the problem. But the Mk4/1500 models have the angular profile at the top and back that fits the roof line/B post of the GT6. The earlier models have a rounded profile at the top and back and leave a big gap - it would be a bit draughty! People fit GT6 doors to Mk4/1500 Spits - you get a Spit with quarter lights. The reverse is true - a GT6 with no quarter lights. Cheers, Richard

I think you'll find the door shells are the same across all Spit/GT6 models - just the exterior handle differs. (There may be some detail in the door catch, but I'm not familiar with this.) But the door glass must be Mk4 or 1500 to fit the GT6 door opening. Cheers, Richard

Bob, do you back into your garage? If so it might be the tracking - maybe excessive toe-out which causes tuck-under when reversing. If not then it sounds like a lowering block would be a cheaper way of doing things. It just bolts between the spring and diff. The trouble with new springs is they seem to be a bit of a lottery and the swing spring, being for the lighter Spitfire, is already going to be a bit soft for a Herald/Vitesse saloon or estate. Cheers, Richard

Are Picton Sportscars too far away from you? Jnc. 25 of M25. Cheers, Richard PS: Satisfied customer - no other connection. I'm not on commission!

Just to add to NM & Clive's comments, I would say your choice of 2000 or 2500 partly depends on your driving style. The 2-litre engine rewards enthusiastic use of the gearbox, but the torquey 2500 suits a more ... ummm? ... lazy driving style - like mine in fact! Well, that's my view. If it has the saloon gearbox with its wide ratios then that's a good combination. Triumph did the same trick on the 1500 Spit. You'll have to declare any modifications to the insurer, but I would think the club's panel are all used to these sort of engine swaps and it won't make too much difference. Cheers, Richard