NonMember

Ah ha! That broken black wire is the connection to the coil. If that's not there you get no spark. If it's hanging on by a thread you probably get a very weak spark. Quite likely to be your problem, I suspect. As to a repair, you need to fit the correct type of connector on the end. You can probably pull through enough extra for a proper cut back, strip and crimp. Try to leave a small "wiggle" in the wire once fitted, because the plate that the points are fitted to moves with the vacuum advance, so the wire has to flex and you want to make that easier.

Back when mine were still original (before I had to repair the roof in 1993) I think they were something like that. I don't have any close-up detail photos, though, and my memory isn't that good to say whether the profile is just so.

Those are some very neat brake lines!

Hello Amanda, My Spitfire is Damask. It's not an original Triumph colour (it's a BMC one) but it's very close to Triumph Damson... at least one version thereof. That would be code 17 on the commission plate. But as others have said, reds fade, so it's unlikely to be a perfect match.

I know a couple near Buckingham who know their Triumphs (and other cars) fairly well, having owned more than most. I don't think they're on here but if it looks like restrictions are easing before you sort it out yourself then I could ask them.

155/80 is the original spec and works well if you're "pootling" (for somebody's definition of pootle). 175/70 works out to be the same rolling radius, within a gnat's, and is good for rotoflex cars. 165/80 is a little taller but a good compromise if you feel the gearing is OK. I don't think you'd really notice that difference - I didn't on the GT6.

Not quite sure what you mean here. Yes, the original has a narrow bit against which the spring and top brass rest, but that's not the only possible solution. The spring could act directly on both brass bits, the plastic tube serves only to insulate this from the boss. The tube doesn't move in the boss because the top contact rests against the horn push, which is fixed in the boss. A dab of glue applied to the side of the top contact on assembly will hold it in place to the tube well enough. It doesn't even need to be strong glue.

The "pencil" needs to be adequately sprung and the right length for your boss. It's likely your after-market boss is a different depth to the original. With a bit of ingenuity it's possible to fabricate a custom "pencil" out of the remains of your broken one, some alternative springs, and a dead biro.

That number relates to the base engine change (HC5000 is normally quoted) and hence the shape of the operating arm, since the pump moved down the block a bit. The "later" pump was still a glass bowl type. The metal cap change was much later - possibly even beyond the end of Vitesse production. Strangely, the glass bowl type seemed to remain current for the 2000 saloon well into the 1970s - certainly my 2500S had one.

The ones I did I found that the new valves could be secured just by drifting them in. I think I'd managed to remove the old valves without fully removing the staking, so it behaved like a clip. Perhaps I was just lucky.

😁 Well, you may be able to do it quicker but you really don't want to weld until you're sure there's no petrol vapour left. I've read a theory that it's possible to render the fuel vapour safe by flooding the tank with inert gas (CO2 or welding shield gas) while welding but it seems to me you'd need a LOT of gas flow to ensure that's all there was inside the tank. Plus, of course, the weld is unlikely to be completely sealed, so you then need to use the "repair kit" that Paul mentioned. I would raise a note of caution on that - unless you get it exactly right, the lining paint will flake off and block your pick-up pipe. My local radiator repair place told me they no longer do fuel tanks precisely because they had that problem too often.

That's what I was afraid would happen. If the tank is otherwise good, it can be left to ventilate for a year or two then it will be safe to weld a repair patch 😛

Early Mk1 2L uses the 1600 pump, the later ones are different but only in the shape of the actuating lever. The engine change was early - HC5000 - so a lot of suppliers only list the later parts for 2L and treat the early engines as 1600. The exception seems to be crankshaft bearings, which isn't helped by the official WSM quoting pre-5000 dimensions for all Mk1 engines and the later for only Mk2.

Judging the quality of the spark can be tricky but it does sound like you're maybe not getting a strong enough one. That's likely to be caused by a combination of points, condenser and coil, though I see you've changed the coil. As Clive says, your rotor arm probably isn't helping either. Unlike him, though, I'd say you should try new points and condenser. The odds are the ones currently fitted are not original quality either, and I've found new parts generally OK for Lucas disis. That carb leak is common on SUs and can be fiddly to fix - I had to have a few goes before my Spitfire settled down. One of the problems is that the "O-ring" (it's actually a square section rubber washer) only achieves a proper seal if the flexible pipe is fitted just so - not quite bottomed out in the housing before tightening the nut.

The usual advice regarding removal of the tank drain plug is don't. It's usually rusted in more strongly than the hole is welded to the tank.

Interesting. The surface does look quite heavily micro-pitted, suggesting that the acid has attacked the alloy to some extent, but it's not obvious that it's a problem.

That sounds an excellent line of research. You're a proper science type 😁 (Although I don't expect anyone here to get the oblique Japanese anime reference)

Pete's list is good. The most likely reason for a car that used to run to have no spark, assuming you haven't dismantled it in the mean time, is corrosion on the points, followed by a broken wire. If you have a Delco disi the earth lead for the base plate is a weak point, and the coil LT connection to the points can fall off. Lucas are better but still can suffer similar failures.

Hmmm... a quick Google showed up two completely contradictory pages. One said that phosphoric acid "strongly attacks aluminium", suggesting that would be a very bad idea. The other said it's "no good to prepare for painting" because there is an impermeable layer of aluminium oxide which phosphoric acid has no effect on. Perhaps, as all good scientific papers conclude, "further research is called for"!

Lots of people claim to have had fuel vaporisation problems but very few have provided any evidence. It's usually something else. One thing you can do to test is pour some cold water on things. Get the car into its rough running / not starting condition. Pour cold water over the fuel pipe and pump. If it instantly runs much better then you have vaporisation. If not, you need to look elsewhere.

I believe they're pretty simple inside and can often be resurrected just by dismantling, cleaning and reassembling. The screw adjuster thing in the middle top is supposed to set the spring tension against the magnetic force - you "tune" it to maximize the sensitivity and volume. Whether it's worth doing is not for me to say - it depends how bored you are 😉

Well, Dave, I've got thirty years of engine control design experience for both road cars and race cars. I also do work for a vacuum science specialist (former rocket scientist) who would laugh at our use of the term "vacuum" here. The crankcase breather system on the 13/60 and PI is "closed" but not "positive". They don't use vacuum. More modern cars often have a split breather system, with a big vent before the throttle (atmospheric to all intents) and a very small one after the throttle. The objective is to encourage some flow, to help extract the blow-by gasses, not to achieve a "vacuum".

Yes, the system as you describe is equivalent to the 13/60 Herald system - feed to just behind the air filter with no noticeable vacuum. The system John showed - used on Mk1 Vitesse and Mk3 Spitfire among others - is a "positive crankcase ventilation" system using the manifold vacuum but with a regulator. It ought, as John says, to be somewhat tolerant of cap removal because the regulator minimises the air flow thus achieved. My Vitesse certainly doesn't stall completely if I remove the cap. Late Spitfires like Mark's feed the rocker cover breather into the carbs, where the tapping goes into the constant depression chamber. Again, this is inteded to limit the vacuum applied in the crankcase. With these, though, removing the cap feeds in air to the critical place in the carb and completely messes up your fuelling. I'm not surprised Mark found it stalled. If you want to run without the rocker cover (for tappet checks) on such an engine, you need to put a plug in the breather hose. The "local member's engine" that scrapman mentioned probably had a faulty PCV, as John described.

On a Mk1 Vitesse, maybe. Perhaps on a Mk3 GT6. Not on a 13/60 with the breather to the air filter. I never tried it on my PI.

The air plenum (or the filter housing as on 13/60 Heralds) gives practically no depression at all, certainly not enough to make a gnat's difference to crankcase pressure. All it does is draw the gasses that do vent into the engine. John is right on this.