NonMember

Would love to say it would be worth a try but even a Vitesse convertible isn't sporty enough for them. No chance on a 1200 saloon.

I'm with Colin on the principle of the thing. And of the above list, only the silicone brake fluid (which is a consumable FLUID, not a part of the car) appears on more than one of my Triumphs. Only the spin-on oil filter conversion (fitted by a previous owner) and the electronic stabiliser (because NOBODY sells the original type any more) are fitted to any of them.

Shame a Herald isn't on my brother's / nephew's potential project list. Anyone know of a similarly project-worthy roundtail Spitfire?

Hear hear. Must drive Tessa to work today.

No, but my first and middle name combo is that of a vaguely similar historical figure.

Hi Kevin, I think you've got me Let the others have a guess if they want but I'll start signing my posts at the weekend. Cheers, ???

My Vitesse has a working puny reverse light AND a period Lucas 5" spot. It's very nice when reversing. The MOT man has never queried it so far and come the new rules in May the car doesn't need an MOT so I doubt he'll quibble then, either.

Thanks for the welcom, everyone. My GT6 is a Mk3, 1972 rotoflex version.

Might as well introduce myself. I was a TSSC member many years ago when I had a Mk1 Vitesse saloon, a Herald estate, and later a Spit Mk3 and a GT6. I left and moved to another club after I bought a Dolomite, a TR7 and a 2500S (and because reasons - no need to dig that up). I've also owned two other Dolomites, a Stag, a 2.5PI and a Toledo. These days I'm back down to the Spit, the GT6 and a different Mk1 Vitesse. I signed up for this forum to see how it compares with the vastly disimproved other one I used to follow until the beginning of this year. So far it's looking quite good. Mr. Anonymous but probably easily identifiable to a few people here (I'll quit the anonymous thing when somebody does)

Well, indeed. And being an engineer myself (motorsport software but with a road car background) I have over-thought it enough to arrive at the opposite conclusion from Mark Like he said in his last post, the primary control of the engine temperature is by the thermostat, which works well if the "actuator" it's using has a consistent efficacy. Since it uses the bottom hose water as its "actuator", the efficacy depends on the bottom hose temperature, so the role of the fan is to maintain that at a good level. Hence the thermoswitch should be in the bottom hose. Most modern cars actually use the temperature of the coolant in the engine but that's just for cost reasons. The ECU needs to know that temperature for Very Important Stuff (relating to emissions) and a fan driver in the ECU is a lot cheaper than a second sensor.

I used Cambridge Rebores for the head refurb on my Toledo, on the recommendation of a former colleague who had used them for MG engines. They seem to be good and trustworthy, slightly more helpful in some ways than Ivor Searle in Soham (although I ended up using the latter for the Vitesse's new block rebore).

I used the Comma stuff as running-in oil when I rebuilt the Vitesse engine. It was decidedly past its best after less than 2000 miles. Replaced it with Penrite, which is much better.