Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by chrishawley

  1. GT6 Mk3 with roto. Due to operator suboptimality ('cock up') I'm going to have to re-do the drive shafts in my GT6. I have a collection of roto shafts/hubs some from Vitesse some from GT6. But I don't know which is which. AFAIK they should be fully interchangeable. Although the Vitesse has a narrower track than the GT6 this is due to chassis dimensions not the drive units themselves. I'd appreciate advice to confirm (or disconfirm) that I could use the best of the units irrespective of whether they were originally V or G. Any advice on this point? Many thanks in advance C
  2. This is completely solvable! Been there and done it (several times). Because this is a recurring problem with GT6s I posted a procedure for attaching the venting complete with photos. Can't re-post right now because the files are on my other computer which I've not got with me at the moment. But should be in the archive under search terms 'bodywork' , 'GT6', 'vent', 'ducting'. If it can't be found let me know and I can re-post later on. If you need a photo of the NS vent freshly fitted I could send you one but that would have to be tomorrow. Just to check a) that you do have the GT6 heater box and not a Spitfire one which lacks the two bottom outlets b) and that you have the correct bits for attachment to the parcel shelf - namely the hoop (like a Terry clip) that goes round the eyeball assembly and the special angled bracket which attaches to 'hoop' to the rail on the shelf - this bracket is handed but left and right are easily mixed up. The Canley picture from the parts manual is misleading because it implies that the footwell eyeball points down to the ground. Correct is more like 45 degrees to the left of the car and 45 degrees toward the rear. This can definitely be sorted out! Let me know if you need me to repost.
  3. Super. Thanks. TCs were absolutely shot as predicted. Also note that I'm losing oil from the rear dashpot. So looks like a full scale strip/rebuild is in order. But I'm a lot further forward than I was so thanks for the advice. Cheers C
  4. Thank you. Much appreciated as always. I'll cross check the timing static now I know there's a method but it looks like 8BTDC idle on the strobe has got me in the right area (unlike 'other advice' which had me at 4ATDC dynamic at idle). Next step carbs. Is your preference to shut down the TempComps and leave them that way permanently? Or just to shut them down to establish a better state of tune and then set them up correctly again? Cheers C
  5. I know this problem from a GT6 perspective, which is to say that the leading edge of the drop glass runs of at an angle to the desired line. The solution was eventually found by examining the window lift mechanism. The center, triangular piece held by two bolts, has leeway for a certain amount of adjustment allowing the glass to be tilted. Adjusting this tilt corrected the problem on the GT6. I know Spit lift mechanism is not exactly the same as GT6 but it might be worth looking at this to see if the same principle applies. Apart from being adjustable the other thing about the forward and rear glass channels is the condition of the felt running strips. Again speaking from GT6 experience old/worn felts don't control the movement of the glass sufficiently and some replacement felts are too fat so the glass doesn't run freely or correctly. I can provide measurements off my neverbeenwelded Spit if you need. Do message me if I can help with this. C
  6. Addendum to prev post. Only just occurred to me that that the electronic module is getting its power feed piggybacked off the + terminal of the coil. (red wire) This may well mark out that unit as requiring a 12v power feed - which may be why that ballast resistor was removed in the first place. In which case the power pick up the EM would need to be from the 'in' side of a ballast resistor (12v) rather than the + ve of the coil which would now only have 6v.
  7. If you've got two wires coming out of the loom then presumably this is an early GT6 with (or did have) the external ballast resistor. One wire should be white (to the 'in' side of the resistor) and the other should be white/yellow (to the 'out' side of the resistor). Later GT6s has resistance wire built into the loom so there's only one wire, white/yellow, going to the coil. The coil for a ballasted system is designed to run on 6 volts and has a resistance across the primary windings of approx 1.5 ohms The coil for a non ballasted system is designed to run on 12 v and has a resistance across the primary windings of approx 3 ohms If the coil is getting silly hot then the setup maybe feeding 12v to a coil intended for a ballasted setup which ought only to be receiving only 6v. Proceed with confidence - there's no potential for doing any damage here. For myself I would * Check voltage at white wire to be 12v (i.e. not been messed around with by PO). White/yellow wire will only have volatge when engine cranking) • Check ohms across coil. If 1.5 ohm then install ballast resistor as a necessity. If 3.0 ohms the either a) leave as is, as a non-ballasted system or b) replace with correct coil and install ballast resistor. By a, modest, margin ballasted systems are better than non-ballasted. Somewhat better starting under cold cranking conditions and more reliable spark at high revs due to lower inductance. But it's not big a deal; there's plenty of pre 1970 cars run perfectly nicely on non-ballasted systems. P.S, If installing a BR the two wires need to be the right way round on the resistor otherwise the resistor will be bypassed and it'll be 12 v all the time.
  8. Previous help through the Forum got me in the right direction regarding ignition timing. With the car nearly ready to hit the road I trying to firm up on something a bit more precise. Additional 'advice' in the meantime (not TSSC) has been conflicting. Current situ': GT6 with 2500 'MM' prefix engine with the softest of the cams Lucas distributor (not sure which of the four) with accuspark Stromberg 150 CDSEs - from a 2000 - fitted unmodified and seem fine. Carb balance good, mixture roughly in the right place Engine starts, idles and revs nicely. Not driven yet. ROM says 8 or 10 degrees BTDC static for an MM engine. But I can't do static because the accuspark. So...I've tried 8 degrees BTDC with strobe on the supposition (? correct) that below 900rpm the centrifugal will be giving negligible advance and the dynamic advance will be the same as the static. From there if retard the ignition to say 6 degrees BTDC the idle revs drop off quite sharply. If I advance further to say 12 BTDC revs don't increase but the engine begins to fluff. So does that add up to 8 BTDC (dynamic, idle, vac off)) being about the spot to go for? My other supposition is that I can't really get optimum settings until it's on the road; perhaps using the vernier to tweak it up to the first point of pinking and then adjusting back from there. I'd really appreciate some reality checking here so thanks in advance. C
  9. Recently had a tailgate glass seal from Paddocks. Absolutely fine. It looks as though the outer face of the seal doesn't sit flat enough in the corners but checking against an unmnolested original that is in fact correct.
  10. Blind rivets ('pop rivets') are the appropriate fastener for this application. Threaded fasteners for the male part of the popper is perfectly feasible where there is easy access to both sides of the job. But for the doors trying to get nuts on the inside could entail hours of misery and bleeding knuckles. So, what isn't working? a) Blind rivets most commonly come in 1/32 inch diameter intervals measured in metric e.g. 2.4mm, 3.2mm 4.0mm. One size too small doesn't look like much of a difference in the hand but it's the difference between working and not working. I would not trust Rimmers to send the right size rivet. b) The rivet should be a loose interference fit or very slight clearance fit in the hole in the fixed part of the work (bodywork in this case). If the rivet is loose in the hole it will tend to pull through rather than pulling up tight. c) Poppers may have been drilled out a number of the times over the life of a vehicle and thus the holes have gone oversize. If the next size (diameter) up rivet can't be used as a substitute then options include i) use a rivet backing washer (readily available) on the inside of the fixed part where there is access. ii) use a peel or 'peeling' blind rivet where access is not possible: When compressed the shank deforms like the petals of a flower giving support around an otherwise oversize hole. Not so easy to get hold of but Spaldings do them. Screwfix do an very good mixed pack of 900 (plain) blind rivets for £15. Various diameters and lengths covering pretty much everything a Triumph owner could want. Cheers C
  11. Could I ask for some help with this simple inquiry? The task in hand is to refit the door cards and the drop glass winder handle. I've got the bits (handle, pin, escutcheon, conical spring and small circular foam seal) but can't deduce from the parts book the correct order/position of fitting. Does the spring go behind the door card and if so is it pointy end in or out? Similarly, where does the foamy seal fit in relation to everything else. Hardly a crucial matter but any tips to get this 'just so' would be much appreciated. Thanks Chris
  12. I imagine this has been well discussed previously. But here goes: While pondering whether to declare the Spitfire 1500 MOT exempt the MOT fell due. So I had it done. During the process of testing one rear brake showed inadequate braking and then a further push of the pedal locked the brake full on. Having got the car home the problems were self-evident; seized wheel cylinder and incorrectly fitted shoes. Duly fixed. The MOT was definitely worth it.
  13. Spitfire 1500 with single rail, overdrive, box. Possibly originally a Dolomite box. Issue is this: Box is making a fizzy/rumbly noise at idle which disappears when clutch is depressed. So I'm assuming likely cause is input shaft front bearing. Probably go for an exchange-recon box. Gearbox in and out no problem for me. But removing and replacing the o.d. unit is not something I've ever done. I messed up badly when replacing the o.d. on my GT6 and had give the whole assembly to a specialist to make good. Haynes makes the process sound easy peasy. But what in practice are the likely obstacles to trouble free removal and replacement? Any advice would be much appreciated. Thnx
  14. Leading the channel. What I did was: • Used a low melting point solder i.e. body solder • Break into crumbs, place in channel and melt in with torch until channel full to brim • Once cool (ish) bend to shape in the pre-formed..errr.. former. • Melt out solder into mash pot for future re-use • Channel now rusty, so dipped in hydrochloric acid, wash, then Jenolite. Painted a/r. I'll get that bit of of seal off to you, at least that's something definite to work from. Regs C
  15. Had a rootle around and here's some further info • The OE length of the seal was 35 inches as supplied. But the fitted length is shorter than that on later models • See photos: The seal is 1/4 inch at its root and 3/8th at base which makes the external width of the channel approx 7/16th. After much searching I eventually found some preformed channel from a Morris Minor which could then be adapted to GT6 purposes. It's the 'lower door seal retaining channel'. Can't remember who was the supplier though. To bend it to shape I made a curved jig then filled the channel with lead which allowed it to be bent without collapsing. Less good news on the rubber. I've only got enough for one length. But if one is better than nothing I could pop it in the post. Just let me know your details (via a message, not in the posting) and I'll do it. Hope this gets you a bit further forward. Cheers Chris
  16. Don't bin the alternator, it could be fine. If you completely disconnect an alternator then there will be no current going TO the alternator, from the battery via the ignition warning light, to energise the field coils. Hence no magnetism, so no generation of volts or amps. That's a simplification but it'll do. Just as well really as an energised alternator running with no load can self destruct pretty instantly. One option for a basic test of an alternator is: 1) Measure battery voltage with ignition off. Should 12.something volts. 12.6 for example 2) Start car, warm up, and run at a slightly fast idle. Measure voltage across battery again. Should be significantly higher than previous figure, say 14.4volts. With few exceptions an alternator that passes that test is fine. C
  17. All GT6s has the extra sill seal up to and including post 20000 (non roto). A minor detail was that at some point they were shortened by a couple of inches. As per part no. 711537/8 the extra seal is retained in the hockey stick u-channel which is welded to the sill and a-post base filler section. Unsurprisingly 711537/8 are utterly unavailable. I do have a jig for making them but it's a time consuming process even then. Welding them on is tricky as well, since it involves getting tiny plug welds down the base of the channel on to the sill, although blind rivets would be a possible method of attachment. I don't know about Canley's but Rimmers list '620656' as this seal and it bears no relationship to the shape it should be. Photo shows what it should be (that's a NOS specimen) but you probably know that already from the originals on your car. (That yours have managed to stay glued on for so long is a credit to glue!). Obviously, these seals aren't essential but ones that are the wrong shape are much worse than useless. At one point I had a 5m roll of a good facsimile of the seal. I could see if I've got any left for you.
  18. Glad you've got a workable result and that it's proved relatively simple. That seems to tally with the theoretical considerations --- doing a bit of maths on your measurements the effect of removing the shim is (approx.) to shift the rear track from 1/32th (ish) toe out to 1/32th (ish) toe in for the kerb condition. So that's in range by the specs. Cheers C
  19. I had a look at various books to get some more insight into this. Some points I picked up are: • Although alignment is best done in the laden condition Triumph did specify measurements for the kerb condition, namely: rear 1/32 to 3/32 in. toe in. Front 1/16 to 1/8th toe in. • The tolerance between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ is 1/16th in. - pretty fine measurements • Haynes (for both gt6 and spit) says ‘don’t do this at home, specialist equipment required’. • Rear wheel alignment uses the front wheels as the datum. So where to go from here? I would suggest that a way forward is to set the front toe in. The procedure is: Set front wheel is straight ahead position. A U-shaped jig will now be required to pass under the car a measure the distance between the rear lip of the wheel (not the tyre). Measure this distance. Rotate wheel by 180 degrees. Then measure distance between the (now) leading edges of the wheels. This difference between the measurements is the toe in (or out). Adjust the track rods to bring the toe in to 1/16 to 1/8th. Track rods should be equalised for length (same number of free threads). This should now give a datum condition for the front wheels. Using a long straight edge and spacers it should now be possible to transpose this angle (off the straight ahead) to the rear wheels. If the rear wheels can be made to be in line with each corresponding front wheel then that gets to close to the correct adjustment. From there the rear wheel needs to have just a tad more toe out (maybe 1/32 each wheel) The overall picture here is to get the front wheels right then adjust the rear wheels to them . I hope the above makes sense but I can imagine others more experienced than myself may have better or quicker suggestions. It’s a bit of guess why the measurements changed so much just with torquing things up. But one possibility is that if the bracket areas have been heavily painted then squeezing this up can make quite a difference. I get his impression that getting the final good result is going to involve careful assessment of the entire steering and suspension system. Any help? Cheers C
  20. To take a step back; there are 8 points of adjustment on a Spitfire suspension; Namely: left and right rear radius arms, shims (2), front and rear of lower front wishbones, shims (4), track rod ends, threads (2). That's leaving aside the steering rack itself. If the car has been reassembled by persons unknown then it's quite possible that nothing has been set correctly, a lot of unknowns. And another unknown on POs restoration is how well the chassis was checked for true or whether it was just thought to 'look ok'. That a PO would fit the brake shoes incorrectly does less than inspire confidence in anything else! Hopefully adjusting the rear toe in will produce a good result. But if not then it may be necessary to look at the suspension and steering geometry in its entirety - possibly involving laser alignment (££s). On the rear the camber may need to be considered; This is not separately adjustable but deviation may indicate bush wear or spring weakness/failure. On the front is there any evidence that the camber and castor have been correctly attended to? The inner ends of the lower wishbones would be shimmed according to requirement. The Spit 1500 ops manual implies that castor is not adjustable separately but the GT6 manual says it is (which it is!). A Spitfire should handle perfectly well and be perfectly stable under all usual driving situations. Steering should (by comparison to moderns) feel heavy at low speed and still quite firm even at speed. I'm none to sure about the unequal mix of tyres. While probably not the root of the problem they don't help in sorting it out. With a set of Toyo 155/80s available for under £120 it might be worth replacing the tyres simply to eliminate this aspect from the equation. I think I'd also add a thought about the centre-line of a vehicle: From the suspension's point of view the center line can be defined as the line perpendicular to the midpoint of the distance between the driving wheels. This may or may not correspond to the center line of the bodywork. Thus on a heavily restored vehicle body features such as sills/wheel arches may or may not provide very precise datum points for measurement. Or to put it another way; toe-in is more precisely defined by the relation of one wheel to the other rather than the relationship of each wheel to the bodywork. I hope you get an easy resolution without recourse to more detailed investigation. C P.S. I'll have four 155s going spare soon. Rather old but still usable. £0. Near Hitchin
  21. As a baseline setting I use 7 - 10 lpm and adjust from there if special circumstances require.
  22. The original stuff would have been a butyl, non-setting, sealant putty. OE may have been Glasticon or Sealistik; these being variations similar to the once ubiquitous DumDum. Alas DumDum is no more. Banned a few years ago because of chemical nasties. The best substitute I've found is Arbomast windscreen sealant (readily available). This is runnier than DumDum but if some is sqeezed out of the tube (say the size of a golf ball) and left to air dry for a couple of days it will firm up without ever hardening completely. On the radius arm attachments the point of a non-setting butyl sealant is to resist water leaking into the rear footwells by capillary attraction behind the bracket and along the bolts. Applicable in a great many other situations where water creep is a possibility.
  23. Time to ask for some help again. Mk 3 GT6: I need to replace the door drop glass. I've got new glass and undamaged channels on the old units, which I can prise off. What's a good way to get the glass to be tightly gripped in the channel so it doesn't come out. Last time I did this a few years ago on a Herald the glass would work loose periodically and hence go up but not down. Any suggestions on how to get a good result here? Cheers C
  24. Thanks. Being a very early Mk3 it has static belts and I'm the proud owner of a NOS set (719913) ready to fit. So something to hang them off is a bit of a necessity. Stag ones look like a useful substitute. For £11 nothing too loose by giving them a go. Cheers C
  • Create New...