chrishawley

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

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

As a baseline setting I use 7 - 10 lpm and adjust from there if special circumstances require.

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.

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

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

Having refitted the interior of the GT6 I find I am missing the seat belt stowage hooks. Nope, nothing left in the box of bits that was the car when it came to me. Could any kind soul send me a a photo of some so I know what they are supposed to look like and where exactly they mount? I don't imagine that finding any proper ones will be easy so any suggestions on good enough 'lookalikes' would be greatly welcomed. All help much appreciated as ever. Cheers C

Yup, they'll go either way up according to what gets the mirror to sit at the correct angle. Often it'll be fat side down on a Spit/GT6. But.... Not all plinths from all suppliers are the same; some are shallow, others have a very deep angle. So it really is trial and error.

Thanks for the instruction on where to fit the earth. I am now fully earthed. Only impediment is not having a rear window which conducts any electricity! Yup, purples to light , BW to the HRW. Cheers C

Can anyone advise of where the HRW on a GT6 is earthed? I've got the two short wires (black/white) running under the glass rubber. Positive side is sorted (Lucar connector to purple adjacent to the hinge). But I don't have anything for the earth-side Lucar to connect to. I was expecting there to be a black to run earth back down to the sub-loom in the left rear wing. Seemingly not so. Any suggestions what the 'correct' connection to earth should be? Of course, any good earth will do, but 'correct' would be nice! Thnx C

Could anyone put me right on this: Which way round does the seal on the reverse of the screen frame go? Is it bead inward (photo a) or bead outward (photos b)? I'm presuming it's 'a' but I'm happy to be corrected. Advice appreciated. Cheers C

I used RAL9005 which is about as black as black gets. Hope you get a good result. C

I'll have a look for the code I used tomorrow. C

James, My September 1977 Spitfire ('S' reg) with all it's original fittings has 4.5Js with the 'proud and sharp' shoulder. If buying check the stamping around the periphery of the nave plate which should be exactly: 4.5 x 13 x 88 B8C Dunlop symbol 957 312046 ..and no stamping of the wheel webs. By contrast my 1970 GT6 has the 'soft profile' with LP957 stamped on the web. Hope that helps. C

Yup, it's 9 clips. And, yes, they fit on the wheel arch side so better though of as deflectors rather than seals. The 'ear' on the rubber should tuck on to the corner of the wheel arch. Even with the most careful fitting they're never that neat; they never were! I have a metal template I can loan to anyone who wants to make their own. I used 2mm mess reinforced rubber - much tougher that the feeble reproductions from most suppliers.

This is one for the connosieur! They are all proper Dunlop wheels but the pressing varied ever so slightly over the years from 1970 to 1980. If you look carefully at the shoulder of the oval holes you will see they differ. The early one have shallow, soft shoulders; Whereas later (e.g. 1978) have a more proud shoulder with sharper edges. Otherwise are completely interchangeable except although it's nice to have a fully matching set on a car. (P.S. I have one 5J wheel for sale on ebay but needs a bit of work). (P.P.S) All Mk3 Gt6s and spitfires have 4.5J wheels except the very last Spitfires which had 5J. 5.5J were never a triumph option.

Going back to the stem of this thread. A blob (or two) would be a good thing to do. Originally the wishbones did indeed have two blobs of weld to lock the head end of the bolt (such that one only needs a socket on one end to tighten things up). But with repeated reassembly they get worn off. My experience of aftermarket trunnion kits has been truly appalling. So pay the money and get either NOS Stanpart, QH, or GKN (plenty around) or go polyurethane on an SS tube. No worth skimping on a safety critical component!

Quite a lot of possibilities here. Oversize wheel/tyres can easily foul the arches but since you mention you have a standard set up (4.5J wheel with a 145/80 or 155/80 tyre) this can be discounted. Roughly speaking the correct ride height at the front should be such that one's stretched out fingers can slide in horizontally between the apex of tyre and the lip of the wheel arch. Much less than this, or if the wheel is sitting 'inside' the arch, all is not ok. If they have never been replaced on the car then fatigued springs is a possibility (more noticable on drivers side which carries more weight most of the time). Deteriorated anti-roll bar bushes or links can produce fouling problems like this because the roll isn't controlled. Other things to check might be; • All four inner wishbone bushes (inspect and lever strongly with pry bar to check for free play) • Check ball joint for free play. • Worth checking for problems in the trunnion. Would need to remove the bolt and inspect the bushes. Also the the trunnion bolt holes in the lower wishbone can develop extreme wear and allow the vertical link to flop around. I couldn't say that any one of those things in necessarily the cause, but given what you describe a pretty comprehensive examination of the suspension units is called for. Hope that's a bit of help.

The tags on the floats give the unique carb idenity. AUD480 is Austin 1300, years 71 - 72. AUD104 (pair) is Mini Copper years 64 - 69 Mini/Austin carbs are not necessarily a straightforward interchange for similar HS2/HS4s on Heralds//Spitfires due to the float chamber be angled to the main body of the carb. As for the manifold. No idea!

Any luck with the bonnet adjustment? C

BONDAPRIMER!!! Certainly for storage protection of metal parts it's ideal. Brushable, sprayable (thinned) or available in rattle can. Once dry does not interact with any other materials used in refinishing. Cheapest place is usually Kawstore (01775 766 886). Only needs a very thin coat which is then easily removed (sand or wipe with thinners) when it comes to fully prepping panels for painting. Picking up a related point: There are no Red (Lead containing) oxide primers anymore. Lead was banned from paint yonks ago. Sure, there are red coloured primers (e.g. UPol 'red oxide') but these are not corrosion inhibiting at all. On another related point: Phosphoric acid based anti-corrosion products (e.g Phos-Kleen B, Jenolite) are excellent used within their limitations. The limitation is that they do not remove rust but rather convert it to iron-phosphate which remains on the surface. On heavily corroded surfaces rust can remain under the iron-phosphate surface. Phosphoric acid products are really useful as part of an overall approach but don't substitute (despite what advertisers imply) for physical removal (DA, cup brush etc etc) of rust as much as is humanly possible.

Hmmm. Could be simple, could be complicated. To start at the most conservative end: 1) What is the target for the gap to be? The scuttle to bonnet gap should, by the book, be 5/32 to 3/16 inch. But in reality the correct gap is the one that just nips up the two edge fitted rubber buffers on the trailing lip of the bonnet. If there are absent on your vehicle then it's worth fitting some as they give a defined position at which the bonnet should sit. 2) Slacken off both the bonnet buffer cones (1/2 in. AF spanner) and their respective buffer plates (Cross head No10 unf screw). By having these four pieces slack they will not dictate the bonnet position as one adjusts at the hinge boxes. 3) Check that the pivot carriers are firmly tight to the hinge boxes and not slack. Then, even if there is no visible further forward adjustment in the slot of the pivot carrier there maybe just enough free play such that as the bonnet is closed downwards the 'push' from the rubber buffers (as in #1) will gain an extra 1 - 2mm of movement (if possible aided by another operator giving a tug from the front) .I hope that's a little bit helpful. I spent ages getting my bonnet right so do post again if you don't get a solution. C

Can't comment of Spit3 badges specifically but in general this is par for the course where repro items are concerned. Be it Minis, VW transporters or Jags I've had the same experience repeatedly - repro stuff never fits from the box. C

As above, Mk IVs (and GT6 IIIs) had black wing trims and bright chrome (horseshoes) and stainless steel (lips) rear surrounds. The 1500's had shiny black all over expect door handles which were mid-satin. The black is black chrome. Same as regular silver chrome but using additional salts in the electroplating. Black chroming is still used for cosmetic finishing but places that do it are few and far between and I don't know of any that will help will small scale jobs. But the finish can be exactly replicated using 2-pack spray in gloss. A paint factor will supply something form the RAL chart which is 'the blackest black available' (I have the exact code but would have to look it up). A fine touch-in spray gun would be needed with an 0.8mm or smaller needle. Surface would need to be keyed (400 grit) and defects filled with a generic filler. Prime in black (paint factor again, any black rattle can primer like proXL). Then 2-pack aiming for a 'from the gun shine' with no dust, runs or inclusions. I've done this and it replicates the original finish exactly and is tough and durable. Unlike previous (penny pinching) attempts with 1-pack rattle cans which buy their very nature result in a thin and weakly adherent coat. P.S. And what about black satin door handles? The solution here is to use the same 2k as above with a matting agent or (better) use polyester which is supplied of grades of mattiness e.g. 5%, 10% etc. All standard stuff at a reputable paint factors.

The only car that got OE rimbellishers was the late Spitfire 1500 with 5.0J wheels. These had a very square/sharp profile and fitted deep and snuggly in the wheel offset. Everything else is aftermarket and have been a popular bit of bling since the 1980s. Profile is 'soft' with aggressive teeth. Had some on mine. And looked nice until the kerbing damage set in!