chrishawley

That looks like a major challenge. Thoughts: When there are pinholes around the site of a previous welded repair it's not an encouraging sign for the integrity of either the weld metal or the parent metal. My own approach is to give such suspect areas a touch with a brief pulse of MIG and if it just burns back then then repair sections are going to be needed in any case. I'd think that replacing the roof panel would be an absolutely last resort. AFAIK the GT6 roof is roll-seam welded and v.difficult to unpick (unlike, say, a classic Mini roof which is spot welded so more 'unpickable'). Recreating the rain channel would occupy my mind a lot because its smooth sweep is something that defines the aesthetics of the car. One possibility might to scavenge some rain channel off another vehicle to give at least a starting point rather than working freehand. if possible, because of the delicacy of the work I'd opt for TIG rather than MIG welding. Hope that contributes to your thoughts. Cheers C

As promised a couple of gutter photos.

I can post some pictures of my gutters tomorrow. Although not original mine were sufficiently intact and unmolested at the start of restoration that I could make an authentic replication. The key point is that the push on finishing strip should not sit flat to the seam all the way along: The ends should should flip up as 'ears' which then blend in a smooth curve into the gutters. This joint was originally brazed (I TIG'd then leaded mine). Anticipating the obvious question: Yes, this does leave a water trap but such is authenticity! The replacement finishing strip I used (aftermarket, source unknown) was about once inch too long and thus an unreliable guide to authentic fitting. Photos to follow. On the related subject of how to refinish a distorted roof panel I was recently shown a good wheeze by an experienced bodyman. Having hammer/dollied the panel as good as one can get slather the whole thing with the cheapest filler available. Before the filler has dried hard (e,g, same day) coarsely cut it back with 40-grit on a flexi long bed sander. This will reveal where the metal high spots are and these can be dressed down/hammered/dollied - the filler won't split out provided its still not set hard. I tried this out and works well in getting the basic shape on which one can then improve with finer work.

Yup, nothing is interchangeable other than WBs, SA and Ts

Beware DOT5, it's not necessarily any advantage over D0T4. DOT4 is quite hydroscopic whereas D5 barely absorbs water at all. On an aged brake system there may be minute amounts of residual water and it is a Good Thing to have this absorbed into the fluid. Otherwise one may get a water bubble which will then varporise under pressure and become compressible vapour. So on an older system D5 may make matters worse rather than better.

The only documented dimension for panel gap of GT6/Spit is 3/16th inch for bonnet trailing edge to scuttle and trailing edge front wings to doors. On my GT6 I set the bonnet to scuttle dimension first and having the little rubber buffers on the trailing edge is a big help here. I then set the gap to 3/16th between the lower trailing lip of the wing to the upper edge of the sill (much time spent adjusting the rubber cones, their strikers and the bonnet catches. Then proceeded to doors. And a bit more adjustment of the bonnet, then the doors again etc etc. If moving the doors causes the latch to foul on the striker plate then gaskets can be fitted under the striker and 0, 1 or 2 were fitted OE. I made some out of aluminium 0.5, 1, and 2mm and trial-and-errored till i got a clean shut. The gap door lower edge to sill is not that critical since this gap is not in eyeline. But what is crucial is that the doors aren't doing 'elephant's ears' in this area (i.e. the door lower edge is sticking out beyond the line of the sill. It should all be flush when the car is viewed rear to front. This IS in the eyeline. This, of course, involves twisting (adjusting) the door around the hinge to door mountings although the hinge to scuttle mountings can be shimmed or skimmed if need be. Hope that's a bit of help, but can provide even more detail if needed. Took me a 40 hours all in to finally get the alignment acceptable on my GT6.

Hardest to get in are the uprated bushes from Revington - very stiff and tight fit. Yup, 'piston ring' approach is good. Grease - ideally proper red rubber grease (£10 a tub, dozens of uses). Also warm the bushes up in hot water (just short of boiling) for a few minutes - more pliable that way. If column is off car then warm that as well with the bushes (even 2% expansion can help make the difference). One can also chamfer the leading edge of the lugs with a fresh razor blade which gives them a lead-in. Are you pushing the bushes in or drawing them in? Drawing is much more controlled and means that as the lugs come into contact with the cutting edge of the column they can be helped over with the flat face of a screwdriver. Cheers Chris

Thanks for all the suggestions. Plenty of things to check out which I duly did. Have a spare rear suspension so was able to make a visual comparison for bent wishbones etc but all seems ok. Spring is definitely original 6-leaf rotoflex version and arc height is approx correct at 4.5 inches. Shocks mount onto conversion brackets and are correct 'short' ones for this. But have had some partial progress, as follows: a) Refitted spring with 3 top leaves missing. Put 60kg of batteries in boot, lowered car and left overnight. b) Removed spring, reassembled with all leaves, refit. Jack car on vertical links (rather than chassis), lower to ground then 100kg of batteries in boot. With this I have a static car with about the right at the back (maybe a tadge high), spring flat (ish) across the transverse and about 0 degrees camber. So that's an improved situation. But what next? I wonder what happens when I take the 100kg out? Current idea is to leave it standing for a couple of days then take it for a spin round the yard with the weight still in. Or any other better idea!!? Cheers Chris

Thanks for the data. Confirms that I have GT6.3 springs as only these had 6 leaves. Will do some further measuring, I'm very open, still, to all suggestions. Tried an experiment today: Using the original Stanpart spring I removed the top 3 leaves and then fitted it. With about 60kg of batteries in the boot this gives a spring which is approximately flat, ride height now about an inch too low and positive camber of about 5 - 10 negative. Obviously this is not any kind of definitive solution as all I've really done is reduced the spring rate and load rate by quite a lot. But seems to suggest that the basic geometry is correct although I can't say I've got any final diagnosis. More suggestions? Cheers Chris

Thanks. Had it to pieces again yesterday but no 'eureka' moment. Picking up on the last two posts together: The car came to me completely disassembled ('box of bits') so I've no idea what 'before' might have been like. But it came with a Stanpart spring which I assumed was correct for vehicle. My other, new, spring is a repro from stock (Fitchetts orginally) which has the same dimensions, although stiffer. I don't know of any data on free spring length although but know that I should be aiming for approx 3 degrees negative camber in the static laden condition. Spring rate should be approx 95 lb/inch at the wheel. Reality check:Given the unknown prior history of the car I've assumed that the suspension config was common across Vitesse, GT6.2 and GT6.3 (except for the spring being 12 leaf on the Vit) so it's not the case of having mixed up parts. Correct? I'll have another punt at it today and although further suggestions will be much appreciated. Perhaps some photos might help? Cheers C

Thanks, I've acted on suggestions as above. a) Checked for bound up bushes then set car on its wheels with everything still loose. No change. (bushes etc are all genuine Stanpart NOS) b) Drive round the yard. No change I'm fortunate to have a 4-post ramp with beam jack so I can look at the suspension behaviour directly. If I support the chassis on the beam and then start jacking one of the hubs the car is lifting off the beam long before the wheel reaches a neutral, approx zero camber, position. I suppose there'd be nothing to loose by putting in a 1 inch spacer on the diff and see what happens? Cheers Chris

HEEELPPP! Just fitted rear spring to to 1970 GT6.3 with standard roto. Outcome v.bad! Even with 70kg static load in boot the geometry is all wrong: Road wheels are about 3 inches lower than they should be with about 15 - 20 degrees positive camber. Half shafts are pretty much sitting on the chassis - so way, way, out and not anything near the approx horizontal position the shafts should adopt in the usual static laden condition. Tried two different GT6 leaf springs, one OE an one repro - no difference. I don't see what I've done wrong - the rear suspension is entirely unmodded (although car was built up form 'box of bits'). I don't mind using spacer blocks to fine tune the suspension but at the moment but this is way beyond that. I'd be really grateful for any advice or illumination or theories about how I can proceed. Many thanks in advance Chris

I could write a whole essay on this! I would regard classic Waxoyl as outdated: It's tiresome to use and has absolutely no creep. In areas subject to impact (wheel arches for example) Hammerite's Underbody Seal With Added Waxoyl is excellent - gives a very heavy coat that doesn't dry out and flake like standard underseal. Brush on or spray cans. Bit messy. Where protecting seams is the main issue I spray WD40 into the seam first (expel water, maximum creep) and then follow on immediately with Dinitrol MT (excellent creep but the coat is thin). My 'economy buy' is Supertol 500ml spray cans. At less than £5 per can it's a snip: Medium thick and medium creep and dead easy to use. Ok for general surface protection but not tough enough for high impact areas. ACF/Bilt etc are excellent in their own rights but for 'jobbing' use Supertrol wins out on price. And if I had one word (or sentence) of advice on 'stickies' it would be : Seams First, Cavities Second, Surfaces Third. Cheers C

Hi, It's quite hard to generalise because there are so many variables. One key matter is whether you are planning a strip back to bare metal across all the work areas (?). If so then the approach is quite simple; paint strip to remove the bulk of the old paint then 80 grit discs on a DA (dual action) sander to work off the rest. As for brands, most Pros use Mirka, Indasa or 3M. Think in terms of one disc per square foot (ish) on old well seasoned paint. Wet and Dry paper is only for hand use - all discs for a DA are dry. Could I ask whether your sanders are DA rather than simple rotary/oscillating? If not DA then the work will take forever. On a DA even the relative coarseness of 80grit will not attack the base metal to any great extent. Are yo planning to repaint the car yourself? I've been taught over the last couple of years that the key issue in refinishing is getting the first coat of primer-filler on thick, really thick - sags/runs/orange peel/dust inclusions are not to be seen as a problem. I mention this because in the past I've spent too much time getting the base metal and any filled areas 'just so' when I could have just let the PF do the work for me. So stripping and first filling can be approached in a quick a effective (almost rough and ready) way and the fine grain attention begins once the PF is on. Regards Chris

Thank you for the replies. That all makes sense now. Thanks again. One follow on question: When affixing the headlining in the area of the millboards is it glued over the lip of the tailgate aperture such that it is tensioned straight down from the lip o ris it reflected back and glued to the underside of the aperture. Any further advice much appreciated. Regards Chris

Hi, Can anyone advise on the subject of GT6 headlining? I rebuilding a GT6 Mk3 but since I didn't take it apart myself I don't know how certain things go together. My particular conundrum is this: I've trial fitted the the rear quarter millboards, exterior vents, and plastic ducts: But the inner face of the ducts sits proud of the millboards. Which looks to me like once the headlining is fitted the stainless steel finishers for the ducts would 'float' out of contact with the headlining. So any advice on the details of how this area goes together would be much appreciated. Should the faces of the plastic ducts be flush with the millboards? Or proud of them? Is the headlining glued to the face of the millboard? Or glued just on the top and bottom edges and tensioned to give the right appearance? Or should there be a layer of scrim over the millboard? Or any other possibility. Any advice? Regards Chris Herts

Hi Piet, A good diagnosis from Pete. The fuel will leak from the jet if the petrol level in float chamber is higher than the bridge of the carburetor body. This leakage will tend to be most apparent on slow running or with the engine just switched off because under load conditions the float chamber is being continually drained by the engine's requirement for fuel. How to fix it? The root of the issue is fuel level too high in the float chamber. Three common reasons for this: 1) Needle valve in float chamber worn and therefore not cutting off fuel entry when the float chamber is full. Solution; replace valve 2) Float itself is faulty. Can be cracked (fills with fuel) or worn where it acts on needle (insufficient lift) or for float with adjustable metal tabs the tabs are bent to too low a position: In essence; replace float. Needle and float replacement can be done without removing the carb from the or upsetting the mixture adjustment. Obtain replacements from a reputable source (e.g. Burlen, Moss) not eBay cheapies. 3) An third and additional reason is replacement of the standard fuel pump with one that pumps at too high pressure and defeats the needle valve in one or both carbs. Hope that helps. If you want more detail than this do post again and I can fill in some of the finer details if required. Regards Chris

Hi, I have an original one. The max diameter of the ball is 8.8mm; the fastening is a female thread of 4.8mm (which must be UNF 10-32) and the across flats of the hexagon (for the spanner) is 3/8th inch. But there's a fair chance that the offering from Bresco ('5mm') will do the job provided the captive plates are replaced at the same time. https://www.bresco.com/cgi-bin/ss000001.pl?page=search&SS=BSF182&PR=-1&TB=O&ACTION=Go! I got my new ones off eBay and they're fine. But I don't see them listed at the moment but they do get relisted from time to time. Regards Chris

Hi Chris, Have you made any progress with this? There's a lot that can be said above door-fit on Spitfires/GT6s! Firstly; OE panel fit was never that good. If one looks at Triumph's original publicity photos from the 70s one can see panels alignments that look hideous by modern standards. Secondly, as commented on by other members, is that poor sill replacement can be a problem - further compounded by problems with the floor pan and rear wing if these have been worked on. A relevant check is to use a long straight edge (a six foot steel rule is ideal) and check the straightness of the full length of sill from the front right back to the rear wheel arch. Both in plan (side) and in elevation (bottom edge) the structure should true to within a couple of mm. Concave or convex deviation is all too common on repaired cars. Then there's the matter of doors which have been repaired. Doors which have had full skin replacements can (often) be distorted so worth inspecting for witnesses of this. The shape can also be lost if repairs have been made to the bottom of the door and/or lower lip. Best detected by removing door cards and inspecting for evidence of welding from the inside. But less of the doom and gloom! To adjust the doors one has to bite the bullet and then engage in a lot of trial and error. Remove the striker plate, remove furflex door seal and protect all edges with masking tape. Slacken off all six fasteners which attach the door to the hinges ( four bolts and two countersunk, croos-head, setscrews). This should allow the door to move on and out but also pivot (top moves out while bottom moves in and vice versa). One has to be prepared to push and shove and make repeated attempts. If there is insufficient adjustment all is not lost. One additional factor can be hinges which have been replaced. Some aftermarket replacements are too thick on the face which bolts to the scuttle. On one car I had to skinny off 3mm off both to get the door to sit inwards far enough. Conversely one can add shims under these faces to increase the adjustment - Even just a 1mm paper shim under the top hinge will throw the bottom of the door in quite a bit. Hopefully some or all of the above might produce a satisfactory result. Once the alignment is correct the striker and furflex can be replace and adjusted/remedied as required. I hope all of this is some help. My only other thought is not to engage in cutting/welding or panel beating until every other avenue has been explored. Good luck Regards Chris

Dear John, Thank you very much for the photos. With the help of these I set to and found a workable arrangement after a few hours. Many thanks Chris Welwyn Herts For the possible future benefit of other readers here’s what I came up with: 1) Affix all four eyeball vents in position; two in the dash and two mounted toward the inner ends of the parcel shelves. That give the start and end locations of the ducting (the start being the lower outlets on the heater box). 2) Left hand side is fairly easy. Affix (original bracket or cable tie) Y-piece to lower left hand corner of heater box with ‘Y’ pointing skyward. Connect heater box outlet to Y-piece with a ‘U’ of ducting. With a fairly long piece of ducting, connect on arm of the ‘Y’ to the parcel shelf vent in a broad inverted ‘U’. Connect other arm of Y to dash vent in a broad curve. Plenty of space so exact lay of the ducting not critical. 3) RH is bamboozling until I worked out where the Y-piece goes. It sits, very snuggly, between the outer side of the steering column and the inner face of the glove box with the ‘Y’ pointing along the line of the steering column. No brackets, just a snug fit. Thus: a) remove glove box/pacel shelf, b) affix a long length of duct to stem of Y-piece c) feed duct over the lower steering column and affix to heater box d) trial fit glove box and adjust position of Y-piece so it sits with snugness in the curve of the inner face of the glove box and against the steering column. Remove glove box. 4) The upper arm of the Y connects to the dash vent with a long arc of duct which will sit loosely above the glove box when the latter is refitted. 5) Now the hard bit. A really long bit of ducting now goes from the lower arm of the Y-piece back over the steering column (under might be possible as well) and then bends in a really tight ‘C’ to connect with the eyeball. The is hard, and involves a lot of squidging, because the column brackets, speedo/tacho/odo cables and wiring are all in the way. Best done with speedo and tacho removed. Trial fit glove box and instruments and adjust position of duct as needed. spitfire001-1.webp spitfire005-1.webp spitfire007-1.webp spitfire008-1.webp spitfire009-1.webp spitfire011.webp spitfire012-1.webp

Hi, Did you get a final solution to this? I'm rebuilding a MkIII; I've got the left side worked out but the right is beyond me. Any further info would be much appreciated. Regards Chris

Problem now solved so thanks for the advice. For the benefit of anyone encountering a similar problem here's a summary: Problem: CDSE150. Poor running. Colourtune showed extremely weak mixture to cylinder 6 with intermittent bursts of over rich running. Result: Fuel needle valve probably sticking in the closed position. Thus replaced with a new item. Float height found the be incorrect (23mm in inverted position) corrected by bending tab to 17 - 18mm. Running now much improved with better colour on the Coloutrune; but still unstable at slow idle. Dashpot cover removed: Diaphragm found to be incorrectly seated in that tab on the diaphragm not located in the corresponding recess in the body, with potential to create an air leak. Diaphragm repositioned. Now runs wells with good slow idle. Solved. This isn't the last of the work as I'm not sure that I have the most suitable needles and distributor set up. But that can wait until the car can have it's first road test.

Thank you for the pointers. Advice about the timing duly noted. I'll swing it back to, say, 12 degrees BTDC (static, not strobe) and leave it there for the time being. My plan of investigation for tomorrow is examine the gaskets, float needle and float. Let's see if that leads anywhere.

Hi, I'm interested to know whether a solution was found to problematic rear carb. I have a similar situation which, in brief, is: GT6 mk3, 2.5l engine, CDSE150 carbs from a triumph 2000. Timing set at 4 degree ATDC on strobe. Point at 40 degrees dwell on meter. Tappet clearances set when engine rebuilt but not adjusted subsequently. AIr flow on carbs balanced on meter at idle. Current issue: Engine starts ok on choke. But with no enrichment (choke 'off') very unstable and rough idle. Idles at 1000rpm (ish) but then will do a burst of a few seconds at 2000rpm then drop down. To investigate I put a ColourTune in cylinders no.1 and no.6. No.1 shows a good blue/yellow combustion. No.6 six shows a very faint and very blue burn but will periodically 'flare up' to give a strong very yellow burn with fast, 2000rpm idle, for those few seconds. My impression is that the rear carb is drawing air ok but is fuel starved but provides a burst of fuel intermittently. I'd very much appreciate any wisdom or experience in how to proceed further in investigation and remedy. Cheers Chris Beds/Herts. Spitfire 1500. GT6 Mk3.