Roger K
-
Posts
579 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Events
Posts posted by Roger K
-
-
13 minutes ago, Colin Lindsay said:
Surely everytime you go over a bump, the car goes up in the air, the weight is transferred from the bottom and the bolt rises up in the bush? Might not be a big deal but over time it adds up.
Original bushes were Metalastik, the part number on them is 13/1309. Used on a lot of cars of the period. I've seen sellers online selling modern replacement bushes with the centre tube diameter as high as 1cm; last ones I bought from James Paddock seem to be 0.375 diameter - it might be worth giving them a ring and asking if they'll confirm? Otherwise, you could just use a bigger bolt...
A bigger bolt would mean opening up the holes in the mounts - no going back then. I wouldn't want to do that.
-
OK - do you think the clamping effect will be enough to hold the inner sleeves firmly with no movement? If they do, I suppose things should work OK... My concern was that on loose assembly the wishbone arms can really wobble all over the place. Doesn't seem ideal to me.
-
The part number on the old bushes is 'Clayflex SAB930'. Clayflex appear to be long gone.
I've just found some SAB930 bushes at AVMR (Anti Vibration Methods (Rubber) online, so I'll try some of those and report back. They spec them with a bore diameter of 9.6 +0.08/-0.05mm, which is better than 9.9 but not quite as tight as the originals. Worth a try at £2.23 each, and at least in the applications they list 'Triumph cars: unknown models' and 'Ford & Alder cars. Original part number: 8?04612'. Interesting.
-
Repro parts strike again.
I'm refurbishing the entire front suspension on my GT6. I have now got to the rubber bushes for the wishbones, four each side. On assembly, I thought the rebushed wishbones felt loose on the 3/8" pivot bolts. I checked with the old bolts, and some new ones. Both loose. So I took my digital calipers to the bushes - the old ones are 0.375" ID, the new ones are 0.388" - or, in modern, old are 9.55mm, new are 9.90mm. No wonder they clatter around. We have Rimmers (and no doubt all the others) supplying metric parts as a 'close enough' replacement for Imperial parts.
The question is, are these close enough, though? Surely even tightened to torque, with the forces on them these are going to clunk around on the pivot bolt? Or are they OK to use? The rubber on the old ones is not great so I'm not keen to put them back in, and I definitely do not want to use Polybushes. Don't ask, I just don't like them. I don't suppose anybody knows of a supply of Imperial bushes?
-
Hi Roger, that would work. It would be best to have a steel strip over the rubber, screwed into the Rivnuts, to avoid pinching where the screw pulls into the rubber. Starting to get into overkill territory again perhaps, but the factory metal clips do make the rubber sit flat if set carefully.
-
Thanks all. 2mm nylon reinforced rubber sheet now ordered on t'bay...
-
I think you're right. Looking at the tattered remains of the old ones (which I really should have photographed before removing), there's no notch for the flanged seam.
-
Thanks Pete - I can't tell from the diagram which way around they go - is the rubber held on the front of the wheelarch, or the back? I'd have thought the back, as the water will be running down the metal and probably shouldn't be able to get behind the rubber...
-
Could some kind person post a photo or description of how the rubber seal is arranged at the rear of the front wheelarch on a GT6 Mk3, where it touches the front of the footwell box? I'm interested in getting the clips etc. right where the seal is clipped to the metal arch.
Thanks, Roger
-
It is probably overkill as you say, and these are indeed different times. Different machining clearances, different oil specs...
Just insurance on a new build, really. Filters are cheap and give me peace of mind!
-
On 23/01/2021 at 17:49, Andyone said:
Seems a bit counter intuitive at first start to run for 20mins at 2000rpm for a complete build.
The cam receives no special attention other than assembly lube (Clevite). if it was a retro fit to already running engine then yes I get the above. I wonder if triumph worried so much when the engine was first run? Or was it a case of simply use and change the oil after 500 miles or so.
So what takes precedence running in? The bottom end and the rest of motor or the cam?
If you have fitted a new cam and lifters, the break-in procedure is necessary. If you're reusing the old cam and lifters it's not. It's to do with work-hardening the lobes of a new cam.
I think modern materials and lubricants may have changed the process needed - I don't know what Triumph used to do, but I've seen too many V8s trashed with cam failure over the last few years to want to take the risk. If fitting a new flat tappet cam (solid, like the Triumphs, or hydraulic like most V8s - but roller cams don't need it), my routine is to do the 20-min break-in at 2-2500rpm without stopping unless absolutely necessary, and then shut off without allowing it to idle. Change the oil filter and run again, this time varying the revs, and fine-tuning the motor - maybe some jet changes with a fixed-jet four-barrel carb. If OK I'll try to give it just four or five road miles, then drain the oil, change the filter, check the valve clearances (if solid), and retorque the heads if appropriate for the gaskets/studs used. You don't need to do 500 miles before retorquing - just a couple of full heat cycles is enough.
Then, after 500 miles, another filter change and maybe oil as well. And another filter change at 1000 miles. The running-in process after that will depend on what bearing clearances etc. were chosen at assembly.
If the system's working properly, changing oil filters is more important than changing oil as any metal particles will be caught by the filter and should not be circulating.
Some will think this is overkill, but it all comes down to how much you've spent on the engine.
-
The size or condition of the bores has no bearing on the crankshaft bearing sizes (no pun intended).
-
It seems odd to me that there's no shrouding as such - unless I'm missing a lot of parts! Moderns, and aftermarket kits, have close-fitting shrouds around the fan blades themselves which force all air coming through the rad to go into the fan, which improves efficiency no end. I've got the cardboard 'funnel' in front, which probably helps a bit...
-
I doubt it would make much difference. I don't think it would be particularly easy to fit a viscous coupled fan to a fixed water pump. I'm pretty sure GT6s never had the viscous coupling.
The usual reason for straight edges or round is as an attempt to reduce noise.
-
Found one! Sit down before looking at the price.....
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, Pete Lewis said:
think the rounded ends has more blades similar to whats used on later cars and early 2000 saloon canley parts list shows both quite clearly
https://www.canleyclassics.com/?catalogue=triumph-gt6-mkiii&diagram=triumph-gt6-mkiii-fan
Pete
Good find Pete, but I think the one with more blades is the viscous type, at the top of Canley's pic. My car is a late MkIII and has the one on the left, 311868. The only one I can find for sale is the earlier type, shown on the right, 308353, which is marked as USA and Sweden only. The round-blade looks like 7 blades, the square one has 8.
-
Given that the temperature where you are can't be much different to here, I don't blame you.
-
I see some of the suppliers offer a yellow plastic fan, listed as 'OEM' for GT6. My non-roto Mk3 has a fan with rounded blade ends - the ones for sale have square. Did they change, and is the rounded one available anywhere?
Thanks, Roger
-
Now I know how your photos work, I'll risk saying that the Holden offering with no photo is the same as the Somerford one. Somerford get their parts from Minispares, so I think they may have got fed up with everyone sending back their really crappy wheelboxes and got some better ones made - however at 22 splines, if they both look like the Somerford photo, I'm still not sure they'd work OK. The jury's out, though, they might. But they are not the same as the originals, and whatever they say they are not made by Lucas - unless 'Lucas' now means a completely different company, which is always possible.
This is getting complicated...
-
12 minutes ago, NonMember said:
The trouble is, on my screen it's rendered on two lines, so the one you think is on the right is actually below, and the one you think is centre is actually to the right.
Me too...
-
Yes.... be careful, Holden sell a lot of items marked as 'Lucas' but they are not. No Lucas wheelbox of the sixties had splines like that. It may work, but it may not... the other problem, of course, is the wiper arm that fits onto it. A lot of those are now made of cheese as well.
Golden rule? Never throw out original parts for new! Even if they look trashed it's worth keeping them in a box somewhere just for reference.
-
They do work well, but they're not pretty...
-
Colin, interested to know what your more expensive repro is - when I contacted Minispares to complain about the one top left, which is what they sent me and failed spectacularly quickly, they told me there were no others available anywhere and this one was all they could get. The guy did tell me they couldn't be beaten on price - my reply was unprintable. I'll happily pay double for something that works and doesn't leave me in the middle of Europe unable to drive if it rains.
Are you sure the lower one with the big splines is the Lucas original? All the genuine Lucas ones I've had have continuous fine splines all around the shaft.
-
Just to report - I fitted a new Bastuck stud to a rear hub, attached a drum and a wheel and torqued it up in 5ftlb increments. I got to 60ftlbs with no problems so I assume the breakage was a faulty part.
Front wishbone bushes
in Chassis, Suspension & Steering
Posted
Ideally, yes, but the looser the bolt in the sleeve the greater the potential for movement. If there's no gap (or virtually none), there can be no movement.