Roger K

It's the original colour, Ford Royal Maroon, which is virtually indistinguishable from Triumph Damson. I'm not allowed to park it next to the Carmine GT6 because my wife says they clash.

Yes, I'll not bother with the GT6. The wire wheel cars are obviously not lockable anyway, but I will keep the set that's on the Mustang - the 8" Torque Thrust 'D's and the tyres sitting on them cost a fortune so just to kid myself they help they'll stay. Trying to be Bullitt comes with a price tag....

Interesting, thanks Pete. So it looks like either this gearbox is from a car that used a D-type overdrive from new, or at some point the overdrive and mainshaft were changed.

The cordless tool has devastated security precautions...

So, do you think this gearbox acquired its D-type overdrive later, and had a J-type originally? The one on it now looks like it's been there forever, but I suppose it could have been changed earlier in its life. Am I right in thinking that (apart from the number) this is basically a GT6MkI/II 'box? I see the suppliers seem to have the parts for a rebuild.

Yes - I'm tending to think locking wheel nuts on this car would be a bit pointless really.

Some pics to help. I think the overdrive's been there from new!

I plan to have it as a backup for my late GT6. Hope it's suitable. edit - it didn't come with a bellhousing.

Can anyone tell me what a gearbox with number beginning 'WE' was originally designed for, please? Have searched the net, but can't find a Triumph box WE anywhere. It's a small Triumph box with a D-type overdrive attached. Thanks Roger

I don't think they have the shoulder for the plastic washer, but it's hard to tell from what's on the box.

Just tried one - looks fine and should work. My tap set is pretty good quality so hopefully the nut will take the torque OK. What torque is recommended for the 7/16 stud? I suppose I really should thank you, Pete - but now I've got to turn down 15 more wheel studs, and drill and tap 16 new wheel nuts! Does anyone know if there are any locking wheelnuts that work with the chrome centre trim? The ones Rimmers sell don't, unless you enlarge one hole very slightly and rely on just the other three nuts to retain the chrome trim. Not sure who'd want to nick GT6 wheels these days anyway, though...

I’ll investigate tomorrow, but not sure how much metal would be left

I think that's true (although not sure about ageism - maybe ageing?!). When I get new tyres for any of the classics I take the wheels in loose so I control the removal and refitting. My concern with the small studs was triggered by the explosive and noisy fracture of the new stud on my new rear hubs, which was still turning pretty easily and showed a reading on the digital torque wrench of 36ftlbs. The Techwrench was recently calibrated so I trust it. I suspect a manufacturing fault. Edit - I think you are definitely right, Pete. I've just bought a pair of used front hubs from the guys at Mallory Park that were advertised as FF hubs from their racing school, and despite being on a racing car for some time (don't know how long, though), they are in excellent condition with no damaging or bending to the small studs. I suspect the tyre bay gorillas just wind them up to a standard torque setting. My cars with alloy wheels specify varying figures from 80-100ftlbs, so if they're doing that it's no surprise they fail, new faulty parts excepted.

I've just done a trial assembly, and can confirm that the standard Triumph steel wheels are stud-centric, not hub-centric. When the wheel is placed loosely over a hub with no wheel studs fitted, it can move around a few mm. The wheel is actually located by the conical fit of the wheel nuts in the steel wheel, and is therefore stud-centric. I don't think the TR6 wheelnuts I was planning to use would locate the wheel well enough to be safe, due to the mismatch between the nut and the wheel conical hole - the larger nut basically sits on top of the cone without engaging with it. Could have insurance implications, too... This gives me a bit of a problem, because I definitely don't want to change the appearance of the car to the extent of using a different wheel type. I'm prepared to go with the 5.5J in the original Triumph pattern, but don't want to fit alloys or similar. I also wish to retain the chrome wheel centre trim, which requires the use of the shouldered wheel nuts. I think I might have to just replace the standard studs and keep a close eye on things!

I would happily order bolts with the correct length shank, then cut the thread down to size. Unfortunately I don't know a supplier who lists the shank length, only the overall bolt length. If anybody knows who can give this information, I'd be grateful.

It’s not actually wobbly. It sits on top of the tapered hole rather than in it. When you look at the GT6 and TR6 studs side by side they are very different!

Ha ha! Also dark. Yes, they fit through the holes fine, Pete, but bobble about a bit on the conical holes. I'll swap the studs on one and test it out before I do the lot.

James Paddock. Yet to fit them, mind....

Thanks Clive. I’ll stick a hub in the wheel to check that they are hub-centred. Wouldn’t work on the old Mustang - the wheels are stud-centred so I have to use a Haweka adapter to get a really good balance.

Unfortunately the diameter of the point where the taper starts is quite a bit more. The original nut taper starts at 12mm, the TR6 one at 15. Those 3mm make a noticeable difference. I could reduce the taper in the lathe, but that means trying to reproduce the taper by eye, possibly weakening the base of the nut a bit, and above all having to do 16 of the things! Nobody used stock steel wheels on bigger studs?

Thanks Pete, I can sort the length OK, it's the conical fit I'm not sure about. I wonder whether to turn the nuts down a bit, or risk opening up the wheel holes... or seeing how it goes - or reverting to the smaller studs, even.

I'm going to have to redo my rear trunnion block. The steel tube sits about 3mm in from the ends of the nylon pieces and is too short. I've got a poly set now with a correct length stainless tube, and none of the washers or seals. I'm not convinced they achieve anything anyway.

I've been experimenting with a TR6 wheel stud, following the fracture of a brand new original-size wheel stud at only 36ftlbs tightening torque, and the discovery that all my original wheel nut studs are bent to various degrees - I've only recently bought the car, and had difficulty refitting the wheel nuts, which had to go on at odd angles due to the bent studs. Discussion on another thread recommended uprating the studs, and to keep things Triumph and imperial I have tried TR6 rears. A few minute's work on the lathe reduced the base to dimensions that will fit neatly in the front and rear hubs, see photos attached. The slightly longer shank doesn't look like it'll be a problem (the photo exaggerates it), but I'd like to know what wheel nuts folk have used. I have a TR6 chrome nut which I can make fit the chrome wheel centre, but it doesn't locate very well in the standard steel wheel. I have spent a fair bit having a set of 5.5s powder coated and want to use these. What has anyone else used for the bigger studs, please? They just engage with the stamped steel conical recess, but not as well as the smaller originals. I guess when tightened to the correct torque they should locate OK, but I'd appreciate advice from someone who's done this. Thanks, Roger

Yes, in the photo it's just loosely in position and without tightening the retaining bolt it droops to that position on the bench. If I were going to weld it, I would do so with the shoulder parallel to the wishbone top, I think. I take your point though, it may not need bracing anyway. The recommended torque for the carrier nut and bolt is 55ftlbs.

Fine - I'm just more used to a more positive joint, I suppose. That said I guess there's a lot of movement in rubber bushes, and a little bit in the screw thread*, come to that. The trunnionless kit has just arrived, so I've had a play with that too. It seems pretty well made as far as I can judge. The upright link has 'Stanpart' cast into it, and is obviously a solid link that has had the thread turned off the base (on one, there is a faint hint of the remainder of the thread, just at the tip. The spherical bearing is pretty heavy-duty in appearance, and is fitted from below - the internal circlip is on the underside. My main concern is as noted on other forums, in that there is no real location of the lower part holding the bearing. It is retained by the single bolt that previously held the trunnion, but does not pick up on the shock absorber bolt, which would have stopped any chance of the mounting rocking if the bolt should come at all loose. I've attached a photo of it loosely assembled to a new wishbone. I saw a post on one of the US forums in which two 'ears' had been welded to the new piece extending back to pick up on the shock absorber bolt, which seems a good idea. Alternatively as the wishbones I'm using are not the originals I could run a weld along the top of each side, and beneath, to tie the bearing housing to the wishbone solidly. The bearing itself would still be replaceable via the circlip below. Thoughts? * I don't mean play here, I mean movement as the joint moves, albeit a very small amount.