cliff.b

Thanks, I will check that.

Good idea Pete. I have been able to confirm that removing one O/S shim means that I have slight negative toe in now instead of positive, which if I have understood correctly is what I should be aiming for? I now want to try and check alignment of both wheels with the chassis. Hopefully I will get to play with it again sometime tomorrow.

Just to update, I have made a few measurements and I believe the body is slightly out of line with the chassis do clearly using the bodywork as a reference point isn't going to work. I will start again from scratch and attempt to get some more meaningful measurements.

Many thanks for your thoughts Chris. As you say, there is s lot to consider. I have got the back wheels on the ground again now, after attending to the brakes and removing one shim from the offside. I also took the opportunity to check everything with my torque wrench and almost everything was under tightened, including the nuts that locate the radius arms & shims. After a short drive to check brakes I tested the alignment as before and the OS measurement to the body had reduced by 5mm. However, on checking the NS, there now is no gap and the only changes I have made is tightening things. (Could that have compressed the shims enough to make this much difference). Anyway, I had considered that the body might not be centred so measured again using string under tension & comparing distance to wheel rims front & rear. On the OS, where the shim was removed, the front rims are approx 8.5mm inboard compared to the rear. As the track on the 1500 is 25mm less at the front I'm thinking that's 12.5mm a side so the OS rear wheel now has slight toe in (4mm over 2.1m wheelbase) I repeated the same process with the nearside & the difference is only approx 2mm, suggesting greater toe in on that side. I would appreciate a "sanity check" on the above to confirm if my thinking is sound or not.

Ok, thanks. Just wanted to confirm 👍

Still re-assembling my rear brakes and the cylinders are no longer seized, but still very stiff to move. I have put it back together as I found it but have little confidence that was done correctly so could anyone confirm if the bowed spring plate that holds the cylinder in place should have the convex side against the backplate (as mine was) or the other way? Tried looking at pictures and diagrams but still not clear.

So both springs behind the shoes. That's what I thought it should be but couldn't remember for certain. Many thanks 👍

Putting the rear brakes on the Spit back together after finding multiple faults on both sides and would appreciate confirmation of how to fit the springs to the shoes. Normally I would have just replaced them as I found them but each side is different & considering the issues I have found I wouldn't trust it was right even if they were the same.

It's strange. This car has had what appears to me to be a good standard of restoration in many areas but a lack of attention to detail in others. But fortunately those are the sort of things that I can fix.

Yes, I agree. It used to be second nature driving these cars and it will be again. I think there is a need for a degree of "mechanical sympathy" that modern vehicles don't need, although they also benefit from it if shown.

Yes, the shoes on both hubs were fitted incorrectly, like you explained. However, I don't think it would really have made much difference as neither brake cylinder was sliding so the incorrectly fitted shoe was probably not being used. The back plate had been painted both sides & the cylinders were jammed solid.

I will try and treat my box with respect, hopefully that will come naturally as I drive it more. But if and when it's time does come I would probably take the opportunity to fit overdrive. Hopefully that won't be too soon as I have enough things to do already 🙄

Well today I have removed one shim from the offside and also tightened all the bolts to the correct torque on both sides. Some of these were not very tight at all so I will be going around the entire car. I now want to test it but unfortunately can't do so because I decided to change the brake shoes at the same time and have found so many issues. Most of these dealt with but a stripped thread on an adjuster (not seized and looks quite recent) has led to s new one being ordered. So testing will have to wait.

Indeed. I'm trying to get back into the habit of being nice to the gearbox by blipping the throttle during a down change to match engine to road speed. Something I haven't done for a long time.

Ok, reverse is right and forward so that confirms it's not an early box I guess. Maybe I'm just trying to engage 1st at too high a speed or not fully depressing the clutch. Thanks for the clarification 👍

Yes, I agree, Graham has got it. Please see my response to him to understand why I said otherwise lol. Also agree with your simplified explanation although as my Speedo is reading 15% slow, I am thinking it would need to be like putting a 3.63 diff in a 4.11 car? Also, I have noticed that if I shift into 1st gear just before stopping at a junction the box crunches a little, leading me to think it might not have synchro on 1st & from an earlier car. I will have to get out of the habit.

Yes, you are absolutely correct and what I wrote was the opposite of correct. In my defence I had drunk more than several beers when I wrote it 🥴.

I may be confusing myself here but surely if the gearbox was from a car with a 3.89 diff and my car has & 3.65 diff then the Speedo would read too fast, not slow. For a given road speed with the 3.89 diff the gearbox output would make a certain number of revolutions. If the diff was changed to 3.65 then the gearbox & Speedo drive would turn faster for the same road speed.

Is there a defined figure for how much 1 shim will affect the toe and if not, any educated guesses?

Found the diff number now. Looks like it starts FP but guess it could be FR

Yes, that's what I was thinking 🤔

2nd pic showing gap to sill

I also raised the straight edge higher and measured gap to front sill edge (see pic). This was approx 5mm on NS and 10mm on OS, which is the side with more shimming. So I guess that would make sense. I'm thinking I should be reducing the shims on the offside?

Forgot to put the pic on doh