Ian Smith

Nice. I'd guess the feeling of completion is palpable.

Hello Folks, I'll try to expand on my post, if I may. Drum brakes? Yes, no problem. But I well remember messing about with rally-prepped rear drum brakes on escorts & the like. I've gotten a bit older since then, and more grey hair. Some normals have drum rears, but in all honesty, they're at the budget range. Nick has rather eloquently covered a lot of it, so I'll bow to his posting. Right now, the chassis has the capability to be improved. I must confess I'm in a better position, being sans bodywork. That's in no way to lord it over people, but to better understand how & where this is going. I understand the twin CV arrangement, which is in similar in practice to a mini, or any front wheel drive car. (or, rear wheel car with IRS). I should say that if you're reading my notes, the jury is still out. I have a pretty good idea, but there's nothing wrong with people presenting better ideas. Still climbing that learning curve.....

Thanks Pete. I'm bit premature with the fuel sender, but I do like your sentiments. I'm not a great fan of a multiple instruments, more an instrument minimal sort of thing. The rationale being the more instruments, the more work maintaining & calibrating. I've got a choice of Morris Minor-classic Mini speedo heads, which as you will know, covers all of the bases. The only 'extras' will be an oil pressure & Temp gauges. Bear in mind, that the more fancy doo-dahs, will mean sticky-fingered ner-do-wells interfere with your pride & joy. A well thought out, stripped back (functional) dashboard will beckon. That said, I'm still at the ar$e end of this project. Give me a chance! Ian.

I bought some plans from Hayden Davies back in 1988, with intention to build one based on an MG. However, work got in the way, so it's not until 2021 that I got going. After 3 house moves, I thought I'd lost, or given away all of my car-related stuff. Mrs Smith to the rescue.... " Here's your Burlington box file, you kept it in stock". Gadzooks! And so, that's how it starts.... Hello Clive, yes, I did indeed mention shock extension brackets. Rimmer sell them. However, a slightly different method beckons. I've purchased a metre of 50x50x 4mm box steel. The internal dimension being just right to enclose the original rear shock locations, and capable of spanning the width of the vehicle. To make the first move, I envisaged to mill off the underside by the 4mm wall, enabling a deep channel to encapsulate the shock locations. this 'should' bolt up directly above the original locations. The excess length on this box section remains un-machined, and on purpose. I know that the new shock location can be made, but! I don't know exactly where it will be. Being a chassis, safety critical comes first, so tiny steps; tiny steps. On the basis of that, the transverse spring will most likely be superseded with coil-overs. The transverse spring does the 2 functions, namely the suspension function, and the positional function of the rear hub uprights. Not a done deal, though. I've got a few Rotoflex doughnuts here. I'll keep these back just in case, but I intend to 'not use' these until I'm absolutely sure. Wiser heads than I have mentioned the space improvement sans Rotoflex, and on looking at it, I would agree. On that basis, The MGF rear hub lends itself to suitable conversion, but not yet a 'dead cert'. Several problem remain, such as hub location, and more importantly the ability to adjust said hub(s). I do want to have discs all round. After all, this will (hopefully) be a 1930's style Gentleman's sports car, but bought up to date with late 20th century refinements. In other words, to be fully functional in a world of 'normals'. Finally, shock absorber length may be less of a problem here. After all, the steel stock remains unused. Typing this, I notice that this post is wandering. Lots of ideas bouncing around, and only the one cup of tea yet. Breakfast awaits! Cheers, Ian.

Hello Folks. Well, it's been another few weeks with Maisie, and to be honest, not a lot to show for it. However.... In other news, I've been busy collecting/ acquiring/ buying the myriad bits & bobs that it needs. The workshop is filling up with springs, shocks, etc. As you (probably) know, this is a huge learning curve; a voyage of discovery. One 'voyage' was an all-expenses paid trip to the back of the garage to extract a Riv-Nut setting tool. Mrs Smith broke her computer desk; can I repair it? I haven't used the nut setter for about 20 years, so another learning curve loomed. So, short on memory, but long on patience, I took about 48 hours to re-learn the techniques of a 10-minute job. I anticipate using the setter frequently in the rebuild process, so I was pleased to do it. Thus far, no shouts or screams from the study area, so it's looking good.... What I do know, is that the differential has a leak on all three seals. No problem really, as the chassis is up in the air. Whilst looking at the pertinent parts, I've discovered that the Previous owner 'might' have re-assembled the rear hub in a different order. The manuals depict a shock absorber above the lower wishbone bolt, but here... The lower wishbone bolt has way extra length, which I'd assume would normally locate a rear shock. The bolt above has just enough thread to accommodate the nut. Hmmm, change, methinks. At least it's all due for rebuild, anyway. Cheers, Ian. Edit: Whilst perusing 'Bay, a hub is being offered. Nope, the bolt arrangement on Maisie ain't right......

Thanks for your post. Yes, but early days for me, I'm afraid.

Hello Nick, please accept my apologies for this late reply. The chassis is currently Rotoflex-equipped. In my original post, I said that the intention was to restore the car (mechanical ) to meet later 20th Century attributes, such as 5-speed box, disc brakes all round, etc. Naturally, all of my attention is focused to the rear portion of the chassis at the moment. I'm pretty determined to have rear disc brakes, and handbrake. I'll accept that I'm on the lower rungs of a steep learning curve; opening up questions like this helps me enormously. Cheers, Ian.

I still have my Kamasa knock-through screwdriver from the 1970's. Still going strong, but a bit 'well used'... Edit: have a look for kamasa 'go-through' screwdrivers. Some on 'Bay at the moment. ian.

I've still got my old shop compressor, but it's stowed away at the moment. I've been using a suitcase type for home jobs, which is very useful for smaller stuff. One thing I would suggest, is to use a foot switch with it. That way, doing small jobs, such as an air nailer is far easier than having to reach over to switch it off & on.

Aldi have sets of sockets this week (last week?). Only a tenner, for any of the popular 3 sizes.

+3 from here. It's either weld up & dress out, or new backplates. If the backplates are worn, bent or warped ( who? Me?) then on a personal level, I'd suggest new ones. Cheers, Ian.

On a personal level, I'd advocate the use of tab washers. A bolt or nut relies on the interference pressure betwixt the underside of the (nut or bolt), and whatever the fixture is. If either slacks off, then it 'can' work loose. The tab being a sort of belt & braces approach to fixing parts in place. Ideally, 2 bolts with tabs will hold tight against its neighbour.

" The 'car was built in 1973, and here's my great grandfather to prove it...."

I sent my V5 off a few weeks back, with a polite letter covering the details, and what I need to 'square up' the paperwork. The youGov site says it's a bit of a wait, but, I've got a years' worth of work in front of me, so I'm not too bothered right now. I sent off my V5 to Swansea, not our local Post Office. I took an educated gamble with this. The rationale being that Post Office-generated V5 document changes 'might' be outsourced to a sub-contractor; the posted delivery being done in-house, at Swansea. Now, I could be entirely wrong, but we'll see. The covering letter has as much relevance as the V5 itself. The faceless people are actually human, so I believe a polite letter helps it along. They might bin the letter, but at least we tried... have a great weekend, everyone. Ian.

Hello John, I didn't mention Triumph, did I? Oops! Forgive my laxity, it's been a long couple of days......

Just a quick aside, if I may. In high-end motorsport, nearly everything is a consumable item. The mechanics are taught that if they think it's not up to scratch, then change the part. For a lot of people, the thought of drilled discs is not very favourable, in all honesty. The tight radii in lightening pockets/holes 'can' cause unequal heat expansion, enough to fail the mechanical properties of the disc. Motor bikes can & do use lightened discs. After all, they are on open view and subject to inspection & scrutiny. Not so when the disc is tucked inside a wheel arch. With grabbing disc brakes, it can be any number of factors, and luckily mostly solvable. The steel backing portion of a disc pad is normally a stamping, and as such, 'might' have rough edges where the backing goes through the drop stamp. I use a good-quality file to 'clean up' the edges of the steel portion. I also check the quality of the fit vis-a-vis between pad carrier & its caliper proper. I never, ever, interfere with the braking surface of the pad; ever. Some do, but it's not for me. Right, sermon over.... Early brake calipers sometimes used a single piston to work a disc, and relied on dragging the other side of the pad into contact with the disc. After a while, the unequal heating 'can' set up dimensional differences within the disc: A bit like having a wheel out of balance. That said, if one caliper is doing all the work, then you'll have a set of unequally worn brake pads. If any of the other brake components, such as caliper pins, etc, are 'sus', then bin them, and get new parts. If you want to keep a disc cool, arrange an airflow such that it's directed at the part concerned. I hope I haven't upset anyone.... Ian.

Nice one Pete. Although I can spend the money, I'd rather spend it on trying to emulate the Beretta. Thanks also to Clive (and others ) for their input about the CV joint thoughts. I've got a fairly tame machine shop up the road from here, so a friendly visit is in the offing! Bearing packs being ordered today. Thanks folks, Ian.

A GT6-based car, in many respects to the Burlington. I'm building an Arrow version. My angle is slightly different to that of of the many dedicated people on here, As although the main part is Triumph, there are differences, which prompted my post. Cheers, Ian.

Hello Folks, thank you for your responses. I'm not about to knock the producers or sellers of the CV upgrade kits. After all, The appeal of the one -shop application has great merit. However, the skinflint in me baulks at the prospect of paying nearly £750 for the kit, with the added bonus (!) of more expenditure in terms of rear hub bearings. Yes, I know I'll be taking the hubs down for close inspection & repair, but knowing that CV joints are an 'off the shelf' item has led me to my initial question. Once again, comments are gratefully received. Cheers, Ian

Hello Folks, yet another question from the collective, if I may.... This relates to the U/J either side of the differential. We know that the inner drive flanges are connected to the inner halfshaft with a Hardy Spicer joint. So far, so good. Is it viable to replace the outer shaft & hub with a CV joint? The principle is similar to the Mini, with a CV joint, and universal joints Naturally, the bearing dimensions will be different to reflect the changes. But, If I've got this right, the CV joint will continue to work as normal. Things like track, toe-in & camber are already resolved in the original set up. End float on the CV joint as it passes through the hub needs some thinking through. As usual, your opinions/ views are welcomed. Cheers, Ian.

Greybeards? I wish! More white than anything! Actually, I shouldn't complain: In fact, I won't complain at all. I'm rather glad I'm attempting this now, rather than when I was a callow youth. I still retain (most) of the impetus, but deep down, I know full well that the finished item would have been absolute rubbish. Lucky me, I guess. I've learned to ask the important questions, like 'is it right? Is it good enough? I've found that forums such as these attract certain demographics, so if you're reading this, you'll know what I mean. I fully admit to being on a learning curve here, so I'm quite happy to ask others about things like guidance & pitfalls. Cheers, Ian.

I'd agree with that. The SU or Stromberg has a deeper fuel bowl, so any trapped air is encouraged to rise. Certainly, the bowl feeds from the bottom, out to the needle. Hopefully, by the time the petrol is drawn up through the SU, any air inclusion has long gone. To my possible detriment, I'm a great fan of the SU. That said, I can foresee a great switch to fuel injection, if only to improve emissions & fuel economy. That'll mean another huge learning curve for me. I got out of working (playing )with cars when marriage & mortgage came along.... Cheers, Ian.

Hello Dave, I don't think it was (or is ) a fault of the DCOE carburettor; more a case of mis-appreciation by the person fitting the carbs. If (like me ) you opened an MGB bonnet, you'd see a set of carburettors firmly connected via the inlet manifold. Then, the next car (a rally-prepped Escort Mex ) would have those wonderful looking DCOE's with a slight 'wobble' on the manifold. With a background of SU work, you would be sorely tempted to wind in those nuts.. After all, they're loose, aren't they? A lot of people did that, and were down on power as a result. Not a carb fault, certainly; or, a case of after-market size application. People failing to appreciate the minute harmonics in relation to the fuel bowl, means that aerated fuel is liable to be present at the point of delivery. I used to have set of 40's for my Moke. After a while, I reverted to a HS4, then HS6 carb. I went that route because I had a better handle on getting it 'right'. The OEM carb is, by & large, designed to cover the performance capabilities of the vehicle. Up-rating or upgrading will possibly change the parameters, which is where we came in.... There are some really excellent videos on the Weber/Dellorto carbs; all free on Youtube. Cheers, Ian.

One of the problems with Webers & Dellortos was foaming, caused by people overdoing the manifold securing nuts. David Vizard opined that the twin SU HS4 would come very close in flow capacity to the DCOE 40. Being that, I don't need a straight line race, or leaving me for dead: I've done all that. I've grown up with SU carburettors; it's just what I'm used to. Our local main Fiat dealers appeared to have customers with poor performing cars, which necessitated attention. I'll respectfully refer you to my last paragraph on my previous post. It was a long time ago. For my part, I'm still very much 'at the beginning' with this project, and it's a nice re-learning curve. Cheers, Ian.

The basic Fiat 124 is about 1200cc, but (IIRC) places like Abarth made some rather nice tuning parts, not least the basic twin-cam head. It's been a long time ago, but you could go from 1200 to 2000 cc in incremental 200cc sizes. I've not seen either the 1.2 or 2.1 litre model, but 1.4-1.8 litre engines are quite well known. ISTR the Dellorto carbs let it down, but nothing that fuel injection wouldn't sort out. I should stress that is was a very long time ago; mid 1970's. Cheers, Ian.