Gt6 with 2.5 engine

[Ted64]

Hi I am a new member and looking to buy a Gt6 seen one on the internet with a 2.5 triumph pi engine conversion fitted is this a recognised conversion or should I be very wary ,is there anyone with a similar car that could me any pointers to look for? Thanks

[mishmosh]

Common conversion. Roy Lacy ( go on Facebook) has it in his mk1 gt6 And does the round Britain and 10 countries run   

[dougbgt6]

It's quite a common conversion, the 2 & 2.5 have the same block, the 2.5 just has a longer stroke which accounts for the increase.  Some say because of this the 2.5 doesn't sound as nice as the 2. I can't tell the difference myself! You might take a look on here at the MOT thread, Gov are exempting 40 year old cars next May. This might lead to DVLA tightening up the rules on modified cars, so watch out! You might find yourself paying for road tax and MOTs. The worry with modified cars, is 2.5 engine mod is OK but, what else might have been done? 

Your best bet is to get down to your TSSC club meeting and get advice there, maybe someone will even come with you to inspect. You don't have to be a member to turn up. Area location guide is at the front of this site.

[daverclasper]

Hi. No personal experience, but a lot of info out there about the standard gearbox not up to torque of the 2.5.

I think the standard G/B can be modified to take the some extra  BHP to some extent and also folk fit ford Type 9 box, which is apparently very strong.

Dave 

[Pete Lewis]

The std box is very limited , fitting a big saloon/TR box or the type 9 needs quite a deal of chassis rail modifications to fit it in

The big box is belt and braces  made to last compared to the 3 rail std   derived i believe from its humble beginings in a standard 8

Theres a local Stag engined Vitesse on  std transmision but its driven gently.

Theres a good few 2.5s fitted on the std 3 rail so dont be put off , it just wont have a long life if driven hard

Pete

 

[griffipaul]

I have a Vitesse mk2 and a tr6 with 2 and 2.5 engines respectively. Both sound fabulous but the 2.5 being longer stroke is not so smooth . Many say the 1600 6 cyl original is the smoothest engine Triumph produced.

With the impending mot / tax changes I would be wary of buying a modified car till the dust settles .....All those who have done tr7 to 8 conversions may be feeling a bit nervous also.

[Colin Lindsay]

On 10/23/2017 at 3:09 PM, griffipaul said:

 

With the impending mot / tax changes I would be wary of buying a modified car till the dust settles .....All those who have done tr7 to 8 conversions may be feeling a bit nervous also.

+1 on that...  a lot of irate drivers on other forums... but if you have a "Triumph" in inverted commas, or any shell with modern engine and gearbox, modern drivetrain, brakes, seats, dashboard etc you can hardly claim it's original and worthy of exemption... 

[AidanT]

So where do you think they will draw the line? 

I have upgraded my dynamo to alternator, and the starter motor to a hi-torque one. I know the engine and gearbox are not original but they are still pre 1974 parts

So far the car has always been exempt from tax and is registered as historic

 

Aidan

[dougbgt6]

One of the reasons for doing this is to formalise the MOT, currently "Does it smoke excessively?" is not a very good definition and requires experience and expertise to make a judgement. Without our cars all that's required is a computer to interrogate a modern car's brain, a check list and less skilled staff. Trying to identify replacement parts requires more skill and experience rather than less. 

Also as discussed Colin's recent re-build thread it's fine to replace broken bits, they do that on moderns, they replace like for like engines and gearboxes. Also none original upgrades like inertia reel, modern glass windscreen, electronic ignition or alternator for dynamo should be OK.  Our problem comes when we replace a standard gearbox with a five speed, or swap Stromberg's for Webber's or put a TR6 engine in a Spitfire. I think that's what they're going to tighten up on and presumably we are going to have to tell them to make our insurance valid. I see a letter coming asking me to verify what's on my car.

[ShaunW]

Find half a dozen local ish indy garages. Drive round them and have a chat (not just a phone call) and I bet you can find somewhere where an MOT isn't too scary. 

Does the group maintain a list of 'historic friendly'  garages? 

I've got one definite and another where the car is today for the first time actually... I'll try and post details later. 

[Gully]

The Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs lists classic friendly MOT stations already - check out www.fbhvc.co.uk

Also worth looking at www.classicfriendly.co.uk which is Fuzz Townshend's scheme.

Gully

[dave.vitesse]

The approach before the proposed changes to the MOT was if the vehicle had undergone modifications, e.g. a larger engine, an engineer's inspection and report would be required to ensure the work had been carried out satisfactory. i.e. Standard of work and has other areas been upgraded to allow for the changes. This appears to have gone by the board.

Dave  

[dave.vitesse]

An Alternator was an option on many of the late 1960's Triumph's fitted with a dynamo as standard. If in doubt just check the parts book.

Dave

[griffipaul]

The proposed legislation talks of an increase in power to weight ratio of 15%. will invalidate historical status . There is a cut off date for the mods but I cannot recall what it is at the moment.

[Clive]

1988. But you will have to prove the mods were done before then...

Of course, with a bit of luck that proposal will be dropped.

[sailmetothemoon]

I have a GT6 with a 2500 engine fitted, although I did not do the conversion I have been reliably informed that a D type box is required to take the power, you will also need an upgraded starter motor. I purchased with fuel injection but it was problamtic so fitted carbs, despite the slight loss of power which you don't notice there is still plenty of grunt to keep you amused in the corners. Good luck in your search and don't forget to pack some wet wipes in the glove box!

[John Bonnett]

One thing I'm sure of, is that the Government will bear in mind the multi billion pound classic vehicle industry that brings revenue into their coffers and I doubt there'll want to risk jeopardising any of that income by effectively killing off large parts of it by introducing more legislation.  In addition, there's a huge number of classic car owners and I question whether they have resources to mail everyone with a questionnaire and send outsourced inspectors to look at each vehicle that has been in any way modified from standard. The 8 point rule has been in force since the '90s and when the dust has settled I have a feeling that not much will have changed and that that rule will still be the yardstick by which they judge what goes where. But let's wait and see.

[Clive]

Talking of which, wasn't there supposed to be something published at the end of November about the consultation? or is that my imagination playing tricks again?

But as John points out, the whole government apparatus is stretched beyond belief. I spoke to an accountant, and he can't remember the last time any of his many clients  were investigated by HRMC except for trivial stuff that is computer generated. So if the govt cannot afford to investigate tax matters, I can't see how they can investigate every classic car out there, especially given there is no money to be gained.

[dougbgt6]

I don't think the government's mind is concentrated anywhere else at the moment, other than by survival, certainly not by the classic vehicle industry. We are safe, I think, until the inevitable next election, and beyond. 

[Colin Lindsay]

I think we're all safe until the first road accident. THEN the Insurance Companies will query modifications, adjustments, non-standard equipment or probably general maintenance (are YOU legally qualified to fit your own brake pads? It may yet come to that, and with no MOT to prove it's been done properly... you may have an argument on your hands)

Don't worry about HM Gov, or HMRC... worry about your first Insurance claim, and that will be at a time when you need it. I don't think your Policy will have a clause that says "It's on the TSSC forum, so it's ok"...

As John says, they don't have the resources to look at everybody, so they'll just look at the ones who come to notice.

End of doom and gloom for the day...

[ShaunW]

As you can get an MOT for under 30 quid, it seems like a small price to pay for being able to (smugly) produce it if your insurance company tries to pull a fast one. 

[Cookie]

I was a bit surprised when I read the consultation document and it had the stats for pre 1960 vehicles that are already MOT exempt. Although you can get them, MOTd voluntarily only 6% of pre 1960 cars actually bother. You'd have thought this would be higher. In terms of what constitutes a substantially modified vehicle, the Government have issued a proposed set of rules and it's based around the current 8 point rule and as has been mentioned a maximum of 15% power increase. This sounds incredibly difficult to police without checking power output on a rolling road! If not it's a real difficult thing to prove, a standard 2.5TC engine would fall well within the 15% whereas as the worst case (or best depending how you look at it!) a TR6 CP engine would be an increase of up to 58% depending on the model of GT6 as GT6 power outputs varied (Mk1 = 95BHP, MK2 = 104BHP, MK3 early = 98BHP MK3 late = 95BHP). Plus of course even a 2L engine may have been modified with hot cam, flowed head, extractor manifold/exhaust etc and be kicking out a fair bit more without any real obvious difference in look under the bonnet to the non Triumph expert. So it's going to be rather interesting as  to how the 15% rule will be implemented in reality.

[NeilF]

Does the 15% rule relate to that particular car model. I have 1000cc Mini which I have put a 1275cc Alegro block engine in. So where do I stand with that? Thank goodness my GT6 is standard.

Neil F

 

 

 

[dougbgt6]

Neil,

No, all models, but so far these are just proposals and as Andy points out, how on earth will they police it? 

Doug

[Clive]

I think we have to wait for the final legislation that gets churned out.

The 15% is a nonsense. My spit with a (now) ST170 engine currently produces approx 180ish bhp. However,before it went to the rolling road (I drove it 100 miles to get there) it was making 58bhp (I had been very over-consevative with the setup, and a few bits were not switched on) BUT if I wanted to produce a rolling road printout of power output, I could simply go back to the initial setup and get a graph showing less power produced than factory 1300. Likewise my modified Toledo, just lock the distributor timing at 0 Degrees advance and power will be greatly reduced. No, this bit is a stupid idea.The 8 point rule is fine (my spit is OK, just)but arbitrary stuff about power is un-policeable.