Tom Fremont

Having had this problem back in the 1900s with my '250 I have always filled the system via the thermostat housing since. Tom

New U-Js? Off brand ones aren't tight against the cups; a few thou is all it takes for them to bang back and forth especially on overrun at low speed. GMB are good, as are GWB if you can find them. Others can chime in too. Tom

I have found replacement " stock " springs to give positive camber in the rear. The wire diameter is larger but have more coils - just a different animal. When I changed trailing arm brackets and inverted some of them to get the camber to 1 degree negative +/- 1/2 degree the ride height settled in pretty well. On one of my cars I had to use an aluminium spacer on one side to equalize them. Peter, your old photo shows some seriously negative camber! Typical in the day, I suppose. Certainly was in our market on the TR6s; TR250s didn't seem to suffer as much of it. Tom

Sorry, can't help myself - If you're going to have someone set up your fueling system, fit triple Webers ( engine has to be CP spec or beyond ). All the benefits of the P.I. and... zero maintenance. Did I mention they're fine at altitude? Cheers, Tom

Who, me? Doesn't ring a bell so launch away; always good to see other Weber recipes . Tom

Same here. Richard Good offers a viscous damper claimed to enable another 600-800 rpm. Even at its bracing price I would consider it if I were certain of it lasting indefinitely ( I'm not ). Tom

Apart from a brief fling with a Lumenition A/F ratio meter ( which told me nothing I didn't guess anyway, before it quit working altogether ) it's been seat of the pants and monitoring fuel economy for mine, 142K miles total over 24 years. Could be that more tweaking would bear fruit but I reckon only a token amount, if any. But we don't have competent rolling roads with Weber expertise on every street corner here in the 'States like you have on your side of the pond . Tom

Hi Tom, I have 40s on both my engines, and concur with the perception that 45s are for larger displacement TR5/6 engines, e.g. 2.7 liter etc. If your settings give satisfaction across the range ( no low speed - mid range gasp ) you ought to stay with them. Keep a record should you venture into the wilderness so you can find your way back. They say there are over 4 billion permutations. I have used F2 and now F7 emulsion tubes and have tried F11, F15 and F16 without success - each failed in the low-mid range because the main system doesn't come into play until 2500-3000 rpm with them on my engines. The F16 was the worst, and F11 in 3rd place behind the F7 and F2. Main jets are 125/175 air in the driver and 130/190 air in the concours / higher mod engine. Exhaust manifolds matter a lot, and a true extractor like the GOODPARTS makes for smaller jets and/or larger air correctors. I have one of these and it was a must for the latter with its really extreme cam in order to get the mid-range up to snuff. Fitting it led to 1 size smaller main and (7) sizes larger air corrector to restore the top end. Chokes are 30mm in the driver and 32 in the concours one. Pump jets are 45 in the driver, 40 in the other with closed bypass valves. A critical factor is float level. I have 40DCOE18 on both engines but the driver's are very old with brass throttle shafts and the same setting in both cases results in a fuel height discrepancy of 3.5mm! The pertinent measurement therefore is 28mm below the top of the well. Below this level ( higher number ) will make it difficult to bring the mid range in low enough; in my case 2000 rpm but others hold out for 1500. Some pundits urge setting the level to 25mm, leaving a scant 1mm below the pipe into the venturi. I've never had my engines on dynos and I had a brief fling with a a/f meter system when I was tearing my hair out with the wild one; it was a piece of !@#$ and didn't tell me anything I didn't already guess before it stopped working altogether. So it's been seat of the pants pretty much all the way, with helpful advice here and there, and a very fortuitous set of F7 emulsion tubes in a used set of DCOEs I threw in 20 years ago. The driver's engine now has 135K miles on its last rebuild, runs terrific with scant oil consumption and excellent oil pressure - thanks in no small measure to the wonderful Webers metering fuel as well as can be for a carburetor. Cheers, Tom

The 41219 distributor is a 7 degree nominal centrifugal advance type. With 11 degrees static time this gives ~ 25 degrees crank advance maximum and reaches this value at 2600 rpm crankshaft. I have these on both of my Webered TR250s. The driver has ~ 9.5:1 c/r and CP cam. It will ping if I dial in as much as 30 degrees total advance so I reckon TRIUMPH set them below this value for good reason. The other one has very high lift, high duration cam and 10.7:1 c/r and it can take somewhat more advance before it pings. Frankly, I haven't found much power difference at all within a range of +/- 5 degrees advance; only pinging and fuel economy. For the latter it would be nice to have vacuum advance for highway cruising but I haven't found a way to get it. Tom

The Rostyles won't come off without severe impact to the wheel, with a sideways vector and likely permanent distortion. What they will do is appear to be fastened when only (2) of the (3) nibs are engaged. Then they'll come off. Their biggest problem is owners / service shops who removed them by prying the outer edge away from the wheel. Next in line is curb rash. To me they were always " fake " vs. the real thing which were fitted to Rover 2000s and others. For those eager to have them, a gent in the 'States is thinking to make reproductions as he already has for the striped hoses. Search " Rostyle " on www.triumphexperience.com. I'm in line to get a set for my original '250 wheels in VGC. Tom

I wouldn't think they should evaporate nearly as rapidly in chronically damp air . Anyway, if you're using an electric pump how would you know if the fuel level has dropped in the carbs? I don't bother priming my driver's because it's usually only a day or two between drives, and the cold start/ accel pumps do fine without. TRIUMPH fitted pumps with priming levers on the twin carb US applications for a reason. The Webers have lots more evaporative potential and seldom come with an airbox to mitigate evaporative loss , like the original Strombergs have - mine don't, anyway. I've only been running Weber DCOEs on my '250s for 24 years so you've got me beat. Dunno about miles racked up though Tom

No, they evaporate through the K&N filters. I imagine it would be even faster without them. Someday I'll design a suitable airbox for them and just cover the inlet when I park it. Tom

I'm with Berry. I've been using the AC type on my TR250s since 1976 when I got the first one, and since 1996 have used them successfully with triple Weber DCOEs. Current supply are alcohol resistant; don't know if you have that issue in the UK/Europe. Some owners would rather not bother with manual priming and go for the electric to avoid it. When I ran Strombergs and used the car for a daily driver or several times per week I never bothered to hand prime. With the Webers they can take up to 30 pumps of the lever to refill them after a week of sitting. Tom

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1955-swallow-doretti-roadster/ Cheers, Tom

Thanks for sharing that, John. I bought a Plexiglass gauge from Keith years ago and appreciate his devotion to Weber DCOEs. His experience is mainly with LOTUS engines and I was surprised he's only tuned with (1) emulsion tube - the F11. There is a great deal of difference between these and his advice would be worth much more with this aboard. Having tuned a few TR250/6 engines ( mostly my own under differing build recipes ) I prefer the F2 and F7 emulsion tubes as they seem to bring the main system into play at lower rpm - especially the F7 which both my engines now use. FWIW, F11s are not as generous at lower rpm, nor are F15s and least of all were F16s in my experience. He also advises setting the floats/ fuel level to 25mm below the top of the well. WEBER had different values for different applications and in fact set it lower in the LOTUS applications. The " generic " setting in published literature works out to 27-28mm. The main thing I got out of this paper is his suggestion that idle - to - main jet system transition should be around 1400 rpm. I was thinking 1500 is the low end of where reasonable people would expect to get any response from WOT. First time I've come across a suggested rpm for it. I believe that cruising at 3000 rpm or less uses only the idle circuit, vacuum scarcely felt beyond the throttle plates. He says otherwise, so those more in the know can chime in. Maybe I"m lucky but rocky idles have not been an issue for mine - but they're 6-cylinder . Tom