Keith66
-
Content Count
511 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Keith66
-
-
Gareth and All
With these entirely cosmetic things the decision over what it looks like is a 100% personal thing.
So whatever you do on your car is correct, even polished carbon fibre or body colour (lol)
When refurbing my (Original, as afr as i can tell) dash I decided to stay with what I think is reasonably close to the original look.
Luckily my dash veneer was I quite good nick and just needed a few repairs.
The lacquer as normal was not so needed to be completely stripped. To replace it I went with multiple coats (5+) of satin with a light key between each.
I’m happy with the result and think it suits the car well.
Cheers Keith
-
1 hour ago, rcreweread said:
I wonder if the TA would have broken if a traditional lever arm was being used?
Cheers Rich
Hi All
I'm def no expert engineer but logic would tell me there should be way less chance.
So assuming the bump stops don't come into play before the strut bottoms out there would be massive (depending on pot hole size) stresses transmitted vertically to a fixed point, namely the top of the new strut bracket, so pretty strong. Well the ones I fitted seemed to be.
So a locked strut attached to a V strong bracket and a massive road shock leads the weak point failing, i.e. the alloy trailing arm shock mount.
With lever arms there are many areas of flex, both vertically and horizontally, the lever of the lever arm is horizontal so (I assume) wouldn’t transmit the forced so directly, the drop links, though vertical in themselves do not attach to a fixed and strong point and can move both vertically and horizontally.
With all of this err flex in the system I wouldn’t expect this type of failure to be common with lever arms, but as I said I’m no expert so I’m sure someone will confirm it has happened.
Oh I went back to levers after seeing the bridge failure pics on this post.
https://www.tr-register.co.uk/forums/index.php?/topic/66376-rear-shock-conversion-what-not-to-use/
I think it pays to be careful about mods to 50 year old cars that may put new stresses on components they were never designed to cope with and aren’t as strong as they once were. It may well mean strengthening other areas rather than just whacking the new thing straight on the car.
Not saying don’t mod your car just think about how any mod might affect other areas and sort any potential probs before they happen.
Cheers Keith
-
On 4/23/2022 at 8:18 PM, Andy Moltu said:
I bought a roll from Pirtek a few years ago.
They have numerous outlets.
Def not gonna buy mine from there then, if they have numerous outlets they'll leak all over the engine bay
-
Hi David
The first thing to say is its your car and 100% upto you which way to go and what you want out of it.
But for me one of the things about the 6 is the fuel injection is very much its USP and makes it a bit unusual and not just one of a number of 60's / 70's mechanically conventional sports cars so for me its get the Pi working.
I;m sure there are people who can recomend someone close to you to sort it.
Cheers Keith
-
Hi All
Hi All
I think these days we need to be pretty careful when buying tyres.
I doubt many of use wear them out and as has been said 10 years or so is about the limit due to rubber aging, hardness and cracking. Tyres over 10 years old are already outlawed on the steering axles of LGV’s over 3500kgs due to weight. But with a Range Rover weighing in at 2600kgs how long is it going to be before they start extending that to cars. It was being considered for taxi’s but was shelved as part of the LGV thing but who knows for how long, so we def don’t want to be buying tyres that have been on a warehouse shelf for a couple of years as per Dave Lewis’s Verdesteins.
Probably not an issue at £50 a corner for budget 195/65’s but if you go for 165R15 Pirelli CN36’s it’s a pretty big bill for a consumable wear item so we don't want that shortening because of somebody lack of stock rotation.
Cheers Keith
-
Dave
Hopefully they will come back with something realistic.
There should be an expectation that wear and physical damage excepting tyres should last a minimum of 10 years. Unless you spill Acid all over them.
To have been fitted less than 5 years and be all but scrap because of cracks is unacceptable.
The 10 years should be from fittment date or we should all reject fitment of tyres over 3 months older than manufacturing date.
It is reported that classic cars average about 1200 miles per year, so based on Dave's under 5 years from fitment to scrap it gives you 5000 or so miles.
If Vredestein think under 5 years and 5000 miles is acceptable we should make this known in the classic car world to all other clubs and affiliated organisations. A bit of consumer pressure.
If they blame the sun in sunny Spain the question to ask is it normal that tyres in hot sunny countries last under 5 years?
As i have T Trac2's i'll be very interested to know what they say.
Cheers Keith
-
Hi Dave
I've had a number of tyres crack and fail am MOT, well more like get advisory and the comment that it won’t be passed next year.
They were Goodyear F1’s on my, the wife’s the wife’s, little used (Cough Cough) MG- TF, but they were 10 to 12 years old from memory and I kind of expect them to only last that long esp as it has to live outside due to the TR being garaged. My recent-ish Vredestein 165 TTrac2’s were looking ok last time I looked, maybe time for an inspection.
But tyres on a cars stored inside or at least out of direct sunlight should last 10 years at least.
I’ve be very disappointed if Sprint Classics couldn’t make 10 years due to modern materials given the price that gets charged for them.
Best of luck with a refund, even if only partial.
Cheers Keith
-
7 hours ago, RobH said:
You are in the clear Andy if no card data went over the internet.
If you used a normal card payment terminal on the desk, that will have a direct connection to the bank so the card data shouldn't have been processed by Moss and anyway they won't have had either the security number or expiry dates which a hacker would need.
And exactly because of that i have a credit card with a lowish limit that i use for internet purchases only.
This means day to day physical transactions are kept separate from internet spending and if the card gets compromised the other one is still ok and of course that applies both ways.
Maybe i'm being over cautious but hey what the heck, hacks can happen.
Cheers Keith
-
Stuart, interesting.
Do they say that is because they think that is a contributory factor or just looking for a get out?
Always tended to prefer parts from someone you've heard of rather than a generic Chinese part.
Though who knows where they are actaully made, the assumption is they've got a name to protect.
Cheers Keith
-
Hi All
Now this may sound like a pretty basic question but my car is hoodless and has been for err a while and I just want to make sure i've got things righ before I go fit my new hood.
What are the snap fasteners on the rear for?
That’s the 5 directly below the rear window and the one each side of the window.
It seems to me that the bar glued to the hood then bolted to the body keeps the hood in attached to the rear deck and the three snap fasteners at the top of the rear wing keep the hood attached to the rear wing.
So are those 7 snaps on the rear just to attach the tonneau or hood cover in place if the roof is down?
Cheers Keith
-
8 hours ago, RogerH said:
Hi keith,
just recently the Gov't has stopped the plans for a new open cast coal concern in the North East. This would have produced quality steam coal and employment for a good few years without the usual mess of the TRaditional pit. Never mind we will import inferior coal from Russia - extra work for the steam preservation area, no extra employment and exporting of UK funds over seas - sounds sensible.
Roger
I don't disagree Roger,
I do think Climate Change is a thing we all need to be concerned about. So i think for most people to whom a car is simply a device to get from A to B, you know the equivalent to a Fridge Freezer in that it just does a job, an EV (or any zero emissions car) is great.
But for us daft enthusiasts (hence the steam train analogy) its just not the same. Asking me to swap my TR for an EV is like asking the Severn Valley Steam Railway to run Hitachi electric trains, its not going to happen.
So as an enthusiast I won’t be swapping my 15k TR for a 150k Tesla anytime soon, even if the Tesla is Free!!!
But of course the big issue is who else will go Zero Emissons? If half of US drivers continue to buy and drive big 5.0 V8 Trucks doing 15mpg our move to Nissan Leaf’s will be a drip in an ocean.
Cheers Keith
-
3 hours ago, Peter Cobbold said:
given a 15 year usable life, that means fuel should be available at the pumps until ca 2045.
Peter i think you are underseling the reliability and longevity of modern cars, it's is way longer than 15 years.
Sure a 70’s or 80’s car was toast after 15 years but todays are way better, Take my 17 year old MG Zt, sure it’s got a few rattles and creaks from the interior but the big stuff like the engine, gearbox etc are spot on and look like they will last many many more years and its got almost zero rust, which was the big car killer. Ok so bushes and belts need changing and maybe the odd ancillary like an alternator or starter, but stuff lasts if its maintained and I’m sure in the early 2000’s Rover Group cars were not anywhere near as well designed or built as todays cars.
If the 15 year rule were correct the oldest cars we would see regularly would be 06 plates and there are millions of daily drivers way older than that. I can easily see ICE cars used as normal daily transport until 2055/60. That’s unless Govt decides to “encourage” the scrapping of ICE cars by imposing punitive costs on the last small % remaining by 2050
Also given current battery life and costs will we ever see the 15 year old 500 quid EV “banger” with a battery that is not stuffed and going to cost £5k to replace? Alot of people won't be very mobile if they have to find 30k for an EV, not good for the economy.
So classic cars will end up being like steam trains. Coal has almost ceased to exist as a fuel for the UK but I bet we will see steam trains around for as long as people are interested and the last BR steam loco’s stopped 1968 so 53 years already.
So i'm not panicking yet.
Cheers Keith
-
6 hours ago, Mark69 said:
Previous owner had cut the lugs off and filled smooth and fitted the later style centre black hub caps.
Seems like sacrilege now, but I suppose at one time the wheel trim off the five looked a bit “old fashioned” and someone wanted the newer look.
But nowadays I’d love to have a car that “should” have those wheels.
Cheers Keith
-
On 3/1/2021 at 9:50 PM, jellison said:
Why would anyone want or need PS on a TR??!!!
Hmmm, its personal choice and each to their own, its their car and many have individual preferences or needs as has been said.
But saying that i can't really imagine wanting my steering to be lighter.
It is, i feel, no heavier than the power steering in my MG Zt, but then the wife doesn't like that and prefers the one finger PS in her Mazda hatch, so as i said it is each to their own.
Cheers Keith
-
-
Hi Clem
I recalled seeing this thread about grille mounted lights.
Like the idea just not 100% sure on the looks, probably because its unusual.
I may get a second grille and try it out ?
Cheers Keith
-
Hi All
Couple of comments and a couple of questions.
I often use the Rimmers site to find part numbers and look at the diagrams but usually buy most stuff from DMG as they are local enough to me to make the drive worthwhile, well before lockdown anyway as the counter closed then and still is.
So first question. Assuming the hose from the pump to the PRV is under similar pressure to the one at the other end to the metering unit surely it would need to be as robust as the one to the metering unit and thus constructed the same.
Rimmers show 214890 just as your pic but 153736 with swaged fittings.
But my version of 153736, bought from DMG is a similar construction to your problem hose, although both they and Moss list it as 215642 and it comes without swaged fittings.
So how should they be constructed and should they be of similar construction?
My hoses are both very new with almost no use but if they are indeed substandard will need to be changed. But are they dodgy or are they just made differently?
It may be they are up to the job and the ones with the saged fittings are no better they just give the impression of being better quality and more robust, clearly I’m not qualified to say but really do want to know especially if they are under specified I want my circa £65 back as we should not be sold below spec items, esp such safety critical ones as fuel supply.
Cheers Keith
-
Hi All
Apologies for probably asking a stupid question about the soft top but never having installed one before and having removed the non- working one from the car too many years ago to remember I just want to check a couple of things before I go attacking my new and very expensive Don Hoods mohair roof.
The rear retainer bar slips in the hood pocket and is then bolted to the deck, simples.
But all the instructions and videos on YouTube show it being glued in place. Given its bolted to the deck is that step absolutely needed?
Its obviously not going anywhere but would the lack on glue allow too much movement and premature tearing of the roof?
Just thinking about how good my glue spraying skills are for something that may not be 100% needed.
The other one is the snap fasteners on the outside of the top. Clearly the three on the soft top side “wings” clip to the body, but are the 5 below the window and 1 each side in the side panel just there to attached the tonneau in place?
If that is the case is it usual to leave them as bare studs or do people fit caps?
Can’t think of anything else at the moment but I’m sure I’ll be asking agains as things go wrong, lol.
Cheers Keith
-
Hi All
Makes interesting reading, completely unaware there was a 5 Speed development of the Triumph gearbox.
When were those experimental ones made, was it then end of the TR6 run or early on?
In terms of it being better than the LT77 I have no idea but can see the attraction of a modular gearbox with a bolt on bell housing and rear case, it would seem to make it easier to fit the same basic box to different vehicles, esp if it were already designed and on the shelf as it were. With the Triumph box it would seem the whole casing would need to be different if a different sized (esp shorter) bell housing was needed.
Bet those experimental boxes are now worth a pretty penny, more than my car, lol.
Cheers Keith
-
Oh and by the way what is the correct Part No for the mirrors.
Rich quotes GAM258/259 but looking at DMG they give nuymbers GAM215/216, with Rimmers its 213/214 etc.
They all look like the generic BL 1970's door mirrors fitted at all and sundry or are they different?
Cheers Keith
-
On 4/22/2021 at 7:28 AM, saffrontr said:
Door mirrors were not a standard factory fitment for the TR6, except for the later US models. The GAM type mirrors were fitted as an accessory by the Triumph / BL Dealer.
Not being sure of the mirror rules i thought i'd check as my car is about to go back on the road properly and currently has no door mirrors.
So to me the "Mirror requirements for cars" regs on Gov.uk seem to state that cars used prior to 1978 should be fitted with with an External Offside mirror and that there should be a nearside mirror or an internal mirror that provides enough of a view of the nearside rear to nake that not necessary.
So the question is that right or do pre 78 cars only need one internal mirror that provides a good view of the rear?
I intend to fit mirrors to both doors but could do with a quick round the block test drive and as curious to whether it was ok or not.
Cheers Keith
-
On 4/22/2021 at 7:28 AM, saffrontr said:
Door mirrors were not a standard factory fitment for the TR6, except for the later US models. The GAM type mirrors were fitted as an accessory by the Triumph / BL Dealer.
Not being sure of the mirror rules i thought i'd check as my car is about to go back on the road properly and currently has no door mirrors.
So to me the "Mirror requirements for cars" regs on Gov.uk seem to state that cars used prior to 1978 should be fitted with with an External Offside mirror and that there should be a nearside mirror or an internal mirror that provides enough of a view of the nearside rear to nake that not necessary.
So the question is that right or do pre 78 cars only need one internal mirror that provides a good view of the rear?
I intend to fit mirrors to both doors but could do with a quick round the block test drive and as curious to whether it was ok or not.
Cheers Keith
-
5 hours ago, c.hydes said:
Think you maybe be scaremongering here. If you refer to headlamps yes probably will be a fail, but my car passed MOT last year with LED brake lights/rear marker/front side lights.
Hi All
Trouble is if you follow Bills link to the bit he quotes it seems to be a regulation update as of JAN 21.
I too checked those regs a while ago when i was thinking about changing my old sealed beams and saw the reg only mentioned HID bulbs but not LEDs so I had the option back then but it seems not now.
So if we are interpreting the update correctly the new regs def seem to indicate that LEDs as well as HIDs should be an MOT failure. I suppose those who have LED's and have an MOT soon will see what happens and hopefully report back. Whether you would ever get pulled and prosecuted is another matter but which i think the rge is a bit short sighted as a good quality LED should be fine as a replacement for a cheapo Halogen bulb, but maybe there is a sensible reason behind it we are not aware of.
Cheers Keith
-
Hi All
I'd kind of agree that Vredestein are not a premium brand but I’d put them above the raft of unknown Chinese brands out there.
The problem is if you prefer to stay 165 and don’t want a van tyre there is not a lot of choice and the TTrac2 has got pretty positive comments on our forums.
I also looked at the classic tyres they still make for older cars like the Michelin XAS or XZX and Pirelli Cinturato CN36, but unless you really want the period authentic look I think the thick of £1500 a set for 1960’s tyre technology is a little pricy for my wallet.
The most important things are not to buy used, remoulds, really really cheapo junk or leave them on so long they go all hard and cracked even though lots will have plenty of tread left because the mileage done in a TR is likely to be quite low.
My tyres had quite a bit of tread depth left as I was coming to the end of my resto but as they were the thick end of 20 years old, in the bin they went.
Cheers Keith
Hood Installation Advice
in TR6 Forum
Posted
Hi All
Bit of advice please.
Getting round to fitting my new hood soon, well hopefully.
Got a rough idea how to do it and found a couple of useful guides so hopefully I can work all that lot out.
But the one thing that is looking difficult is installing the snap fasteners. Theoretically is simple enough but the results aren’t as I’d like, (Pic1) of my efforts and a proper job!!(Pic3)
As you can see although the snap is attached and does not move it looks a bit of a mess and maybe not as secure as I’d like. But it may be perfectly functional.
I’ve got the cheapo tools off Ebay at the moment (pic2), I know there is a proper professional tool sold by Sailrite in the US but at $234 its kind of pricey for a one off job. They do a similar (but seemingly better) version of the hammer tool but with a locating collar, but I can’t find it here.
So what I’m looking to produce is a similar kind of result to pic3, which was done by the hammer method.
So for the DIY installers out there has anyone got better results and what tool did you use?
Cheers Keith