Jump to content

Bleednipple

TR Register Members
  • Content Count

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Bleednipple

Profile Information

  • Location
    Buckinghamshire
  • Cars Owned:
    TR4 (1962)

Recent Profile Visitors

126 profile views
  1. Thanks, yes it did occur to me maybe my engine mounts could be a bit tired. I'll look at the LR option for sure. Nigel
  2. Okay, thanks Tom and Tim. My sump is virtually flush with the chassis members - actually hangs a couple of mm lower than chassis - so I guess guard will need some spacers or it will be functioning as an extra engine mount! Also I just noticed bottom of exhaust manifold is vulnerable, comes out very low, so I guess it will depend what guard chosen and how it's fettled. Thanks again.
  3. Backing up to one of Kevin's other questions above... sump guard. It looks like various options/ways to fit a guard but my question is more basic, ie how vulnerable in reality is the TR4 sump and gubbins for road/gravel rallies (ERA type)? It doesn't look horribly vulnerable, in between the chassis members - unless I went off over a pretty chunky rock. But I do have an oil cooler fitted and I could see how that could easily pick up a stone. Have no ARB, and standard steel sump. I can see you'd inevitably lose a fair bit of ground clearance. Guessing the rally experts will say just fit a guard and then the problem goes away... but I'd welcome opinions anyway.
  4. Bleednipple

    Umbrella

    I'm going to sound like a complete noob now and I'm almost too shy to ask... but do you actually drive (albeit slowly, for sure) with the brolly up?? Nigel
  5. In the old days I used to remove an old filter by knocking a big screwdriver straight through the can and using that as a lever. Slightly messy but always seemed to work a treat, but probably ill-advised for some reason (eg risk of getting swarf into the oil channels)? Nigel
  6. Here's a good review of the Alsa product, it's a video made by a professional (who makes theatrical/film props by the look of it). He tests the Alsa product in various ways: He concluded that the product can work very well, but not when brushed on. Needs to be carefully airbrushed, over a black gloss undercoat. I suspect not the holy grail for us in its current form, but maybe if the product keeps getting improved...
  7. In order of investigation: first I would first inspect the brake pedal linkage to see if anything is sticking there - not sure if this occurs on TRs but it can do on some cars. Then I would try the car with the servo disconnected. I have heard of servo defects causing this type of problem, could be as simple as a defective return spring. I will let a TR grown-up decide whether to ask the brake fluid question!! Nigel
  8. Sounds like they put Irn Bru in there then. Lucky that TRs are Made in Coventry Frae Girders. Best of luck and enjoy.
  9. From memory, Radweld (yep, horrid, but we all used it back in the day - after trying and failing with the old egg white trick) is a definite red tint, not the orange that AJJ reports. Simply rust is much more likely I would say. If it were me, the next step would deffo be to throw some Kseal in, shouldn't hurt and could just fix it.
  10. Sounds familiar. My car's PO told me that the head developed a crack at number 4 plug. It was repaired ceramically and seems to have held up fine (just has a long-reach plug now for that cylinder). So if you do find you have a crack, it might not mean a new head. So don't despair and enjoy your road trip. Nigel
  11. Agree completely this would be the most responsible thing to do. The trouble is, once the law no longer requires an annual test, 'some of us' will inevitably be tempted to leave a bigger gap between (non-mandatory) MOTs than we should. The stats make interesting reading I think: https://www.statista.com/statistics/323086/road-accidents-caused-by-vehicle-defect-factors-severity-in-great-britain-uk/ In 2016: 120 serious accidents caused by tyre defects/under inflated (8 fatalities) 115 by brake defects (10 fatal) 49 steering or suspension (6 fatal) 33 defective lights or indicators (2 fatal) Of those, we don't know how many were involving 40+ year old cars, but it is surely extremely few of them, and could even be none at all. The MOT test should in theory have picked up all these faults, and I'm sure did prevent many more accidents. But the trouble is that a lot of the things an old car is likely to fail on (eg is the horn working, or a weak handbrake), thereby VOR-ing the car, have little or no meaningful impact (sorry!) on real safety in the real world. So whatever we 'responsible' owners do, I can see some people will skip MOTs (which is presumably what the Government accepts will happen, and is unconcerned because they've assessed the likely consequences as very low). By the way, in the same year 2016, there were 1,792 road deaths. So we should get this in proportion - nearly 99% of deaths were due to other causes: excess speed, lack or care etc etc. Still of course there were 26 tragedies for families of people killed by failed brakes, or not checking tyre pressures - which however an MOT 11 months earlier probably wouldn't have prevented. Just food for thought. Nigel
  12. ,,, and here's a link to the Government's response to the consultation. In it (page 7) it says it intends to implement the change to exempt 40-year-old vehicles. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/644412/government-response-to-exempting-vehicles-of-historical-interest-from-roadworthiness.pdf It doesn't say the change will take effect in May, but that has been widely reported in the media as the date it will happen. Nigel
  13. Phil, the gov.uk web link above refers to the current situation (ie you need an MOT for vehicles built after 1960) BUT you were correct in your original post that this changes from May 2018, when all vehicles 40 years old or more will suddenly become MOT exempt. My TR4 is also a 1962 car so I'm in the same position as you. And I'm also unclear about your specific questions. (Although it seems on the face of it that if a car fails an MOT it is because it has been found to be unroadworthy, and in that case it would of course be an offence to use it on the road). There has been a lot in the press about this but I will try to find a link to something from the Government.... be right back. Nigel
  14. Thanks all. Although my garage seems reasonably dry most of the time, having looked again at the various bubble/tent options (including TONS of views on these forums) I'm going to consider variously either the Carcoon Veloce, Cair-O-Port or AirChamber. Looks like all have pros/cons - alhough the Cair-O-Port has an attractive price from the TRR shop! I haven't checked the dimensions but is it real-world practice to jack up a TR4 in one of those, with the bonnet up?? Thanks for indulging a newbie on this, i realise it's a long-trodden forum topic. In my case, for the past 20 years I've only had to garage a Westfield and they're tough little critters (basically a plastic shell on some alu on some 1-inch steel tubing). They'll probably be the only cars to survive the apocalypse, there will just be them and the cockroaches left to drive them. But the 4 is a princess and what TR wants, TR gets.
  15. Thanks Brian. Insulated overalls - good wheeze, and looks like no more expensive than a couple of sheets of 50mm Celotex. AND Mrs Bleednipple has been saying I ought to be making some stylish additions to my winter wardrobe. Although I suspect that's part of her campaign to make me get rid of That Old Fleece. Seriously though, I assume the 'high air exchange rate' garage has worked for you then in keeping your TR rust free?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please familiarise yourself with our Terms and Conditions. By using this site, you agree to the following: Terms of Use.