Jump to content


TR Register Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Ukmax

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Cars Owned:
    1935 Singer LeMans, 1964 Triumph TR4, 1968 Rover P6 V8, 1972 Jensen Interceptor, Jaguar E type, 1990 TWR Jaguar XJ-RS, 1991 TWR Jaguar XJ-RS, 1999 BMW Z3M Coupe,

Recent Profile Visitors

467 profile views
  1. I finally arrived at the light at the end of the tunnel to find another tunnel with the light on!

  2. As suggested by Mick, I measured the rear axle for squareness in the chassis and found it be square within a mm. Close examination revealed a straigthening repair to chassis, roughly between the point where the left side forward body support tube joins the chassis and the first bend, where the chassis starts to taper towards the front. Also the fact there are ground down welds each end of the front crossmember, indicates this has been replaced (or cut out and reattached) at some time. Because of the damage repair, I followed the procedure in the blue manual to ascertain the squareness of the chassis and found it to be within acceptable limits I checked the wishbone pin mounts for damage as suggested by Stuart and there was no obvious damage but on the left side there is considerable deviation from the measurements given on the chassis dimensions diagram. The deviation from the recommended 273.6 mm (pin centre to chassis centreline) is as follows:- Left front +11.4mm - Right front +1.4mm Left rear -11.2mm - Right rear -1mm It is more than likely that as part of the chassis repair, the wishbone pin mountings have been replaced out of alignment, which accounts for the position of the wheel in the wheel arch. I will attend to this when I strip the suspension next week to replace the spring, shocker and bushes. Thanks again to all whom assisted with these problems, ironically caused by errors made during previous repairs. I wonder what the next problem will be? David
  3. Gents, thank you very much for the advice, which is much appreciated. Mick, I did check the rear axle, early on in my investigation and is was square with the chassis. However I don't know if it is in the right place do you have a measurement from an easily identifiable datum please? I'll certainly carefully examine the areas you suggest Stuart but if nothing is obvious, I may decide to take the body off this car and jig the chassis up properly for my own peace of mind if nothing else. I'm further frustrated by the problem with my ramp because it's holding me up from cracking on getting this car ready for a forthcoming rally. David
  4. As my initial problem was that the wheel was too close to the top of the arch, I only did a quick cursory check of each side wheel centre to centre measurement by "guesstimating" the centre of the spinners and I recall that it was more-or-less the same each side, but but given I am now only talking about 10mm or so, then "more-or-less" is obviously not good enough! I will therefore accurately mark the exact centres of each wheel and carry out that measurement again. Before I do this, I will need to set the track on the front wheels again. David
  5. The car has been stuck up in the air for a couple of weeks following a hydraulic ram fault on my ramp and because I store another car under the ramp, I dare not let it down in case I can't get it back up again! (it's supported by acrow props just in case!) As I said in a previous post, the ride height now appears to be correct but the left side wheel is further back in the wheel arch than the right side wheel and only a couple of millimetres clear of the wing on right lock. However, I have been able to carry out more measurements because and It's clear that the chassis front or the suspension is still not correct. Using plumb lines and laser, I have measured the relative positions of the lower trunnions and find that the centre of the right hand trunnion is about 10-12 mm further forward than the left hand trunnion. The line runs on the chassis cross member as near as damn it equally from the edge along the full length so that is square. I also noted that the left side centre line is well off the centre line of the wheel when viewed from wheel side. I can't easily measure the castor angle at the moment. I cannot accurately do all the chassis measurements I need until I get the car down and am able to strip both sides of the front suspension again. In the meantime, does anyone know of anything else that would /may cause this discrepancy? Bearing in mind that the first problem was caused by the lower wishbones being refitted upside down by the PO. David
  6. Ken, I seem to recall that the the remains of a car I referred to was in a neutral gelcoat finish but I can't swear to that. I may also be incorrect about only having Dorretti part chassis, there may well have been some complete chassis in the original acquisition from Swallow which were sold before I started there. during the early/mid 60's Monkspath had completely finished with the "specials" market but as I said, they did continue to supply Dorretti parts right up until I left and also stocked some Triumph TR parts. They also continued to repair glass fibre cars and supplied to the public, various weights of glass fibre cloth, resin and body filler powder, i.e., slate dust, which one mixed with resin and was tough to rub down once fully cured! John Churchley had moved into more mainstream motor dealing, securing dealerships for Skoda (yes, the "'OMG" originals!), Saab, NSU (also before the acquisition by VW) and Daf, in around 1967, they became one of the first UK Toyota dealers. The old garage was eventually demolished and became a David Prophet BMW dealership, the site is now (ironically) a major Toyota Dealership. In fact, the surrounding area has become sort of "motor city" with all main manufacturer's dealers locating there. Perhaps there should be a blue plaque erected there saying "Swallow Dorretti reborn here". I'm joking of course but I thinkJohn Churchley did make a massive contribution to the continuance of the marque. Ahh, fond memories! David
  7. I know I'm bumping an old topic but I've only recently joined the forum and spotted this post following a search for "Monkspath garage" to see if it was mentioned. I worked at Monkspath garage in the 1960s and of course knew John Churchley (who bore a remarkable resemblance to Graham Hill and probably "moulded" his hair and fine moustache to enhance the resemblance!) I served quite a few Dorretti owners with parts, although the number of callers was diminishing as the decade closed. There were quite a few engine, brake and suspension parts in the stores but I was told that just prior to my joining "someone" purchased a very large quantity of parts, including the "remaining"' chassis parts. (NB I'm sure the terms "parts" was used when referring to Dorrretti chassis , which would imply that they may not have been complete chassis I was also told that, although it was considered, the garage never built a Dorretti car but did experiment with a glass fibre body on a Dorertti chassis and I think the remains of this car were in the yard behind the garage along with some old glass fibre body sections and (I think) moulds from earlier "Shirley" cars. I did at one time own a "Shirley" which is what first introduced me to Monkspath garage, which was only a couple of miles from my home. I was also told that it was though that the "someone" (mentioned earlier) did in fact build a Dorretti using the parts purchased but used a TR3 engine. David
  8. Good point Roger, I am familiar with the procedure of drilling a hole to prevent propagation of a crack and it works very well, especially in thin material, especially aluminium but I think when you cut the crack like this one with a disc, the end of the crack is where you decide to cut to but I did mean to say extend the cut and the weld 5mm or so past the end of the crack. Further study of the photo seems to reveal that the crack wanders a little at the end, in that case I would drill a larger hole to take out "wandering" and crater fill that before completing the weld. David
  9. Cut through (follow) the crack with a 1mm cutting disc to remove any rust or paint etc. that may be lurking, before creating a shallow "V" . Be sure to make a smooth continuous weld of equal width, extending approximately 3 mm each side of crack and with a bead height of around 2.5 mm. I would TIG weld such a crack but if you use MIG be sure to get good equal penetration along length and extend the weld 5mm or so past the crack end. David
  10. Kevin, you raise an interesting point when you say I don't believe such a rebuild is a restoration and unless the bodyshell is an original factory one, it could well be argued that the resulting vehicle is in fact a replica, especially in the case of the examples you give where there is no chassis and the original body carried the original VIN. I have come across so-called 1960s E type Jaguars for sale, listed as having new (aftermarket) tub, bonnet, doors, rear wings, boot floor and lid and subframe etc etc, with an asking price of north of £250K! In fact, the only original 'period' parts are the engine, gearbox and interior (most of which is probably also aftermarket manufacture) My way of thinking is, if you take a drivetrain, suspension brakes and electrics from a what becomes a 'donor' car and build them into a body made by another person or organisation then the result is effectively a "special" and if it's designed to have the same appearance as the original donor vehicle, then it's a replica." An exception may arise when the vehicle (like a TR) has a separate chassis but if you populate an aftermarket chassis with original (say 1964) parts and then mate this with an aftermarket tub and body parts, is that really still a 1964 car? Where does one draw the line? I would be most interested to hear other opinions but don't really want to hijack this thread, should I start a new thread? David
  11. The Pirelli Cinturatos were certainly very much all the rage in the 60's probably more by virtue of astute marketing than actual performance, but having said that, I had them on a couple of glass fibre "specials" (one TR3 based and one E93a Ford Popular based) and they performed remarkably well in wet and dry. However, I seem to recall that there was some doubt about their performance on heavier cars. David
  12. Thank you both. It seems that it is best to treat the manual as a guide to procedures rather than a "bible" because drawing E627 (which is marked on the other side as as being TR4A) is clearly not correct, unless only SOME TR4As had the fulcrum this way around. Andrew, I should have noted your footer "40 years of TR ownership and still learning!" !!! I've only had mine a few months. David
  13. Rich, I'm even more confused now! Image 3204.jpg is from the factory WS manual (2nd edition 1965) shows the fulcrum orientated with the concave side facing inboard which is the opposite way to mine. Image 3205.jpg is a drawing marked as TR4A in the same manual shows the orientation as being the same as mine. This seems to indicate the opposite of what you have just stated in your post. I'm not doubting you but since the fiasco over the distance piece above the spring, which is clearly shown as being present in this drawing, with no qualification as to the spring length, I'm beginning to have doubts about the accuracy of this manual. David
  14. Rich, Because the car is up on the ramp with it's wheels on until next week, I didn't think I would be able to see the fulcrum pins but it occurred to me that I could photograph them with my phone. Both fulcrums are fitted the same way around as shown in the attached photo (Yes, I have new bushes to replace those!) I understood you to say that the fulcrum pins should be fitted the opposite way around to the "apparently obvious" way, i.e.with the concave side facing away from the shocker, therefore it appears that mine are the wrong way around. David
  • Create New...

Important Information

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