Restoration Update

[Menno van Rij]

Hi all,

 

After dismantling the TR, I took the chassis to al local blaster. It took them several weeks to finish the job, but last Friday the chassis was returned by them. Blasted. I've added some pics.

 

And oh joy! No (!!!!) cracks, fractures or rot!!! Just a 48 years old chassis that is solid. This morning we measured the whole chassis. It confirmed what we hoped: the chassis is straight.

The only remarkeble spot is the RH side at the back. As I already knew, the car had an accident somewhere in it's life. Although it's body filler central at the back of the tub, the chassis is also straigth on the back.

 

Next week, we will strenghten the chassis as recommended in Williams' How To Improve Triumph TR. After that, the chassis will be coated by someone who paints Scania trucks' chassis for a living. He'll be using industrial quality products for the job. On the other hand: the chassis survived 48 years with only factory finish. So, paining it with modern products will affect the life expectancy in a positive way!

 

Regards,

 

Menno

Edited August 18, 2007 by Menno van Rij

[Gordon]

Hello Menno,

 

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that I only find what I know is wrong with my frame after stripping.

 

I have a local company that can chemically strip my frame of paint and rust by complete immersion in a large tank.

 

Is there any particular reason why I see people blast frames vice dip? I'm thinking the dip would remove any scale on the interior of the frame which could then be treated. Perhaps access to a dipper is the issue?

 

Gordon

[angelfj]

Hello Menno,

 

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that I only find what I know is wrong with my frame after stripping.

 

I have a local company that can chemically strip my frame of paint and rust by complete immersion in a large tank.

 

Is there any particular reason why I see people blast frames vice dip? I'm thinking the dip would remove any scale on the interior of the frame which could then be treated. Perhaps access to a dipper is the issue?

 

Gordon

 

Gordon: You may want to reconsider the dipping process. Here in the states this process used to be quite common. But most of these companies are no longer in business. The process utilises a caustic solution, which of course will quite nicely remove paint. After the caustic dip the part is generally dipped into a mild acid solution which is intended to neutralise the caustic. After this , the part is washed with clean water, allowed to dry and then dipped or sprayed with a "metal prep" solution, usually a weak phosphoric acid solution, which is intended to prevent "flash" rusting. In principle all of the above had been an accepted method to remove paint, rust and scale from ferrous metal parts. Note: the caustic will happily eat anything that is alloy, so aluminum, brass, copper, bronze, pot metal are a no no.

 

Here are the problems and the reason most of these firms no longer exist:

 

1. environmental regs. in the USA have become extremely rigid and the cost to comply onerous.

 

2. if any remnant of the caustic becomes trapped inside the many nooks and crannies of your frame, you may find, in time that the caustic will attack the finish from the inside out. Not a good thing!

 

I have restored a few cars and have had very good success using the time tested process of media blasting followed by a good zinc chromate primer and the finish coat of your choice. For the inner surfaces (inside the box sections, etc) some folks have used waxoyl or similar products. We actually poured the zinc chromate primer into the open end of the channels and sloshed it around.

 

There is a firm in the US called "RATCO". See http://www.rat-co.com/ I know the owner Tony Vigliotti. Tony manufactures new frames for the TR range and they are superior to anything built by Triumph. He is very smart mechanical engineer and he understands metallurgy and the mechanisms which cause frames to corrode. His product close to bullet proof. One thing he offers , as an option, is to fill the inside of a new frame with "closed cell" poly-urethane foam. I don't know if you can buy this in the UK or on the continent, but here in the US, we can get aerosol cans of this stuff at home-center stores like Home Depot and Lowe's. It's used to fill in gaps in home construction and because the foam is "closed cell" it will not absorb or wick water. At the recent VTR convention here near Valley Forge, he showed us some samples. Once filled with this foam, it is virtually impossible for moisture to enter. Tony also caps off the openings in the ends of the frame, but this is mainly to keep larger pieces of **** from getting in and soaking up moisture. But, I don't know if the foam process would be ideal for an original frame.

 

 

 

 

Regardless of your choice, good luck.

[Gordon]

Hi Frank,

 

Did you paint your car Silverstone Gray? I thought your user name looked familiar. I'd seen it on BCF if it is. There is a dipper outside of D. C.. I'm from MD. Still not sure which way I'll go at this point. I've got to find a frame guy who can correct my right front lower fulcrum and both brackets. It got curbed at some point and twisted the fulcrum clockwise about 1/2 inch.

 

Menno, sorry to hijack your thread.

 

Gordon

[Nigel Lay]

Hello Menno,

Chassis looks great, TS952 had a 'knock' on the nearside front but as yours the chassis checked OK except for the lip right at the front which had been bent in but all the measurements were fine. Anyhow the main reason for the post is to agree with you how good the chassis are after 54 years in my case. I have attached a photo of the 'inside' of the chassis when I cut a hole in it due to a weak point - the only one - where a mounting pad had held water for all of the years, I butt welded a new piece in. I was amazed that there was virtually no rust inside even though as you can see it had never been treated. I certainly will not be around in another 54 years to see what it's like then.

Are you aiming to get the car on the road by next summer?

Nigel (with TS952)

Edited August 18, 2007 by Nigel Lay

[Richardtr3a]

I used a chemical paint stripper on my scuttle in 1969 and there has been a reaction to the paint every time we have painted it since. All other parts have been mechanically stripped, or blasted. I make sure that straight after blasting that the bare metal is zinc sprayed. My new chassis is in first class order after over 30 years. Keep away from the acid. (always good advice)

Richard

[Menno van Rij]

Hi all,

 

Choosing a blaster in stead of a paint stripper company was an easy choice for me: the guy who blasted the chassis is locally and owns a Triumph himself. About 15 years ago he started his own company and back then I was his first customer: he blasted and powder coated the steel wheels of my Spitfire. I had that car for 12 years and the finish stayed great.

It took me a while to convince him that I didn’t want my chassis to be powder coated, but he will blast and coat all other relevant parts of the car: seat frames, springs, etc.

 

I ‘ve heard mixed stories about chemical stripping. That added also to go for blasting.

 

Richard, you are right about the front lips of the chassis. The LH side looks the same. I think that I’ll leave it that way. Cutting and welding those parts is purely cosmetic. Although it’s welded a bit crudely backed (‘gebakken’ = ‘backed’ would be the expression in Dutch), it’s very strong and sound.

 

It’s very illustrating to see the original welds! Strong, but uneven welds. Weld splatters all over the chassis. So, next to strengthening the chassis, we will also weld up the existing joints (is this the right expression?) and we’ll grind all rough parts smooth. After that, the chassis will go back to the blaster; he will blast it again and put epoxy primer on the bare surface.

 

The chassis was black when we took all apart. My wife asked me if I wanted it black again. I suggested white (“That way I can see the dirt after a drive”). She suggested long time therapy.

Anyway, it will be black again. Not high gloss though. I think a matt finish looks more ‘industrial’ to me (e.g. the chassis on lorries).

 

About filling the chassis with PU-foam. Well, think it’s an idea that hadn’t crossed my mind. As stated before, yachting is an other hobby of mine and I know a few guys who own a yacht that’s made unsinkable by using foam! In fact, several yacht builders use this unsinkability- by-foam as their USP! (Don’t know if everybody understands this made-up English…).

 

I will not go that route myself. I’ll go the waxoil-way. The picture of Richard confirms this.

 

Next on the list are the hood an side screens. I’ve bought 6 metre of PVC-hood material from a wholesale company. (Not too expensive! It’s enough for 2 cars: one to try, one for ‘real’). So, I’ll give it a try myself in the near future.

 

Regards,

 

Menno

[angelfj]

Hi Frank,

 

Did you paint your car Silverstone Gray? I thought your user name looked familiar. I'd seen it on BCF if it is. There is a dipper outside of D. C.. I'm from MD. Still not sure which way I'll go at this point. I've got to find a frame guy who can correct my right front lower fulcrum and both brackets. It got curbed at some point and twisted the fulcrum clockwise about 1/2 inch.

 

Menno, sorry to hijack your thread.

 

Gordon

Yes, The Gray Lady, TS 58476 LO , nearing completion after 7 years.

 

 

Give Tony at RATCO a call. he is a TR enthusiast and may have some suggestions.

[littlejim]

Shame you have to cover it with paint Menno, it looks good. Clear maybe?

 

When I welded my re-inforcing bits on I eventually discovered some of the bits were wrong. At the front there were supposed to be 'small' and 'large' bits to go on the front. I started welding before I discovered that my 'small' were actually 'large' too.

 

So worth doing a dummy test of the kit(s) to make sure they gave you the right bits. It is not hard to cut down 'large' to 'small' before welding if you have already worked out the kit was not spot on.

[Menno van Rij]

Something I forgot to mention yesterday: I'm planning to install a J-type g'box and overdrive. As you can see on the pic. the car is currently without any overdrive, hence no overdrive support bracket welded to the chassis. I think that now is the moment of fitting a bracket. Before returning the chassis to the paintshop.

On the internet I've found an article from a person who fabricated a nice looking 3 piece bracket that can be bolted to the chassis, but are there any drawings or pictures around from one of you guys who actually welded a bracket to the chassis?

 

Apart from the choice of an A-type vs. a J-type, I would be a great help if one of you can help me on this matter.

 

(Yesterday I talked to my wife about the chassis colour. I mentioned a white chassis, that way I would be able to spot any dirt on the chassis She suggested long time therapy... That the works TRs had a white chassis did not convince her at all ).

 

Regards,

 

Menno

[david ferry]

Menno,

 

Your photos show normal A type gearbox brackets welded onto the chassis. The rear x member then bolts to these and the mounting then bolts between this x member and the gearbox.

 

There are no differences to this arrangement whether you have an overdrive gearbox or not.

 

The brackets on a TR6 chassis for the J type gearbox are significantly different.

 

I understand that space between the rails may be tight when fitting a J type gearbox.

 

I understand that removing the A type brackets and replacing with J type brackets in the correct place is not as easy as one may think.

 

Moss developed a set of brackets to allow fitment of a J type gearbox into an A type chassis, bolting to the original chassis brackets, and possibly the original x member (can't remember about this).

 

The first development of these was not good, as admitted by the developer at Moss when I spoke to him a little while ago.

 

This then led to the development of revised brackets which apparently do work properly.

 

I have an unused set of these revised brackets in my pile of spares in the garage. These were to be used to do exactly what you intend.

 

I found a rebuilt A type overdrive gearbox which I fitted instead, hence these are unused and available for sale! If not sold, they will be returned to the supplier for a refund. I bought them at a discount which will be passed onto any subsequent purchaser, along with a further discount!

 

Contact me if interested.

 

If you are adamant that fitting a J type gearbox is what you are going to do, these brackets are what you need.

 

If you use the Moss conversion brackets, you may also need to get a TR4 x member in addition, as these are slightly different to those on sidescreen cars due to minor differences in the 4 syncro gearbox casing (it is a little longer). I also have a spare one of these for some reason! If fitting a 4 syncro gearbox into a sidescreen chassis to replace the 3 syncro gearbox, the x member needs to be changed. I think the Moss conversion was designed for cars with the 4 syncro a type gearbox as standard.

 

I wouldn't suggest anything home made as correct alignment of the gearbox input shaft is crucial in order to avoid premature wear of the gearbox, necessitating removal and a rebuild.

 

Welding any brackets to the chassis is also difficult to do, ensuring correct alignment of the gearbox to avoid subsequent premature destruction of bearings and the rhen required rebuild.

 

It must be worth paying a relatively small sum to receive the benefit of Moss's research and development.

 

Good luck....don't reinvent the wheel!

 

Regards

 

David

Edited August 19, 2007 by david ferry

[Gordon]

Several folks have mentioned measurements of the frame. I have the Factory Manual on cd and have located the the frame dimensions.

 

It appears to me that the dimension lines for the towers and lower trunnions are limited and and not shown it several dimensions. My lower fulcrum pin is bent down and in on the rear and up and out on the front.

 

Would I be correct in assuming that if all the other lines are within spec the towers and lower fulcrum will be correct? Or is there some other data that I'm missing and need to locate?

 

Gordon

[david ferry]

Gordon,

 

If the chassis dimensions are all correct but the fulcrum pin is bent (as opposed to straight) thereby leading to incorrect alignment as per factory drawings, your problem may be resolved by replacement if the fulcrum pin.

 

Obviously, it is vital to have a chassis within original drawings in order to ensure that the car drives properly in the end, as well as looking good.

 

If the rails and turrets all measure correctly in terms of height and distance from the centre line, the pin must be bent, as all other dimensions are correct.

 

If rails etc are not correct, resolve this problem first.

 

I remember going through this with an earlier restoration project where some dimensions were correct and others were not. The job was done properly by a specialist but prior to that, another 'specialist' suggested moving the fulcrum pin location on the chassis rail to put that in the correct place in relation to the centre line.

 

had this been done, there would still have been problems elsewhere. the problems were caused by a repair, prior to my ownership, that had been botched.

 

To the eye, it all looked fine but on careful measurement it was all over the place.

 

Good luck.

 

Regards

 

David

[Menno van Rij]

Contact me if interested.

 

If you are adamant that fitting a J type gearbox is what you are going to do, these brackets are what you need.

 

David, I PM'ed you!

 

Menno

[Don Elliott]

Don't use the foam inside your frame. This has been discussed and rejected by other forum groups. I did a total body-off restoration of my TR3A from 1987 to 1990. I painted the frame with glossy Dupont Imrom and it's still like new after more than 97,000 miles. Being glossy, it's very easy to wipe clean with a soft rag and a bit of cleaning solvent. But I wish I had filed off the weld splatter. It makes it a bit difficult on the wipe rag.

 

As for inside protection, I diluted some primer paint and poured in into the rear of the replacement inner sills before welding them in. I pre-painted all the other parts inside as well - inside of outer sills. rear cross box under the rear valance etc. Then I used Waxoyl inside all the tubular and closed box parts for more protection. Everything else on the outside of the underside is left painted. No Waxoyl or undercoating anywhere visible. And no dum-dum in the joints.

 

I would estimate that during the past 17 years of 97,000 miles, I have driven about 4,000 miles in the wet. And if you are planning to drive it only on sunny days, why would anyone need to fill the frame with an unknown substance - foam ?

[Nigel Lay]

Gordon, I PM'd you

Regards, Nigel (with TS952)