Dipped in green glass

[Clive]

Sorry to hear about the grief. Damn infuriating!
Today is the day (hopefully) I get the scooby diff in and see if the metro shafts will work.
That is as long as I can get a snap ring that fits inside the scooby diff, the assorted box I bought better have a suitable candidate!

[BiTurbo228]

I've been thinking about adjustable wishbones for a while actually. I've got some tubing left over from my a-arm ones and I've just bought some materials to make a jig. I've got another Spitfire coming on Tuesday (yay!) that has rotoflex already fitted so I can use the wishbones there to make the jig.

Edit: scratch that, I've found some threaded rod for rod ends. I'll order that and see if I can make up a test pair

[Nick Moore]

Hi Simon,
Adjustable rotoflex wishbones have been mooted before, but the discussion always veers off as people suggest changing the design. If there was a tubular wishbone available that replaced the heavy, bent iron wishbone, without altering the chassis brackets or the suspension geometry, I'd be interested.

[BiTurbo228]

Quoted from Nick Moore

Hi Simon,
Adjustable rotoflex wishbones have been mooted before, but the discussion always veers off as people suggest changing the design. If there was a tubular wishbone available that replaced the heavy, bent iron wishbone, without altering the chassis brackets or the suspension geometry, I'd be interested.

That's what I was thinking, just a tubular version of the stock wishbone with adjustability with one eye on a threaded rod

I'll have a play around and see what I can come up with

[Nick Jones]

I've seen tubular ones before, but only on a racer and done expressly to be adjustable.  Had a rose joint at the inner end and were apparently very clattery.

I've just made some adjustable lower links (not unlike Marcus'), pics tomorrow.

Nick

[Nick Moore]

Yeah, Marcus' alternative is always cited when alternative rotoflex wishbones are suggested. My biggest problem with changing the geometry is changing the amount of plunge for that inner CV - something you will be perfectly placed to judge!

Now, of course, we have the Subaru inner CV option

[Nick Moore]

Yeah, Marcus' alternative is always cited when alternative rotoflex wishbones are suggested. Then someone exhumes Dr Eickoff, the conversation turns to the peculiarities of modelling a leaf spring as a suspension arm, and the thread quickly unravels. The tubular wishbone idea dies yet again, and the original poster slinks away for a drink.

My biggest problem with changing the geometry is that it might increase the amount of plunge for that inner CV - something you, Nick, will be perfectly placed to judge! Now, of course, we have Clive's Subaru inner CV option as well, which appears to be able to accommodate greater amounts of plunge. I've shamelessly copied Clive's photo from the Sideways forum.

Is he using the same axles as you supply in your kit, Nick? He used the word 'Metro'.

[Nick Jones]

I believe he is Nick.  When we spoke recently he did mention that the Subaru CVs are getting close to the outer limit of their (considerable) travel and a shaft that was 5 - 10 mm longer would be great.  Unfortunately, although I know of shafts that are slightly shorter (R100 auto & MGF) I've never found any that are longer apart from the much longer ones from the other side.  It's possible that there is a Maestro or Montego one that is, but the odds of finding one now are a bit long as they are nearly extinct.

If you'd like a shorter shaft from an auto then you can have one for the cost of shipping.......

I was a bit suprised to see a Lobro style CV on the Subaru as the ones I've seen before (not many admittedly) have been tripod style.

Some pics below of our lower links taking shape.  Geometry wise I think they will be very close to the standard wishbone mounted on the lowest bolt hole of the Canleys bracket.

The links are set to 233mm effective length (std wishbone is 235mm IIRC).  This gives us 1º +ve at full droop (damper fitted) and 1.3º -ve at full bump.  Mid point is ~ 1.5º -ve and I reckon in the normal working range there is probably no more than 0.5º variation as most of the change occurs as you approach full droop.  As it's all adjustable, we can set the absolute values where we want, though there is not much scope for going more positive, partly due to the way we've made the links and partly because the CV is approaching it's inner limit of travel.  We do have reasonable scope for going more negative and the range of change would remain very similar.


Driveshaft length is ok.  These are exactly the same ones as you (and others) have.  As mentioned above there is scope to lengthen the bottom links and add negative camber to some extent without reaching the outer limit of travel, but if doing this solely to make you driveshaft fit, you need to consider that this will alter your camber setting, possibly to something you don't want, and you will need to be able to match it on the other side.

On the setup below, the shaft length change looks to be something like 8 - 9mm (will try and measure better).  IIRC I measured 11mm on the Vitesse (std rotoflex geometery).  Total movement available is something like 18mm.

Probably easier to say than do but it would be real handy to know whether your diff is central and if offset, by how much.  Also, if it is offset, is the spring central...... ('cause it really needs to be IMO).  Suggest measuring to the wishbone brackets on the chassis.  As we have recently learned to our frustration, there is a serious lack of reference points, straight edges and right angles on the chassis.  Getting one side positioned has been a challenge.  Getting the other side the same will probably be worse!

Nick

[GT6MK3]

Nick,

Which variant of spring are you using on the spity?

C.

[Nick Jones]

Quoted from GT6MK3

Nick,

Which variant of spring are you using on the spity?

C.

Ah..... now there's another can of worms - maybe.  What you can see in the pics is the king leaf of the std MkIV Spit swing spring that came with the car.  Just one leaf is to give us a chance of holding the thing down while we cycle the suspension through the range of movement. Works - just.

I've wondered about the merits of sticking with the swing spring or going fixed.  I guess for now we'll stick with what we have and see how it goes.  IIRC all of the springs have more or less the same eye->eye dimension so if we decide to swap in the future the geometry shouldn't be too much altered.

Nick

[GT6 M]

2 Niks,  I think Dr Ikeoff  used the set up he did, cos it did,nt need any mods as such  mek,n new links, just the braket to weld on.

AND, from some ive seen, they not in my mind on right,
need to be slightly angled to match springs inclination,
other wise, it puts stress on the inner bushings
back end at top, front at bottom, its nee option, as its a straight link with a inclinded VL.

Nick J, I hope ye have figured oot, that a roto spring  on a roto
set up, WILL give diff camber readings if a Swinger spring is used ona roto set up
the roto yan will curve in moer when unloaded, so will pull the top VL inwards, giving moer neg on droop
the swinger will give moer positive camb on droop.

{ Did Chriss put this into his comp simulator ! }

ye got both, then put em side by side ont floor, and see the diff,   If i recaal its aboot 2.5 inches shorter when just sitting
then stand on the Roto, and it,ll ..stretch to same,ish as the swinger.

I think, well sure really, that this is why I could nae get decent handling with me swinger spring ona roto back end,
too much camber change for fatt tyres.
its moer camber change with a swinger ona roto than a roto alone. And, mostly on droop angles

this diff in length will mek a bigg diff to camber angles
on droop,but no so much in bump, as the 2 end up aboot the same

Thee,s Lobros,or others, doo they just slide in the diff end alone,   If they slide in VL end, then ye got dubble movement.!!!
or am i thinkin all wrong with thee,s things

M

[Clive]

I am happy to report that the OS shaft has been fitted and leaves approx 8mm of movement outwards available, that seems to be the minimum but I have not got it to full bump, only droop and just above level shaft. (the car starts to lift and gets a bit precarious after that)
As the NS scooby CV I have had for ages appears to be incorrect, it will be later in the week before I can check that both sides will be the same (in fact, with real work, and the next few weekends booked up, plus a bit of skiing chucked in, it could be the beginning of April when I next get a day in the garage)

But at last I am genuinely hopeful these metro/R100 shafts will work. AN extra 20-30mm would be lovely, but not if it will cost £300+ for a pair of custom shafts.

[Nick Moore]

The left hand CV spacer has been thinned down by 6mm and now fits perfectly. I was able to get the inner wishbone bolt lined up, which means that the left hand CV now has enough plunge to accommodate the suspension at full droop. The right hand CV spacer is 13mm thick and the left is now 7mm thick, so I think we can conclude that the diff is offset 3mm to the left. If the diff were 3mm to the right, both spacers would need to be 10mm thick. This is the right way to adjust the clearance, too. During the discussion about adjustable wishbones, it hadn't escaped me that having one wishbone 6mm longer than the other would affect the camber. That would be a big, bad bodge and not at all a cunning plan.

I tried to confirm the diff offset by measuring, but it was hard to make measurements that precise with steel rules while lying under the car, especially with the exhaust in the way. My guess is that the diff offset is because the cast alloy back plate's dimensions are a bit, errr... approximate. Although the machining of the cast alloy back plate (the milling and drilling) has been precisely done, the plate's cast 'ears' may be in the wrong locations relative to where the bolt holes are drilled, because there's no exact datum mark on the casting for the machinist to measure from.

Lastly, I fitted an adjustable fuel pressure regulator to the bulkhead. It has a pressure gauge - I'll be aiming for 3 Bar - but the gauges are fragile, so it will be removed once the car's been tuned.

[Nick Moore]

While lying under the car fitting the CV spacer on Wednesday, I noticed a trickle of ickle running down my back. One of the new brake cylinders was leaking 🤔

When I pulled it out, I found that the bore had deep radial grooves. It's never been on the road and only had brake fluid pumped in for the first time a couple of weeks ago, so the grooves can't be wear. There wasn't any rust. Obviously, whoever machined the cylinder was a complete numpty. My advice to Gary F about whether to sleeve his TR5 master cylinder or buy a new one was ringing in my ears...

I don't remember when or from whom I bought it (this restoration started in 2009) and the original cylinders have long since been chucked out (silly boy), so the obvious choice was to get it sleeved in stainless. It should be ready today - just in time, because the car's going to the inlet machinist on Monday and I don't want to roll down my driveway of doom without brakes.

What Triumph's engineers would have done to a supplier who sold them rubbish like this?

[Nick Moore]

The new-but-crap rear brake cylinder has been sleeved in stainless - at $50 it didn't cost much more than ordering another from the UK, and this way I know it'll last a long time. For that price, the shop also replaced the seals. Nice. We have brakes again, and this time they're not leaking.

The car's off to get measured for an inlet manifold on Tuesday, so I've been playing with Cardboard Aided Design to figure out bonnet clearances for the fuel rail and throttle linkages. The silhouette is on number 1 cylinder, as that's the trickiest to fit under the bonnet.

The overhead linkage needs about 50mm above the throttle bodies. It was 70mm until I got medieval with a hacksaw and trimmed the pushrods. An underslung linkage probably won't work because of the header pipes.

One design I considered was stepping the throttle bodies down, similar to GT6 Weber manifolds. It won't work though, because the middle throttle body's lever is on the opposite end to the front and rear bodies. That would alter the opening angles. However, the inlet manifold could slope down towards the front of the car if the throttle bodies stay in line. Each pipe would be a different shape, so that's an expensive option.

Another thing I'm pondering is lying the the injectors horizontal and locating them on the elbows, so that they squirt straight down the inlets. That gives a goodly amount of bonnet clearance, but there's a chance having the injectors that far from the inlet valves might hurt low-speed drivability. Various internet sources are hazy on this, so I may have to suck it and see.

[Nick Jones]

I don't think that positioning the injector on the bend will cause any particular issue.  It's still pretty close to the inlet and firing in the right direction.  Only ever likely to be an issue (and very minor at that) at low speed and or when cold and probably more of an emissions issue than driveability.  As you live in a warm place and don't have to pass emissions (not onerous ones anyway) - don't think there is anything to worry about.

However, that scheme might cause bulkhead clearance issues for no.6 and I tend to think all runners should be treated the same......

Have you considered using shorter injectors?  The older style Bosch pattern injectors with the fat metal bodies are known as EV1.  The later style, thin plastic bodied ones are EV6 and dimensionally close enough (same diameter O-rings, both about 61mm between the rings) to be a direct swap in most cases.  The latest generation seems to be the EV14 series.

http://www.bosch-motorsport.de.....en_2775993867pdf.pdf
EV14L is the same length as the EV1 & EV6 (60.65mm)
EV14S is 48.65mm
EV14K is 33.60mm

There's a very common injector used by Renault (Bosch 0280 158 170) which is either the S or K.  Will try to get more info.....

Nick

[Nick Jones]

Renault injector seems to be the compact one (33.6mm) 123g/min @ 3 Bar
http://www.vehiclepartsdatabas.....ors/bosch/0280158170

Happened across this Australian company in my wanderings around the web - maybe useful
https://www.efihardware.com/products/2358/14mm-Injector-Oring-To-Hose-Tail-Adapter-Steel

Nick

[Nick Moore]

Thanks for looking up those injectors, Nick. Craig (’GT6 Mk3’ here) has also suggested shorter injectors. I guess I'm being stubborn in trying to use the Vectra injectors I've already got, rather than buy new ones. But, if lying the injectors horizontal won't cause poor running, then the lack of space issue may have been avoided. And of course, if the EV6 injectors fit but are awkwardly tight, the EV14s will free up some space.

I take your point about making each runner a different shape. Plan A is not to slope the throttle bodies, but keep them parallel to the engine. It'll be easier to make and will ensure identical gas flow to each cylinder. Sloping the throttle bodies would only be tried if there was no way to fit the front hardware under the bonnet. Having seen what Craig is currently cooking up, I think Plan A will work.

As for clearance at the bulkhead, I'm considering having the fuel return takeoff exiting from the side of the fuel rail beside injector 6 rather than the end of the rail. That would give more room too.

PS- EFI Hardware make some great stuff, and I'm using their throttle bodies and many other fittings. They don't quite understand what I'm building, though, despite me sending pictures and specifications, as they market mostly to people building massive horsepower machines. I rang their manager once to enquire about a fuel pump, and he kept recommending one that would support 600hp. I replied that I'd have to mount it to four cars at once to use that capacity! I'm not sure if those hose tails would reduce the fuel rail height, but it's worth considering.

[GT6MK3]

I'll be at EFI hardware (again!) in the morning.  Long story...

Packaging is king under a GT6 bonnet.

I seriously looked at running the injectors on the curve, but everyting I could find said having them that far out would cause low idle problems, and hesitation on hard accelleration.  Great position if the engine is always running hard like a race engine, but not so much for driving in traffic.  There was also a suggestion that on small runners like ours wall wetting becomes more of an issue than on big intakes like mustangs etc.

Pretty sure I've found a way to package horizontal runners off the head with the injectors spraying into the valve, and dash 6 RMR fuel rail with an end fitting at the tight end.  Tight as hell, but doable.

Best thing I did was give up on using the long series injectors.  There's a couple of really good options in short series EV6's.  I'm currently working with 0280156080.  These come out of 3.2 litre Vectras, and they're pretty much interchangeable with the 0280155777 spec wise, just 11mm shorter. (these both flow about 7% less then the 0280155712 that are in the smaller vectra 6).  $24 the set at a "You pull it" wreckers, plus $12 for a can of TB cleaner, and $10 for a rebuild kit.


The nice thing with these is they take the standard Bosch JT style connector, not the USCAR type that needs lots of space.

BTW, if anyone is looking for injectors with a lower flow for lower HP engines, have a look at the 0280155731.  These are the same shorter EV6 size, but flow about half as much.

[Nick Jones]

That's good info Craig - thanks.  Hadn't come across the short EV6 before.

Not sure I buy the talk about low idle problems and hesitation on hard acceleration.  Not an issue with carbs where the fuel has to travel significantly further in some cases.  For sure the wall wetting it probably means more fuel needed for a smooth idle and idle emissions less well controlled as a result.  Also probably more AE needed, especially at low rpm, again causing emissions issues if shooting for today's regs, but now reason for it to drive badly other than poor set-up.  Anyhow, the sketch seems to show only ~ 75mm to the head and the injector firing straight down the runner at it.

Sticking with a more conventional layout, could possibly lay the injectors down a bit more - they don't have to be at 45º.  Probably not as low as 30º but every little helps.

Nick

[Nick Moore]

Craig's emailed some photos showing that his shorty EV6 injectors can be mounted near the inlet ports without the fuel rail creating a pretty new bonnet bulge, so I've ordered a set of the Vectra 3.2L 0280 156 080 shortys. By the way - $24 a set? I rang a whole bunch of wreckers today and no luck. They either didn't have them (not a real Holden mate) or quoted $35 each! Luckily eBay came to the rescue with a cleaned and flow-calibrated set of six, for about $24 each.

Looks like I'll have a set of the Vectra 0280 155 712 injectors for sale. These are the ones often fitted to EFI'd saloons and TR6s, where space isn't such an issue. I have eight - who wants 'em?

The GT6 went off to Exhaust Innovations today. Their first job is to finish the headers that Performance Pipes struggled with, and then they'll start fabricating the inlet manifold.

[Nick Jones]

Quoted from Nick Moore

Looks like I'll have a set of the Vectra 0280 155 712 injectors for sale. These are the ones often fitted to EFI'd saloons and TR6s, where space isn't such an issue. I have eight - who wants 'em?

Hey, don't go flooding the world market...... I've got set of these too  

Nick

[GT6 M]

If ye, had done it  my way,  way I showed ye, then there be nee probs wid injectors fouling bonnet.
Tried, tested, cheep, simples, effective, neat OE type looking too. !!!

Butt, there are side fed injectors aboot, will save on height.
butt, need to have diff fueling rails med up.

https://www.google.co.uk/searc.....rc=htJo_NTZrLaXQM%3A

Butt, could also put the injectors on the actual heed, like the Triumph experimental heed ive seen, this way, fuel is injected nearly at the vavlve heed.

they fit into a hole just above where the inlets meet the heed.
Slimboy  has a photo of em,

and they on here { CT } some where, but as Ive niva iva been able to find any thing on that search facility, then I cant show ye

As to linkage, then wid the position of GTs manis, then it  may well be a choice of going fora single throttle valve,like most moderns ev got
this can, and has been grafted onto end oft intek log.

Quite a few pics on CT site with this set up
could save alott moer agro with yer linkage probs.

As ye finding oot Nik, a wee bit off here,there, and other non standard bits,
all adds up to some thing thats gotta be med just for this set up.

which all adds to time / expense .

M

[thescrapman]

Quoted from GT6 M

Butt, could also put the injectors on the actual heed, like the Triumph experimental heed ive seen, this way, fuel is injected nearly at the vavlve heed.

they fit into a hole just above where the inlets meet the heed.
Slimboy  has a photo of em,

I saw a head that fits that description a few weeks ago.

Being worked on by a local (ish) Triumph specialist

I don't think there are many of them about.

It used Maserati (?) injectors for the Lucas PI.

Cheers

Colin

[GT6 M]

maybe no many aboot Col,
but it isnt v hard t,doo on yer own heed.

Alos, Nik has then got a bigg choice in a simple free flowing tidy looking manifold.
some thing t,ponder on Nick

M