Nick Jones

Hmmm,  while I wouldn't argue with Rob that the big saloons can be a bit heavy in the clutch department, they shouldn't be that heavy.  And goodness knows there are plenty of ways they can misbehave! - Could be close to worn out.  That always makes them heavier, plus you don't get the feeling of them "going over-centre" somewhere in the upper 2/3 of the pedal travel.  If you can't feel a point in the travel where it's gets a bit lighter, or it's very near the bottom, reckon on a new clutch in short-medium term. - Bushes on the cross-shaft in the bell housing may be partially seized - May have the wrong slave cylinder fitted.  Some fit 7/8" instead of 1" either by accident or in an effort to get more travel so the clutch does actually release. - In combination with the above, there is a choice of holes in the operating arm where the slave cylinder push-rod attaches.  The one closest to the pivot gives the most movement but the heaviest pedal and the one furthest from the pivot gives the lightest pedal but maybe gives a very low biting point or doesn't clear at all. - There is also the possibility that the dreaded taper dowel bolt that holds the release fork to the cross-shaft has partially failed, giving unfavourable angles.  This, in combination with a worn out clutch plate, a 7/8" slave and the upper pivot hole selected to try a win back enough movement for the clutch to work, does give a really heavy clutch with the biting point on the floor and is how my PI came to me....  The clutch slipped whenever I could get it to run on all 6 too. - Then there is the possibility of mis-matched components internally.  IIRC the lightest action combination was always considered to be the Laycock set with B & B being heavier and mixing bits between them causing problems.  There are many makes out there now and various "re-manufactered" items.  I fitted a LUK kit to my PI which was fine (and reasonably priced) and I believe there is a Sachs cover assembly (intended for a Saab) that gives great results. Where is your clutch biting point? Nick

Assuming you have no external leaks then the only possibility is that it is the small internal seal in the master cylinder that is supposed to seal off the fluid reservoir from the cylinder itself.  Either seal itself (it's tiny) has a defect or the surface it acts against.  Could even be a little bit of dirt.  It's definitely the issue though. Nick

Yours is pretty smokey from behind Mike..... Vitesse used 6 litres on the 2009 10CR (3,200 miles door to door).  That was rings/bores.  Wynns held it together until 2015.  The first 1500 I had in my Herald would go through about 2.5 litres in 100 miles.  That WAS smokey.  Happened after treating it with Redex - never underestimate the usefulness of carbon deposits!  Never investigated what the actual bore/ring issue was as it put a rod through the fuel pump when I was too slow to top it up...... Serious Wim, if you don't feel like pulling the engine apart just yet both the Wynns oil additive and the STP (Supercharge?), the ones that look like clear treacle, are really quite effective.  Only used about 1.5 l on the 2011 10CR with the same engine. Nick

750mls in 250 miles is alot!  Even Audi don't claim that is normal! Nick

You could try these guys https://www.coxandturner.co.uk/ Has large stocks of older engine parts and is something of a piston ring specialist   Nick

How much oil are you using?  Not normally possible to use very much oil with just valve guide wear as not very much oil goes to the top end of the engine (unless you have one of those external feed pipe kits - in which case all bets are off!). The other thing is that all your compression numbers are good, but you have one compression value higher than the others - #3..... which is the same one with the oily plug.  So possibly you get the higher reading as there is enough oil getting into the cylinder to make the test a "wet" one.  Might be worth adding oil (approx 1 desert-spoon full) to each cylinder and re-testing to see if all cylinders are now even? I'm pretty sure that enough oil to make it's own wet test can only be coming past the rings. Nick

Smooth, shiny, glazed bores can themselves be a problem and your 1mm ring gaps show that the rings at least are worn. There is absolutely no point in putting new rings in without honing the bores first as they will never bed in and the oil use will be much worse.  Ideally the bores should also be properly measured for taper and, especially, ovality. I'm currently struggling with a GT6 engine that has had the bores professionally honed and new rings fitted but is still smokey.  It seems to be starting to settle after nearly 100 miles but I'm wishing I'd gone the whole hog with rebore and new pistons..... Nick

I would do that procedure with the distributor removed from the pedestal.  It's presence just makes things harder. Nick

First gear will always be noisy on the 3 synchro boxes as it is straight cut.  However, second should be much quieter and third better still so if if they are making a racket then layshaft or mainshaft spigot bearings are both suspects as already mentioned. Nick

Triple electrode plugs, preferably Bosch W7DTC, are king...... I've stopped using NGK - too many failures from electrode wetting. Nick

I think you may still have some air in the system.  It doesn't take much to produce the effect you describe

The 330lb springs will be softer than the short ones you currently have, possibly quite alot softer.  You'll probably want to turn the dampers down a bit to match, but as the Gaz ones can be adjusted on the car, experimentation is easy......

Ok. After some research and assistance on Sideways forum It seems there is a simple way around this.  I think it is in fact possible to use any carrier with any body by choosing the right bearings, though I haven't yet looked for the bearing that allows the later 35mm carrier in an early body. There are probably other variations out there (the 4.11s certainly have some differences) but among the parts I have: Early (Vitesse Mk2) 3.89 has 62mm carrier bearing saddles with a maximum width of 130.6mm The carrier with this has 31.75mm bearing spigots and uses 15123/15245 bearings with a width of 18.16mm The carrier width between bearings is assumed* to be the same width as the Blackline one @ 91.5mm and adding two bearing widths gives 127.82mm which will fit within the 130.6mm housing width with just under 3mm for shims Late  (Spit1500) 3.63 has 59.13mm carrier bearing saddles with a maximum spacing of 126.17mm The carrier with this has 35.00mm bearing spigots and uses 68149/68110 bearings with a width of 15.875mm The carrier width between bearings is assumed* to be the same width as the Blackline one @ 91.5mm and adding two bearing widths gives 123.25mm, which will fit within the 126.17mm housing width with just under 3mm for shims Intermediate: Some in the middle (maybe even the majority in numbers made) are diffs with smaller 59.13mm bearing saddles and smaller 31.75mm carrier spigots. Using the LM67048/LM67010 bearing gives the smaller 31.75 ID in combination with the smaller 59.13 OD wioth the same 15.875 width.  It has a marginally higher (+3%) strength rating than the larger ID bearing.  The early housing bearings 15123/15245 combination gives +30% strength though....... which is interesting.  However, I don't think the carrier bearings are noted failure points, so probably not worth wrestling with the pinion height issue for. * Assumed..... all carriers are the same width between bearings @ 91.5mm (ish). I say this because I've only been able to measure the new ATB spool as the old carriers still have at least one bearing and the crown wheel on them which makes then well nigh impossible to measure with the kit I have.  Plus the increased width of the early casing bearing saddles seems to tally with the increased bearing widths....  Unless anyone knows different! I can order bearings now..... Nick

So I did eventually buy one of these from 2 Spec.  This means that I need to work out how to get it all assembled - and I'm NOT a diff expert......  High time I learned how to do it though. The donor diff was going to be a late 3.63:1, ex-spit 1500.  This is now dismantled and as I also happened to have a rather earlier Mk2 Vitesse 3.89 in bits (duff scrapyard purchase some years ago - water damage to CW/P) I was working up a set of bearing numbers to buy and noticed that the carrier bearing numbers are different. The older carrier has 31.76mm spigots for the bearings and the bearing OD is 62mm The newer carrier has 35mm spigots for the bearings and the bearing OD is just under 60mm. I then measured the LSD and found that has the older style 31.76 spigots.  This is all a bit unexpected and has the effect of preventing me from using the 3.63 casing - which is irritating as I've cleaned it and the 3.89 one is horrible...... and also, more significantly, by moving the 3.63 pinion into a different casing as I understand it,  what was a fair chance of the spacer under the pinion head bearing still giving the correct pinion height with a new bearing falls away to zero and I'm not sure how to get this to where it needs to be. On the flip side the older-style bearing looks rather chunkier, albeit with 15 rollers rather than 23.... I've not looked up the load ratings yet. It's also possible that there is another bearing inner/outer combination that allows the smaller spigot centre to go in the later casing..... Looks like I can interchange the solid spacer from the earlier diff onto the 3.63 pinion and do away with the horrible crush tube thing, which is definitely good news. Anyone know what the options are (if any) and the pros/cons? Thanks Nick

The standard 220lb springs are a bit soft IMO. Springs around the 330/350lb and free length of 10 - 10.5" are a pretty good compromise and definitely not too hard.  I've got 350/10.5" springs from Faulkners on my Vitesse with fixed-spring-seat Koni dampers, which give a nice ride.  They can also just be fitted without needing spring compressors - unlike the std ones! Also worth noting that if you have Spax dampers they tend to have a very abrupt ride almost regardless of spring rating. Nick

1.5" difference is way too much - not a cable tie situation.  Your springs were intended for use with dampers with adjustable spring seats or spacers.  How low is the car? As Laurence says the "usual" up-rated springs are 330lb and about 10.5" free length.  Factory springs are 220lb and considerably longer. Your (legal) choices are to get longer springs or dampers with adjustable spring seats. Nick

I think your thoughts are ok.  In fact, I think Triumph themselves did almost the same thing, but for a slightly different reason. Late Mk3 GT6s had bigger rear brakes (wider drums) as part of the return to the swing axle design, apparently to give them self adjusters (don't work very well) and make them common parts with some Dolomites. In some markets at least, those cars had a brake servo that operated on the front brakes only. Only sure thing to do is to test it once the car is complete.  Do this by braking hard from maybe 50 kph to a near-stop on a moderately slippery surface.  You need to discover whether the front or rear brakes lock first - and it wants to be the front.  If the rear locks first, you need smaller wheel cylinders Cheers Nick

I think your thoughts are ok.  In fact, I think Triumph themselves did almost the same thing, but for a slightly different reason. Late Mk3 GT6s had bigger rear brakes (wider drums) as part of the return to the swing axle design, apparently to give them self adjusters (don't work very well) and make them common parts with some Dolomites. In some markets at least, those cars had a brake servo that operated on the front brakes only. Only sure thing to do is to test it once the car is complete.  Do this by braking hard from maybe 50 kph to a near-stop on a moderately slippery surface.  You need to discover whether the front or rear brakes lock first - and it wants to be the front.  If the rear locks first, you need smaller wheel cylinders Cheers Nick

Sounds like the release bearing may not be very well....

Sounds like the release bearing may not be very well....

Ok, that works better. It's red, taxed until May and the MoT expires on 19th April.  This only tells you that it is alive, kicking and still in the UK though.  This is good and shows the hunt is worth pursuing, but no more. You could try asking on the Triumph Register Forum and perhaps on the Sideways Technologies forum, which has quite a large TR Register contingent at present.  You won't get any help from the DVLA. Nick

That registration is unknown to both the MoT and tax status websites.  This is a non-promising sign and suggests that the car is either long dead or possibly exported.   Nick

I believe it is called the "export radiator".  I had one on my 1200 Herald (which became 1500, then highly tuned 1300) and it worked very well.  Over-cooling is caused by a missing or malfunctioning thermostat, not a bigger radiator.  The bigger radiator merely gives some spare cooling for difficult conditions.  I'd use it if it's in decent condition. Nick

I spoke to Paul, who was very pleasant and helpful.  Will buy from them if I decide to go that way.  Got expensive times approaching with GT6 paint, engine rebuild and gearbox rebuild, so stray-cash levels somewhat low! Nick

Son Chris has the Mk1 separate head-rest version in his MkIV.  They're a tight fit and even with a certain amount of trimming of seat corners and "massage" of floor pan corners you don't get much fore/aft travel.  More seriously, they are a bit high.  It is true that we are both tall, myself at 6'3" and Chris a couple of inches less, with the height difference being in the legs, but even so, sunvisors are pretty much useless, we just stop slouching to get the same effect! He's googling "MX-5 foam-ectomy" right now (no, really, he is!) I'm also considering a pair of the tombstone ones for my GT6, but unless we can find a way to get them lower, another plan will be needed