GT64fun

Hi  All. Thanks for the comments. Nick I did think about accident scenario. Perhaps the forward route is too risky although I think the chafe issue can be solved as the holed have nice rolled edges. Danny/Dusz the tank outlet is on the n/s, so rerouting to o/s of the chassis would be a fair bit of re-plumbing (support clips on chassis etc) and the exhaust downpipe is on that side in the engine bay, although as Nick says, he went this route with his injection. Perhaps I'll try the round the back route first and see how it goes (I can then leave the existing pipe in place for the time being). Regards Ian F 🤔

Ok so project Huco has kicked off, with some stainless brackets fabricated to mount the Huco pump on the front side of the n/s suspension turret. I looked at other positions but this seemed the best option, particularly as my bulhead is aleardy full with a servo, electronic ign box and a T2000 washer bottle. I managed to fabricate a two part bracket (mocked in CAD initially), to pick up on the two engine mount to turret bolts and the front/top wishbone bolt. The pump should get a reasonable supply of fresh air in this position and is well away from the block. The route from the fuel line to pump is quite easy and I will probaly add an in-line tap (because I already have one) and pre-pump filter, which will pass nicely over the top of the turret at about the level of the top of the side valance. The tap will allow me to shut the line off to change the fuel filter as with my current arrangement, if the tank is more than half full fuel flows out of the fuel lines when I disconnect the filter and I have had to jack the front of the car up before to deal with this (I dont like clamping fuel/brake lines). So the next step is the routing for the pump to carbs. I'm keen to try and improve on the original 'round the head route' due to heat soak which looks difficult anyway from my pump position and round the back looks equally tricky. Time for radical thought and I would appreciate comment on this. Triumph in their wisdom have provided some very nice holes in the main chassis members forward of the radiator, which seem to offer a route from one side of the engine bay to the other avoiding the hot bits. Using 7.6mm rubber fuel line (proper SA30 R9 stuff) there is a route forward from the pump, through the chassis rails in front the rad and up under the overflow bottle to the carbs. I may add a second in line filter at this point and use it to reduce from the 7.6 dia to the 5.6 diameter required for T piece between the carbs (already a bit non-standard here). The route is well away from heat sources and if I sleeve locally over the pipe, pretty safe in terms of chafe. The fuel line will fall slightly and then rise to carbs, but I dont tink this is a problem as there is rise and fall in the original system. A fwe photos attached. Any comments or advice please. Regards Ian F

John Did Triumph not actually do this this as a later production modification, ie the heat spacer and pump with longer arm. In other words the problem has always been there to a degree and I suspect Triumphs are not the only cars to be affected by this issue. Regards Ian

This a problem that I have had with my Mk2 GT6 on a couple of occasions over the last year (luckily idling at home on the drive after a run) but experienced much more seriously last weekend when driving to and from an MOT test. The car has the standard (original & rebuilt) fuel pump, coil spaced off, standard radiator, engine bay valences and radiator shroud, an electric SPAL sucker fan on a Revotec controller, standard fuel pipe routing in copper, carb heat shields and K&N filters. (Oh and Shell V Power usually) To be fair it was a warm day 20 deg C and the car was getting a bit hot, as I seemed to hit traffic which ever way I tried and when vapourisation  occurred the engine just cut and I had to limp off to a relatively safe position (on the starter) to try and resolve it. Luckily I had my basic tool kit. The filter immediately upstream of the pump was empty (seen that before) and taking the top off the fuel pump there was a hiss of pressure and showed the fuel merrily fizzing away in the bottom of the chamber. I broke the fuel line just upstream of the carbs and having reassembled the pump, managed to hand prime so that fuel flowed through the pipe. I then reconnected it to the carbs and it immediately restarted. It happened a further 3 times before I finally got home. Oh the joy of classic cars. The carb heat shields have definitely reduced the running temperature of the car bodies, but my feeling is that the problem really is the mechanical fuel pump in contact with the hot block as that is where I can actually see the fuel boiling. The routing of the fuel pipe around the front of the head may be an contributory factor (this has been discussed previously) but presumably Triumph did this to expose it to fresh air entering the engine bay. Long term I have a number of ideas including an upgrade of the radiator, but initially and with Silverstone Classic (and then the RBRR) looming, I am thinking about fitting a Huco suction pump on a bracket fixed to the rear of the nearside suspension turret (ie off the block). Stainless shielded fuel pipe is also another relatively easy option and I am tempted to revert back to the mechanical plastic fan as the engine heat does seem to cycle a bit with the electric fan and if it is set too low the fan is coming on early and staying on late, almost as if it is fighting the thermostat. I will update as to the effect of the pump change, but any comments welcome and I will  follow the rest of the thread with interest. regards Ian F 😲

OK so it’s time to own up. My post was a little tongue in cheek, in recognition of the special date and if the TSSC can do ‘back to the future’ Stags and amphibious TR4s then why not have some April fun on CT. Thanks to all who posted replies and you never know, perhaps someone will invent a GT6 that is actually cold enough to need heated seats. Anyway it’s a credit to this fantastic forum that members pitch in to offer helpful suggestions, even to the silliest of ideas. I promise to be more serious next time. Ian F

Winters can get pretty cold down here in Dorset and I find the heater in the GT6 not really up to the job of keeping the cabin suitably warm. Does anyone have experience of fitting heated seats and if so what donor vehicles have you found suitable to supply the parts. It will probably be OK once the weather warms up after April. Regards Ian F

Mole You'll have to starting working nights as well to catch up !! Ian F

Is anyone else finding the countdown a bit intimidating !!?? Only 226 days , 7hours, 10 mins and 45 secs, sorry 25 secs, no 5 secs !!!!! Ian F 😲

Thanks all for the feedback. All good stuff. I had certainly followed Roy's and John's Golf conversions with interest, but would like to keep the car looking original if at all possible.   My Mk2 doesn't actually overheat, but the electric fan (a 12" Spal) doesn't bring the temp down quite as quick as I would like, or should I say runs for longer than I would like. In normal running, no problem at all and the fan generally kicks in when we stop and then runs on until the  temp drops as it should. I've wired the fan to run on with the ignition off and it just feels weird (and slightly embarrassing) walking away from the car when the fan is still running. I've put the sensor switch (an adjustable one) in the top of radiator quite close to inlet and this may be the problem as the sensor is probably seeing hot static water connected to the head, whilst the fan is merrily cooling the radiator core, with the cooled water not being able to go anywhere as it is not circulating. The core certainly feels quite cool when this is happening.   The system is all pretty clean, but the radiator is good few years old and I would be tempted to put the original engine driven fan (8 square bladed yellow plastic jobbie) back on for a trial, if it didn't clash with two of the soldered on fan mount brackets. I've got the front shroud and side valences fitted but the fan to radiator is not shrouded on the rear face. This might be something worth experimenting with as I agree a lot of 'moderns' seem to do this. Will have a play as soon as I can get the car home from temporary (building induced) storage. PS Did anyone have any thoughts (+ve or -ve) on the wide down flow radiator idea? Regards Ian F 😉

GT6 Radiator – If we had a clean sheet of paper OK so my first attempt at starting a thread, so be gentle ! (GT6 Mk2 owner since 197 Have you noticed that Saloon and TR5/6 forum pages rarely discuss cooling issues. The Vitesse and Spitfires get mentioned sometimes, with the easy fix for the Spitfire being the fitment of the wide radiator. Whereas for the GT6 it is a recurring subject and there have been several different approaches to improving things, including re-coring/replacement, making the most of the existing system by cleaning and adding a header tank to deal with issues of aeration. Most cars that were raced in period or since seem to have tackled this in various ways, mainly seeming to end up with a larger wider radiator. Basically it appears that Triumph did the best they could in 1966, with the technology available at the time and presumably the cost constraints of mass production. Given that the space in the front of the engine bay was taken up with the extra two cylinders, narrow and tall was the choice following the fashion of the early TRs, with the width being dictated by the chassis and the height by the line of the bonnet. The deep core and the extra top hose connection from the thermostat housing to the radiator filler neck suggests they were struggling from the word go. Enter the Mk2 with a bit more power and a front bumper raised to meet USA collision regulations, gave a second obstruction to the flow to add to that already provided by the chassis. Space is clearly the main issue, but logic does suggest that as the grille opening is wide and shallow, the radiator should be also. The VW golf/Peugeot 205 conversions all use modern cross flow radiators but do require the radiator to be canted forwards.  The Honda Civic radiator is a down flow design of similar size to the original but probably a bit more efficient, albeit it doesn’t quite fit and some have tried it without obvious benefit. I have spent a few happy hours trawling the interweb for other options, but none seem any better than those already tried. So the question is, ‘if’ we were starting from scratch, knowing what we know now, what should the approach be:- 1 – A wide version of a down flow design (similar to a Spitfire wide), omitting the filler neck to maximise the available height. This might look the most authentic and allow an almost normal use of the side valences. Could it be wide enough to compensate for the reduced height ? 2 – A shallow cross flow design to allow the radiator to be set vertically rather than canted forward (is this an advantage or disadvantage).  Bespoke design could provide top n/s and bottom o/s to match current plumbing. 3 - Retain engine driven fan (probably only OK with vertical radiator) or electric fan/s. Some say that our cast iron engines need a continuous waft of air and that waiting for the electric fan to kick in allows the heat to cycle too much. 4 – Construction in copper/brass or aluminium. (is aluminium better?) A PDF of my thoughts on shapes for down flow and cross flow options is attached, with core area shown as a % of the original. Something I’m keen to address on my car in advance of the summer and the RBRR as my existing radiator needs attention. What do we think ? Regards Ian

Hi G I have them on my GT6 Mk2, supplied by Rimmers. They do look lovely and I think particularly suit the Mk2. The ET is 25mm, which is just too much and I have also had to fit thin spacers (about 5mm) to the fronts to get clearance on the top wishbone. At the rear there are no clearance issues although the rim is close to bottom wishbone. It does make the rear track look a bit narrow and I am contemplating a wider spacer at the rear to compensate, which would ideally be a 'hubcentric' one, although I have not yet found a suitable off the shelf item, so may buy something thicker and get it turned down to suit. By the way I have upgraded to M12 studs all round. Hope this helps ! Regards Ian

Hi Glen Back in 80s when my Mk 2 GT6 was daily transport and I was a visitor to 'good ol pile em high srap yards', I fashioend a rear ARB from robbed parts, a bit of gas welding to shorten it and a pair of Triiumph drop links, fixed into some neat little plates which picked up on bottom of the v/link & wishbone. The bar was fixed up to the underside of the boot floor with bits I robbed with the bar. I have always felt that rear of a GT6 is a bit too soft and I often seemed to find myself on the bump stops in decent corners or if bump presented itself mid corner, but this may be because the Mk2 spring is quite soft (185lb/in compared to 305 ish for the swing spring Mk1). Vitesse rates are obviously different but the basic geometry is presumably the same. In conjunction with the bigger front bar from a Mk3 GT6 (or possibly late Spitfire) I convinced myself it was a beneficial mod, but post rebuild have yet to refit it. I had a period with Spax adjustable dampers but I think they were quite wrong for the car and I now have Konis which are a great improvement generally. I do still think the Mk2 spring is a bit too soft however and a recent new replacement has not really improved matters, albeit I am having 'discussions' with the manufacturer as to how we might improve matters ahead of the RBBR as I definately don't want to be bumping around Britain. There has been discussion on the forum on this subject in the past with explanations about roll centre etc. and it might be worth you doing a bit of a search. Hope this helps. Regards Ian

Hi Tim Panel gaps courtesy of Southern Triumph ! M12 studs all round now, with nuts purchased from Mr T's. Chroming on the nuts is not very good, but probably partly related to me taking the wheels off so frequently... us boys must play, but fortunately replacements are not particularly pricey. Hopefully the car will be inside during the winter, but your comments on lacquering noted ! Regards Ian F ;)

Kristian There is a Revolution inspired thread on Page 6 of the Herald/Vitesse section, from which I have  copied my humble contribution. "I fitted a set of the new Revos to my GT6 Mk2, supplied by Rimmers following a rebuild and to replace a set of Cobra Superslots that I fitted back in the 1980s. (Actually sold on the 5.5 Dunlop steels which would have been worth a bit these days....oh well!) The Superslots had an ET of about +11 and whilst there was no clearance problem with the wishbone, with 175/70 tyres they ran pretty close to the bulkhead on lock and did project a bit from the front wheel arch which meant the wing and side of the car got quite dirty. In the madness of youth I experimented with a filler inspired arch extension, but that didn't last that long. At the rear the wheels nicely filled the arches but were a bit tight, depending on the sidewall profile of the various makes of tyre that I ran over the years. The new Revos have at ET of +25 which is really too much but only just. Some have reported problems but not everyone. Canleys used to sell them and did not think there were any issues. I did have a problem with the top wishbone just contacting the outer edge of the rim with reasonable lock, so fitted some 5mm universal wheel spacers as a fix, as I already invested in new tyres etc and had sold the Superslots. A subsequent experiment with fettling the wishbone, improved the clearance slightly, but not quite enough to allow the spacers to be removed with confidence. On the plus side the wheel sits nicely within the arch and the car stays cleaner for it, which is an issue particularly with a white car. On the negative side I think the wheel sits slightly too far in at the rear, making the arch look a bit empty. I will add some spacers to correct this in due course and have actually designed a hubcentric spacer which I intend to get machined up. I have Nicks CV conversion on the rear so M12 studs and have also made the change on the front, so no real worries about using thin spacers. 8mm is about the maximum with the standard m12 Freelander stud in my opinion. In respect of the centre hole/PCD issue, I understand John's comments but at the moment I'm not overly concerned and certainly haven't heard of anyone breaking one, but no doubt someone will now it's been mentioned. All in all I'm quite happy with the wheels and think they really suit the car and had always thought they would look good on a GT6. They are not hugely expensive and could always be changed at some point in the future." Hopefully relevant as you have the same Mk of GT6. Regards Ian F ;)

Mark The ET of your Wolfrace wheels is similar to my original Superslots, so the arch rubbing issue is the same as I described above. The greater ET of +25 of the Revos solves this but at the expense of pushing it 'just' too close to the top wishbone. An ET of +20 would be fine, so if someone could ask the Chinese to manufacture to this specification then problems solved. (anyone care to confirm offset for reproduction Minilites) I obtained M12x1.5 Acorn standard 60 deg taper nuts from Mr T's Wheelnut Emporium. Regards Ian F ;)

Mark I fitted a set of the new Revos to my GT6 Mk2, supplied by Rimmers following a rebuild and to replace a set of Cobra Superslots that I fitted back in the 1980s. (Actually sold on the 5.5 Dunlop steels which would have been worth a bit these days....oh well!) The Superslots had an ET of about +11 and whilst there was no clearance problem with the wishbone, with 175/70 tyres they ran pretty close to the bulkhead on lock and did project a bit from the front wheel arch which meant the wing and side of the car got quite dirty. In the madness of youth I experimented with a filler inspired arch extension, but that didn't last that long. At the rear the wheels nicely filled the arches but were a bit tight, depending on the sidewall profile of the various makes of tyre that I ran over the years. The new Revos have at ET of +25 which is really too much but only just. Some have reported problems but not everyone. Canleys used to sell them and did not think there were any issues. I did have a problem with the top wishbone just contacting the outer edge of the rim with reasonable lock, so fitted some 5mm universal wheel spacers as a fix, as I already invested in new tyres etc and had sold the Superslots. A subsequent experiment with fettling the wishbone, improved the clearance slightly, but not quite enough to allow the spacers to be removed with confidence. On the plus side the wheel sits nicely within the arch and the car stays cleaner for it, which is an issue particularly with a white car. On the negative side I think the wheel sits slightly too far in at the rear, making the arch look a bit empty. I will add some spacers to correct this in due course and have actually designed a hubcentric spacer which I intend to get machined up. I have Nicks CV conversion on the rear so M12 studs and have also made the change on the front, so no real worries about using thin spacers. 8mm is about the maximum with the standard m12 Freelander stud in my opinion. In respect of the centre hole/PCD issue, I understand John's comments but at the moment I'm not overly concerned and certainly haven't heard of anyone breaking one, but no doubt someone will now it's been mentioned. All in all I'm quite happy with the wheels and think they really suit the car and had always thought they would look good on a GT6. They are not hugely expensive and could always be changed at some point in the future. Regards Ian F ;)

Hi Guys I have had similar problems. I would agree that 'aftermarket' retaining clips are 'pretty poor', bordering om totally rubbish'r!. I struggled getting the cylinder to move freely and eventually went diving in my bin of discarded bits to find some old original ones. A trace of grease can help but don't go mad, grease and brakes don'y mix well. I am also fairly convinced that lining thickness on repalcement shoes can vary, which means there just isn't enough space even with everyting backed off. With new drums (which I replaced because I thought my drums were a bit oval) were almost impossible to get to fit. A replacement set of shoes were just that bit easier (Set of shoes for worn drums anybody?). Keep perservering Hope this helps Regards Ian F ;)

Hi Tim Refer bottom of page 6 on this Spitfire/GT6 forum, when this subject was last covered. Also referenced back to earlier posts on the same topic. You might also like to try using the search facility to see what else you can find. Regards Ian F ;)

Hi John Pleased that the information might help. Corrosion through the damper mounts was the main reason I took my GT6 off the road in the early 1990s (well that a crippling mortgage in the heady days of 14% interest). When we carried out the restoration a couple of years ago I was amazed how much damage had been done as the corrosion had penetrated the inner arches and had got right down into the floors. Triumph designed the chassis for the dampers to mount in the original position, which seems pretty robust as it is properly triangulated and we assume only introduced the arch mount in order to clear the Rotaflex. Remember the Mk2 set up was in response to criticism of the Mk1 swing axle and its tendency to frighten American  journalists. The problem is the multiple layers of metal fixed together with spot welds, leaving lots of edges for the corrosion to get in. Mind you and it has been said many times before, Triumph weren't expecting these cars to around 40 years later!    Keep up the good work and the regular posts! Regards Ian F ;)

Hi John There have been several posts on this previously. (GT6/Spitfire page 18 is a fairly recent one) from which I have abstracted (and tweaked) my little contribution. When rebuilding my Mk2 GT6, we abandoned the wheelarch mount and fabricated brackets to fit onto the original chassis mounts, as we were doing away with the Rotoflex couplings in favour of Nicks excellent CV conversion. These are essentially similar to some of the available 'conversion' brackets, but may not come outboard quite as much as we didn't need to rear the Rotoflex. The brackets widen out to create an offset to place the damper vertically above the mounting point on the vertical link. See attached PDF sketch of bracket and photograph of installation. Without the offset the damper leans forward quite a bit, which can put a bit of strain on the bushes.   We welded the brackets to the chassis, but they could be configured to allow bolted retrofit into a completed vehicle. The 80-1717 Koni damper was listed as being from  a 'lowered classic Mini' so probably best to search via Mini specialists. The ride is actually very good with the Konis, so probably worth pursuing. (PS Loving the GT6 build thread.... is there anything you can't do with aluminium ?) Hope this helps. Ian F  ;)

Dave You don't state which car you are referring so, but yes there are definitely differences and when my GT6 was assembled after a rebuild using a replacement powder coated  bracket, the pedal was too high. I managed to locate my original bracket and refurbed that, which returned everything to normal. The brake cylinder bracket also has additional reinforcement on the GT6 so wouldn't be interchangeable with the clutch in any case. Hope this helps. Regards Ian F ;)

Hi Nick The rubber bush supplied by Koni is a standard Metalisk (sp) type with the sleeve bonded into the rubber, which is designed to allow movement of the bush by flexing of the rubber (just like all of the other suspension bushes on the car originally). Being a Koni item I assume that these are reasonable quality. We made the call that because the central bonded in sleeve in the bush was nice and thick, it was OK to drill it out to suit the damper attachment bolts. I have attached a photo of the rear suspension units just before they were fitted. You see there is still plenty of meat in the bush sleeve. PS Have you picked up previous threads regarding the slight fore/aft misalignment of the top damper mount if using standard chassis adaptors ? Hope this helps. Regards Ian F ;)

Hi Nick & Anthony I fitted the 80-1717s to my Mk2 GT6 back in 2011 as part of a Jones Bowler CV conversion. We actually just drilled out the Koni bushes in situ as there is just about enough of the sleeve projecting to get a hand vice onto for drilling in a pedestal drill. No doubt being rubber bushes they wont last forever and could be replaced with polybush at a leter stage if required. Hop this helps Ian F ;)

Nick If the panels are new (eg Heritage) I think it would be normal practice to leave the black primer on and sand into it as it will provide a good first layer and work as a guide coat to show up any panel imperfections. If you use paint stripper, there is always a chance that some of it will remain in crevices and cause problems with the bonding of any susbequent paint layers, unless you wash it off really well, but then you risk flash rusting.   Photo attached of my GT6 just prior to final paint. R ;)egards Ian F

Hi Bill When rebuilding my Mk2 GT6, we abandoned the wheelarch mount and fabricated brackets to fit onto the original chassis mounts. These are essentially similar to some of the available 'conversion' brackets but with an offset to place the damper vertically above the mounting point on the vertical link and position the top slightly further outboard. Without the offset the damper leans forward a bit, which can put a strain on the bushes. See attached PDF sketch. We welded the brackets to the chassis, but they could be configured to allow bolted retrofit into a completed vehicle. The 80-1717 Koni damper was listed as being from  a 'lowered classic Mini' so probably best to search via Mini specialists. The ride is actually very good with the Konis, so probably worth persevering. Hope this helps. Ian F ;)