Dion
-
Posts
106 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Membership & Shop
Everything posted by Dion
-
Hmm I'm confused now. Your GT6 is a Mk2, correct? Early Mk3 Spits had the front indicators / sidelights separate as on the Mk 1/2. The yellow is an early Mk3. Later Mk3s had both lights combined into one, like on your GT6 so I gather the GT6 is a mid to late Mk2? Both should have the same bumper / bumper mountings. It is not impossible though that the yellow one had its bumper mountings changed a bit to mount the home made "bumper" (awful).
-
Asking because there's this very early Mk3 for sale locally chassis nr FD6733. Bonnet looks so similar to a Mk1/2.
-
I have never liked the raised front bumper "styling" of the Mk3. It just looks too much like a last minute decision - Let's just put it a bit higher, put the overriders upside down, something like that and we can live with it for another few years until we have the money to do a proper redesign (which became the MkIV of course). So is it possibel to put a Mk1/2 front bumper/overriders to a Mk3 bonnet? Are the bonnets actually different? Bumper mountings? What else would be needed?
-
GT6+ on US Ebay - "IT NEEDS TOTAL COSMETIC AND SOME MECHANICAL RESTORATION" "THE INTERIOR NEEDS TO BE TOTALLY REDONE" "THE CAR NEEDS NEW PAINT" Needs restoration?? Why? I would be very pleased the way this car looks and could well live with the paint as is. Am I missing something? Are we looking at the same car? Maybe needs a bit of work (wood revarnish, replace door mirror) but not much if I should own the car. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Triumph-Other-1970-triumph-gt-6-true-barn-find-rust-free-southern-car-needs-restoration-/231320894223?forcerrptr=true&hash=item35dbccbb0f&item=231320894223&pt=US_Cars_Trucks
-
Interesting bumpers on this Herald for sale on US Ebay. Never seen before - can anyone guess their origin? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Triumph-Other-Convertible-1963-TRIUMPH-HERALD-CONVERTIBLE-/151356441346?forcerrptr=true&hash=item233d8c0302&item=151356441346&pt=US_Cars_Trucks
-
Interesting bumpers on this Herald for sale on US Ebay. Never seen before - can anyone guess their origin? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Triumph-Other-Convertible-1963-TRIUMPH-HERALD-CONVERTIBLE-/151356441346?forcerrptr=true&hash=item233d8c0302&item=151356441346&pt=US_Cars_Trucks
-
Alex wrote:I thought mk1 and estates were a different rear profile sill to mk2 saloons? Heard that before - what exactly is the difference? I never noticed that.
-
5005 wrote:if the costs between an arch and a half wing are only about £30-40 surely you would all prefer half wings wouldnt you ??? Sure, I would rather have the half wing if < £50 extra. It cannot be said enough: thank you Lloyd for all the work, preparation and investment in the presses, I (and my car in storage!) have been waiting for this for years. Looking forward to be able to buy my two rear Mk1 arches / half wings from you.
-
There is one on ebay at the moment. Saw it when browsing this morning, did not save the link but should not be hard to find.
-
popeye wrote:The leather appears as option only about 1967 (according to the 1967 price and option list): with the second version of the MKI (rubber on overrrider, new badges, black dials, new heater ans dash vent holes ... ) October 1966 is the switch-over month I believe
-
popeye wrote:The Ambla trim was used by Triumph on early MKI. I think Jaguar used this trim on S type and 420 when they wanted to down size the price of their models. Maybe on some Jaguars but not the 420. I know the 240 and 340 could be had with Ambla but surely not the 420. A lot of people think this is the same kind of car as the 240 / 340 with maybe a larger engine. The 240 / 340 were late versions of the Mk2 (and indeed a bit cheaper than the Mk2) whereas the 420 was a very different car: a S-type body with a Mk10 front. It had slightly different front suspension, bigger radiator and IRS. The 420 was placed a bit more upmarket and price wise surely not downsized.
-
Hi Alec, maybe it is a 3.4 / 3.8 versus 4.2 engine thing? That the 3.4 / 3.8 always had the cam driven generator? Would be interesting to see if the E-type had a different tacho fitted when the 4.2 came along. Sorry - it is too late for me now to find the Barratt spare parts guide for the E-type and Mk2 / S-type. Maybe I'll have a look tomorrow.
-
No - older Jaguars had those. XK150 for sure. The 420 is the first "modern" Jaguar with negative earth and an alternator - with separate voltage regulator. And electronic tachometer.
-
mikew wrote:I have bought one but not got round to fitting it. also if its an early car the rev counter needs modifying to work correctly. the late rev counters are usually ok mike Mike - can you elaborate on that please? I've got a Jag 420 which rev counter shows too many revs. Could it be the electronic ignition that is fitted (Lumenition)? What needs modifying? Thanks, Dion
-
Hi Lloyd, Mk1 rear inners for me please (to go with the outers I already "ordered"). Looking forward to it!
-
Both sides for me as well please.
-
5005 wrote:p.s please let me know what panels you want for your mk1 or mk2 as i am compiling a list of the most sought after / urgent ones that you want, so they can go to the top of my list for remanufacture. :) Rear wheelarches Mk1 please. Is the rear wheelarch profile of the Mk1 Saloon the same as for the Mk1 Estate? Did Mk2 Estate have a different wheelarch profile?
-
1218 wrote: If ever there was a car worthy of saving, that one is it. What is so special about this car? I see white escutcheons, the drivers seat has a rip, carpet not original I think? (difficult to see), wrong door mirror. What else is so special about an early 1200? Are they rare? Handle on the bonnet? I might be interested because 1. I like to have another Herald 1200 2. never had a Herald convertible 3. I love the colour 4. I love the fact is has a non-black interior Why would this example be so special? Love to hear what you think :)
-
My Mk1 is in a reasonable condition - it "only" desperately needs new wheelarches. In and outside. There is a Mk1 saloon for sale locally for approx 500 pounds which is very sound bodywise. This is a car which has been standing for over 20 years undercover and has lost its engine. The interior is not much good. There is an overdrive in it however - which maybe I could made fit for my TR4. If I would buy the car for scrap then I can remove the complete rear wings and inner wings. I think it is better to replace the complete rear wing instead of the wheelarches. It is quite hard to weld in the wheelarches and keep the wings straight without using lots of filler. But... I do not like scrapping cars especially when they have a good body. I assume this is because when I looked to buy a cheap Saloon for the first time years ago (mid eighties), only rotten examples existed. So scrapping a very good body seems sacrilege... Wat is the alternative? Outer wheelarches may be available I think (Earlpart? or any other supppliers?). Are these any good or would they need a lot of work to make them fit? What about the inner wheelarches? Can these be bought new? Any tips and comments welcome.
-
Please don't do it. It is about the worst modification to the lovely Michelotti shape. I hate round wheelarches. They have no character, too blunt, boring. Most (all?) interesting cars do NOT have round wheelarches if you think of it.
-
Seats in an Jensen Interceptor dyed from black to magnolia here: http://www.joc.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=11183