RobPearce

Feeding some relatively incompressible but flexible wire, such as thinwall electrical wire, through the pipe will give some benefit in helping to stop it flattening. However, flattening isn't really an issue while you straighten the coil out - it's much more a problem if you try to put a tight radius bend in it without using the correct size pipe bender. If you don't already have that tool then you should definitely invest in one before tackling the fitting.

In principle, the correct washers should still be available, but you'll need to source them from a reputable specialist. Canley Classics list them under part number 508289

Indeed they do. I've checked the 2000/2500 saloon WSM and it specifies 60-75 for Mk2 models. Haynes gives 65-70 for Mk2 GT6. This is probably towards the upper end of what a 7/16"UNF thread will take but well within what the stud can handle, so it's still OK to reuse if the threads are all good but give them a more careful examination.

I don't think the factory were entirely consistent on the use of double valve springs. If you've got the slightly stronger main valve springs then you don't want the inners. My Mk1 Vitesse (which the WSM says should have double springs) is like that and works fine. Yours being a 2500 will have the beefier 7/16UNF head studs, for which 45lbft is a sensible torque. If there are no signs of thread damage or wear then you should be OK to reuse them. It's probably worth replacing the washers, though, as long as you can get the proper hard spec ones. (Mk1 2L engines have thinner studs which are on the limit of their torque rating and need special super-hard nuts and washers. Those are often worth replacing every time the head comes off.)

I think they may be different in front profile. The Mk3 Spitfire has a bit that juts out in the middle, to give some extra shade to the dash panel. That wouldn't make sense on a GT6 so I'd expect the GT6 one to be more like the MkIV Spitfire front profile.

Treated Tessa to a bit of lubrication - oiled the trunnions, greased the wheel bearings and steering rack, topped up the diff oil.

Just taken Tessa for her MOT - passed with one advisory, on the age of the tyres! The tester did also mention that she needs a bit of TLC on lubrication so that's this afternoon's job.

Do we have to get there so early? I might be able to make it later in the day but 9:30 isn't practical.

I think Craig's right. Unfortunately my 1967 Vitesse has a 6.5 gallon Herald tank.

Probably best not to do that. It's exactly why so much of the Internet is utterly useless garbage - it's all been blindly repeated parrot-fashion with no effort to fact check the source.

Back in the tail end of last century, I did quite a lot of development work for Rover on adding altitude compensation to their MEMS EFI system. After a fair bit of development down a dead end, I hit on a theory which needed a lot less work, and turned out to be exactly right. Also, it's the same one used by a number of other ECUs. It needs no setting up other than a few thresholds for using the main MAP sensor to measure BAP if you don't have a second sensor.

We all "know" (apparently) that E10 fuel is no good and you need more of it for the same mileage. That's probably why my modern has just returned its best ever fuel economy on a tankful of E10.

Try telling that to my other half!

Surely that completely depends on whether you enjoy navigating? For those who enjoy driving but hate maps, a satnav puts the enjoyment back in.

Ever been to Transylvania?

You don't just bolt it on. You need a different mainshaft and a different propshaft, then a different mounting plate and mount. But it's the mainshaft that's the killer - you're actually looking for a complete overdrive box, probably, because that's usually the easiest way to find one.

Tessa left the garage and even the driveway for the first time in three years. Only went a couple of miles to get petrol but I think it's time to book her an MOT.

If you're having head work done anyway then it's worth getting the inserts - they don't add much cost and the newly-machined head would otherwise lack the "lead memory" that makes unleaded conversions usually unnecessary. Sorry, I don't remember what my Toledo's head rebuild cost.

This is true, after a fashion. If you load a GPX into OsmAnd then it will follow it blindly but no longer knows anything about roads, so it won't tell you when there's a junction coming up.

That very much depends on what car! Herald door handles didn't change very much but there was a subtle but significant change at some point. I don't remember details right now. Of course the Spitfire ones changed from twist to push, which is a big change.

Yes. The thinking is this: - your standard multimeter is good for "a few volts" or "a few amps" or "a few ohms" - What we're dealing with is "huge loads of amps" and "almost no ohms at all" - So all that we can deal with is the volts. - By looking at the volts across the motor (without loading anything up enough to matter) we can observe the effects - If the resistance of the cables is the problem, the voltage will not be what we expect, and we should be able to see that. This is the same logic as lies behind Paul's suggestion. While I agree that the problem is probably not electrical, John's idea isn't as daft as you suggest here. The motor will draw the same stall current when first energised as when in mesh - it doesn't "know" why it's stationary, only that it is. So if there's resistance in the cables, it will get less voltage (and hence current) than it should, and it will accelerate slower. That reduced acceleration will reduce how positively the Bendix moves, and may be enough to stop it short of engaging.