Jordon T

Hi Guys,   Thanks for the comments above. I've read the articles in the Courier as suggested by Casper, and done some further research. I've come to the conclusion that a single HS4 would be best suited to engine setup I have. However, I've redesigned the front flange so that a single HS2 could also be bolted. This is beneficial for if i choose to cast several manifolds for 1200's which aren't Spitfire tuned (low comp and 12-52-52-12 cam). I myself will be conducting road tests with both carb sizes fitted just to satisfy my own interest.   You will also notice I've included a line bored channel for manifold warming, and removed the central splitter to aid turbulence and further improve the fuel air mix.    I'm going to design and 3D print the pattern tooling hopefully next week and will have a few castings made for the week after. Fun stuff!   Regards,   Jord

ust been doing some air flow calculations comparing the total area of the two inlet ports and the various combinations of carb size.   Here are my findings (mm);   Port diameter size is Ø30 x 2 = Ø60.  Total port area is 1414mm2   Single HS2 1.25 = 896mm2 Twin HS2 1.25 = 1791mm2 Single HS4 1.5 = 1140mm2 Single HS6 1.75 = 1551mm2   So looking at these figures (and not taking valve seat/ opening area into account). The carbs in red would technical suffocate the engine and the carbs in green would delivery sufficient air flow.    Question; if the total area of the carb is greater than that of the port size. does this mean that full throttle would technically be achieved without the throttle butterfly being fully open?

Hi Guys,   Thanks for the feedback guys.    I'm finding the DIN and ISO comparison quite interesting. So if we go by what Casper has said above. The Toledo was actually more powerful than the 13/60. This being entirely too the manifold design. I can't imagine the carburettor would have made that much difference with them both being 1 1/2".    I'll dig out those issues of Courier and report back.    Thanks,   Jordan

Hi Guys, My Herald 1200 is currently sporting a newly rebuilt Spitfire Mk1 spec 1147 engine with the correct twin HS2 1.25" carbs on a Mk1 Spec inlet manifold. It runs very well, but I've always prefered having a single carb as opposed to twins. David Vizard (tuning guru) and several other reputable enthusiasts share this opinion. With this in mind and me being a Development Engineer within a cast-iron foundry; I've decided that I'm going to design my own bespoke inlet manifold, which will allow me to bolt a single HS4/HS6 onto the original 6-port 1147 head (a bespoke 8 port 1147 head is on the drawing board as a project for the future). I think this is a nice project for me to literate for others and also seeks advice and constructive criticism along the way. So any opinions or advice, please post away!! I've focused my research on the designs Triumph's own development engineers would have considered from the design of the "banana" shaped manifold of the 1300FWD and the Herald 13/60 and it's successor the "log" shaped manifold of the Toledo, 1500FWD and Dolomite. From what I have read, I believe the later log arrangement was more efficient and had better flown, the log design allowing the fuel/air mixture to atomise more efficiently. Is this correct? Does anyone disagree with this? I've also looked into later British Leyland designed inlet manifolds such as the ones used the Metro's and Maestro's of the 80's. Long dropping branches with the carburettor setting in reverse. This was my first choice of design for my unit, but realised that the Herald's low bonnet line compromises this arrangement. So I've come up with the design below. It's a log arrangement similar to that of the Toledo's, but with more internal curvature and a central splitter.     What do you guys think?    Looking forward to your responses,   Jordan

My Herald's moulded carpet set came from James Paddocks. Irrelevant really, as all of the molded carpet sets within the UK are manufactured by newton commercials.

I wouldnt worry about it too much. But in an ideal world you would want both sides of the float to be level. I would slightly bend the float frame to remove the 1mm difference and then set to the correct float hieght (16-18mm). best regards, Jordan

Well I've stripped and rebuilt several 1200 engines and i've found that early 1200 engines with the earlier/longer style cam followers (and the 12-52-52-12 camshaft) have a smaller diameter cam journal size than the later engines (with the 18-58-58-18 camshaft) with the later/shorter cam followers. However the camshafts fitted to later 1200 engines can be replaced with those fitted to 1300 engines and visa-versa without the need for cam bearings. So my question is; Did Standard-Triumph produce their camshafts with three different camshaft journal sizes? Early Herald, Spitfire and later Herald?

Well I've stripped and rebuilt several 1200 engines and i've found that early 1200 engines with the earlier/longer style cam followers (and the 12-52-52-12 camshaft) have a smaller diameter cam journal size than the later engines (with the 18-58-58-18 camshaft) with the later/shorter cam followers. However the camshafts fitted to later 1200 engines can be replaced with those fitted to 1300 engines and visa-versa without the need for cam bearings. So my question is; Did Standard-Triumph produce their camshafts with three different camshaft journal sizes? Early Herald, Spitfire and later Herald?

TD Fitchetts! I get ALL of my panels from these guys, as they use some of the original tooling (so I'm told). I've never had a bad fitting panel from them and usually they work out the most cost effective. I'm pretty sure Fitchetts supplies, all of the main Triumph parts suppliers with panels. But don't quote me on it. https://www.google.co.uk/#safe=off&q=td+fitchetts Best regards, Jordan 🙂

When I had to do this on one of my prvious heralds, I found soaking the rubber bumpers in a bath of hot water really helped them to slide onto the valance. You could also use silicone lubricant/spray to help the sliding process. best regards, Jordan

Good morning, The widest I would fit on standard 3.5J wheels is 155 80R13 (which seem quite popular). But the best option is to fit 145 80R13 on those rims. regards, Jordan

I've voted No. The original OE fuel pumps are extremely reliable (my 1967 built 1200 still has its original pump). Electric pumps seem to be more hassle than they're worth, ask any Morris Minor or Austin 1100 owner that.  ;) The reproduction fuel pumps aren't brilliant, so my vote would be to track down or rebuild an original OE unit.

Well I was talking to one of the chaps at TD Fitchetts, and he said all of the Herald mild steel panels come from them (He showed me the press tools for most of them). So if Quiller are selling the front valances for less than Fitchetts (which they are by around £50-60), then either Quiller have another supplier making them or they are making a loss. Interesting.

My 67 1200 has clutch judder but only when reversing. It has a diaphragm clutch.   New engine mounts. New gearbox mounts. New clutch. Still the same. I tend to rev the engine a little higher when disengaging the clutch. Helps a little.

With the Lucas alternators it doesn't matter. Just remove the 3 long bolts, and twist the front plate around, to the side/hand you want.