efp

1684 wrote: A good article but I cannot open the attached diagrams Ah. Sorry guys. Quite some time since I saved that link and guess the attachments have expired. Out of my control, I'm not a member of that forum. Hope theres enough in the text to help anyway.

I found this quite helpful in fixing my wiper motor: http://www.britishcarforum.com/bcf/content.php?156-Lucas-DR3A-Two-Speed-Wiper-motors

You know that the engine mounting brackets on the suspension turrets are different on the GT6 and the Spitfire?  Michael Davis described and pictured the differences on his blog here some time ago. The Spit ones set the engine lower to clear the bonnet I think.  Is it possible you have the wrong ones?

Slimboyfat wrote: Perhaps then I could spend some time writing my book about some of the daft things punters have done, or said over the last three decades. Some of them are hilarious, some of them make you wonder how they manage to do up their shoe laces in the morning.   I'd buy that book  :) Actually as I think I've been one of your loyal dumb "punters"  since about 1983 I'll probably be in it... :(

But I would argue with you re your use of the term Punters. Seems a tad disrespectful to your customers?

Slimboyfat wrote: You are. They were made of exactly the same grade (thickness) of steel as the original. We have both here, you are more than welcome to bring along a vernier. Then I unreservedly retract my earlier statement, no offence intended  :). As I said, I don't have them side by side. But my comments were perhaps  coloured by Cliff's comments earlier re  repro vs original pressings.

I'm seeing mixed reviews on those Thai made s/s jobs Danny but the price is attractive. Some rave about them. Horses for courses, but I cant see s/s ever looking right among the other real chrome bits on an early Spit. I did wonder if they could be chromed but I gather that for some metallurgical reason that its impractical.  As always, I'd be happy to be contradicted. My experience was being quoted 330 quid for a fix of my bent and rusty original by a certain well-known north London chrome shop and seeing what would seen to be one of the last , it now seems, repro units for about the same, so I got one of them.  For reasons too boring to relate I haven't yet had a chance to compare old and new side-by-side but I get the impression the repro one is a little flimsier than the original (apologies to you mr Slimboy if I'm mistaken). The chrome shop really wanted a pattern to use to recreate the original profile on my original before working on it, and when time and funds permit I will compare them and decide whether or not to have the original redone at which point one of them will become surplus and up for offers. Please don't hold your breath, but you guys here will be the first to know when the time comes.

Hi Paul As no one else has answered, I'll jump in. Looking at the parts diagrams the mkI/II and III bumpers look the same overall shape but there are some fundamental differences, principally the chassis cutouts in the top of the early ones (which you could probably make, given that they'd be behind the over-riders), and the end support brackets which on the mkII are fixed by chromed coach bolts about 6 inches in, and on the mkIII by a captive nut assembly at the tip. Again you could probably drill and file the coachbolt hole (note it has flats) but of course in both cases you'd be breaking through the chroming and encouraging rust to start. And I cant vouch for the hole spacings matching up, not having a mkIII bumper to hand. Still my guess is that it's doable. I stress again this is all only guesswork on my part, if anyone better better informed than me wants to dive in, please do. Personally I'd bite the bullet and buy the one remaining MkII one Rimmers say they have have in stock, (806956) albeit at an eyewatering 450 quid. A lot cheaper on Paddocks site , but they are out of stock. Might be worth talking to them though.

Pm sent Paul. Many thanks

I've misplaced the two forged steel brackets holding the front bumper ends to the chassis (part 613501 in the Rimmer catalogue) and they seem to be unobtanium from the usual sources. Still, they look fairly easy to fabricate and won't be seen.  Could some kind soul provide me with the dimensions, angles and hole spacings?

Smart move to put the handbrake  cable in at this stage, before replacing the tub. Ask me how I know.. But jumping back to the rear stud replacement, I found that the Freelander ones I got were, even when chamfered to seat fully in the hub, just flicking the rubber seal on the slave cylinder, just enough to ensure it would wear and probably fail in a short time.  I had to pull the hubs off yet again to grind the heads back a little, to match the angle of the hub corners.  Humbly suggest you double-check yours?  Maybe just me, I noted that Freelander studs vary in shape even within the same part number from the same supplier.  Again, ask me how I know.