oldbury863

The site seems to have compressed the diagram from 2.5Mb to 105K! Is there a way of uploading it without compression?

I dont know if this will help you but whilst I had time on my hands during the lockdown I drew the 13/60 wiring diagram in a slightly simplified way that I could follow more easily. Regarding the wire colour code, the first letter is the main colour and the second code is the stripe colour. Your large brown wire from the battery to the loom might be the feed to the light switch but it should go via an in-line fuse. There is a white and red stripe wire from the ignition switch to the starter solenoid. Have a look at the diagram and I hope it helps.

Very informative and useful article thankyou, reassuringly my head numbers tally.🙂

Ive now found a photo of an old parts catalogue on ebay that shows that Toledos from 72 -75 used 145328 (36.3mm) inlet valves and 75-76 used UKC2460 (35.1mm). This is apparently also the part number used for 1500 spit / midget engines. Strange that they used a smaller valve on a later (and bigger) engine. Some sellers are incorrectly stating that inlets are only either 33 or 36.3mm.

I was hoping to cross reference some of the parts between Herald, Spitfire and Toledo engines. Regarding the valves, although the spring retainer method differs on later engines the valve sizes appear to be 30mm exhaust for all 13/60 & Toledos, early 'DG' engines having 33mm dia inlet valves (same as my 13/60) and later ones 36.3mm but my 'spare' DG engine has 35mm dia ones?! Can anyone shed any light please? I cant find mention of this size anywhere. It doesnt look like an engine thats ever been apart since day one. Its certainly dirty enough.

Thanks for the info Rob, thats very reassuring. Looks like its probably only the sump that needs swapping. Am I correct in thinking that the heads are the same? Its just the different head gasket thats required for the recessed block?

Hi, I have a Herald 13/60 with a GE engine but have aquired a large crank 1300 (DH) toledo / dolomite engine that came complete with it's single rail gearbox. I know the 'GE' engine is generally considered the better one to have but I dont want to bore everyone at this point with the issues I have had with mine. Suffice to say that I have lost faith in my engine and NEED to swap it out to preserve my own sanity! Can anyone please confirm what parts might need to be swapped over if I retain my existing 3 syncro Herald gearbox? The parts that I am seeking clarification over are: front and rear engine plates and sump, also will my existing flywheel and clutch fit the DH crank, and will my existing gearbox input shaft spigot fit the DH crank? If the DH engine isnt a relatively straightforward swap I will need to seek another GE...... Looking forward to any replies, Richard

Thanks Clive, I have emailed Chris for a quote.

Thanks for the reply Rob, but you've made my decision harder now! Its been many many years since I had my previous Herald as a daily driver and I suppose we've all got used to modern cars with their power steering and servo brakes etc but driving my current Herald has disappointed me in that there is quite noticeable free play in the steering. Although I'm well aware that the design dates back to 1959, the Herald has aways been praised for it's precise steering and I think it was also used on the Lotus Elan but I may be wrong. In my quest to get my Herald as good as it can be, I have been right through the suspension, checked the wheel bearings, and fitted solid rack mounts etc, but visible play can be seen in the column joint where those bushes are. I was of the opinion that the Triumph's original choice of joint was purely down to cost and that even a cheap UJ would be an improvement on anything that relies on small rubber bushes? Unfortunately, like many others I have been victim to some of the extremely poor quality rubber components that are being sold these days, some only lasting a matter of months before starting to decompose! I would consider polybushes as an alternative to a UJ but I don't actually know of any suppliers however.

My Herald has noticeable play in the flexible joint where the column connects to the rack. 'Proper' UJ's are now sold as an upgrade to the original FAM1718 joint but I read that a 'forged' type is even better, under the number 145377. Suppliers however, only seem to list the 145377 for fitment to 2000's and TR's. Does the forged type actually fit a Herald or do I need to use the cheaper pressed steel version?

Just received my Payen head gasket from Rimmers. What's printed on the label doesnt fill me with optimism! It states '1200', then the cc is incorrect (1269 instead of 1296) and to top it all, even Triumph is spelt incorrectly!! What was that about mixed reviews?😟

Thanks very much for the replies, the pitting on my valves is similar to, but not as bad as the one in the photo so thats reassured me that I'm being too picky! Along with many others, I have experienced premature failure of several 'pattern' parts (and wish I'd kept the originals!) so I'm not too keen to exchange my old valves for new ones of unknown origin that may be inferior to the ones I already have. A quick glance yesterday on ebay, I found 3 people selling 'proper' Stanpart valves...........all based in the USA unfortunately. Postage, customs, VAT etc make them a no-no as far as I'm concerned so I'll be sticking to my originals now. I'll post an update when things have progressed (or not!)

Its a rather long story but as part of my nut and bolt restoration over several years, I rebuilt the engine (not many miles ago) but have been dogged with running problems particularly regarding that nasty stromberg (IMO). I previously posted my concerns about float valves. I have fitted 3 new float valves (!) and still they stick (mainly shut) whenever the car has been left a couple of weeks without running. A tap on the side of the float chamber with a hammer gets it running again, I blame nasty modern petrol! I have fitted a new mechanical pump, then I tried an electric one and now I am back to a mechanical one but with a fuel regulator also. At one point earlier on, the engine kept flooding badly and I was concerned that damage may have been done from washing of the bores. Even the oil smelt of petrol so I carried out an oil change. I have always felt the engine has a degree of lumpiness particularly at low revs and was running on 31/2 cylinders rather than 4. I have checked the ignition timing and tried electronic ignition too. I recently carried out compression tests and cam lift tests but found nothing obviously amiss. I decided to remove the head and was surprised at the amount of carbon build up considering how few miles had been driven. To be fair the car has been started up from cold many many times now in an attempt to get it running properly so that probably hasn't helped. What I did notice on the head was that cylinders 1 and 4 were far more sooty than 2 and 3. I used blue hylomar when I originally fitted the carb and manifold to minimise the likelyhood of leaks. Why should there be a such difference between cylinders on an engine that has been rebored with new pistons, new valve giudes etc etc? I dont know if anyone else has spotted this, but when I examined the inlet manifold, the design of it is such that the intake splits horizontally so 1 and 4 intake is below the intake for 2 and 3. Wouldnt that arrangement encourage 1 and 4 to run richer where the mixture might be denser? Im probably clutching at straws here, but I have decided to try running the engine with a Toledo manifold and SU carb instead. I know there are plenty out there that would consider such a mod as a backward step but I'm going to give it a try. Ive always preferred SUs anyway. Removing the float chamber lid on an HS4 is a piece of cake compared to a Stromberg. The Toledo manifold might look like an inferior product being a 'log' design, but might it distribute a more even mixture to all 4 cylinders? It also begs the question as to why Triumph fitted a totally different manifold to the Toledo when all they needed to do was alter the stud positions on the Herald one to suit an SU? The expected slight loss of power (58 vs 62BHP) from this conversion does not bother me. Anyway, back to my valves.......When I rebuilt the engine I had the head skimmed, new guides fitted and valves lapped by a local engine rebuilder. Only now, having removed the valves, have I seen the seats and athough they are not bad by any means, I cannot remove all of the pitting on 2 of the exhaust valves by lapping. It may well be that they were like that when I took delivery of the head as I never saw them..... Having originally spent in excess of £1000 rebuilding the engine (it needed almost everything renewing and an acid bath clean), I have to admit my frustration at still not getting such a 'simple' engine to run sweetly! I live in hope.........

Ive decided to renew the exhaust valves on my 13/60 (engine no GE73067HE) but different suppliers seem to be quoting 2 different part numbers namely 126858 or 144939. So are they both the same part? Seems an odd thing to do if they are the same!

Thanks for the replys, I'll go with the Payen set + metal gasket without sealant and report on the results when the jobs done.

I have carried out a de-coke on my Herald and its time to buy a new head gasket set. I was leaning towards a Payen set but Ive noticed that the manifold gasket is of dimpled metal, not like the one previously fitted. Firstly, is this type generally considered the better one to go for, and secondly should I use any Blue Hylomar [of which I am generally a fan] when fitting it or is that a no-no in this application?

I've worked it out, and I have to say what a poor piece of engineering it is IMO. The loop end goes under the lower bracket screw for the front runner and the other end just hooks around the rear runner in order to 'stabilise' it. Why didnt they make 'proper' runner supporting brackets in the first place? Oh well, at least the glass shouldnt fall out any more.

I've had a lot of trouble with the alignment of the vertical glass runners and even though I have replaced the them, the glass has jumped out of the runners on a few occasions. I've discovered 2 tie rods that I had omitted to fit when re-assembling the doors. They are part no 704763 and resemble something made from a coat hangar with a clip halfway along and a loop at one end). I have studied a drawing on Canley of the door components but it's been years since I first dismantled the doors and I cannot remember or fathom exactly how or where this tie rod is supposed to attach to anything. Please can someone help as I am getting fed up with dismantling the door!

Just an update to this issue, I fitted an electric pump to the car instead of the mechanical one. Started the car and (as usual) after it had been running for a couple of minutes it died. One gentle tap on the side of the float chamber and hey presto I could instantly hear the note change on the pump as it filled the chamber with fuel. One turn of the key and the car started immediately. Now I know the pump wasnt to blame! It still leaves me scratching my head as to why it is doing this. Is it the 'modern' fuel causing the issue? Do I just carry a hammer with me in case it fails again?! Its crazy that out of sheer frustration I'm now considering a total and expensive change of setup with SU carb(s) because I cant find a <£20 item that works properly.🤬

I have found out the hard way that the 3 pronged bayonet cap fitment on the Herald and Vitesse seems rather unique. Seemingly unable to locate a decent chrome locking cap, I 'invested' less than £2 on a new seal for the old one from Rimmers. It doesnt fit! (part no RS1441 with 'multiple applications') The new seal is 50mm O.D but the cap is 45mm. I have emailed Rimmers and they are suggesting that maybe my cap is not original. It certainly looks original to me but I would appreciate if someone could measure the I.D of their cap compared to mine. It may prevent future mistakes like mine where I chucked the original part, 'confident' that a replacement was available! I did manage to trim it down, but doesnt anyone sell the correct part?

Thanks for the replies, I measured the diameter of the prop to calculate the circumference and from that, printed off a paper strip of exactly the correct length marked into 12 points of the clock and glued it around the prop (just ahead of the strap drive at the rear). I unbolted the spring in order to relieve some of it's tension, unbolted the driveshafts and tied them up out the way to remove any potential contributions from them, before I started. By trial and error I used 2 clips (almost opposite one another) at various 'points of the clock'. I wont deny it, this was a very tedious job! First I set the clips at 12 O'clock and 5 O'clock then rotated them both together 1 'hour' at a time to establish the optimum position, then I altered the angle between them in order to add or subtract the total weight. Eventually I ended up with negligible vibration right up to 60mph that I was happy with. (With the transmission tunnel cover removed, the amount of engine noise was considerable though!) The clips ended up at '12 O'clock' and '7 O'clock' so almost directly opposite one another, meaning the effective weight required wasnt very much at all. It just goes to show how critical the balancing is. Dont forget this was on a prop that had already been 'professionally balanced'! At least the engine behaved during this process after I had changed the carb float valve for the second time. (see my other post) but I'm still concerned that it may play up again in the future......🤞

I had a strange problem whereby my 13/60's engine would start and run perfectly, but then totally die. I checked for a spark (ok) and removed the petrol pipe from the carb and proved there was fuel when I cranked the engine. I reconnected everything and after a bit of turning over, it burst into life and ran perfectly! Many weeks later I went to start the engine and the same thing happened. It started perfectly, then died after about 30secs and refused to fire at all. I suspected that no fuel was getting through after the float chamber had emptied. When I removed the carb and tried to blow into the fuel inlet it appeared blocked until I blew harder and it cleared. After removing the float chamber, I was able to lift the float manually to check it's operation and found that every time I lifted the float and then let it drop, the valve stuck shut unless I blew very hard. Having decided that I had been victim to yet another poor quality pattern part, I ordered a brand new 'genuine' zenith float valve from Rimmers. Even before I had fitted it, I discovered the brand new valve behaves in exactly the same way! I would not have expected a float valve to behave like this. Is this in fact 'normal' and does it mean that its actually my pattern part fuel pump thats the cause of the problem? The operating plunger on the float valve does not appear to be spring loaded by the way. My only previous experience is with S.U. carbs and I have never encountered this 'sticking' effect with them. It is also Considerably easier to access and check the float valve on (non HIF) S.U's too! Anyone else shed any light on this please? As I am sure most of you out have already discovered, there is just no way of sorting the 'good' from the 'bad' on pattern parts these days. Oh for an S.U. conversion.

A friend of mine asked why I hadnt used 2 jubille clips........If the clips are set almost opposite one another you can get much finer adjustment than using just one clip. Never even occurred to me 🤭

Unfortunately fitting the jubilee clip only made matters worse in all 4 quadrants. In fact it was as bad as it was even at 30mph before it was balanced so clearly it doesnt take much to upset things. Theres nothing else for it but to disconnect the half shafts. If it is still unsatisfactory I think the culprit will be the diff. This would be SO much easier if it had a live axle! I'm hoping that if I attatch a ratchet strap from both ends of the spring and take it over the roof, that I can then disconnect the half shafts without it all being under tension🤞

Thanks for the replies, its got to be worth having a go with a couple of jubilee clips rather than taking it back to Chard's time and time again. I know it would be foolish to expect a Herald to drive like a modern car but I really dont remember my previous Herald suffering such harshness in the drivetrain that made me reluctant to exceed 55mph! I'll keep you posted as to my findings.