Tony68
-
Posts
23 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Membership & Shop
Everything posted by Tony68
-
I had one fitted to my Vitesse/2.6 but found the oil was over-cooled. The oil cooler just filled up with mayonnaise due to lack of circulation. I disconnected it in the end, figuring that on pubic roads I couldn't get enough heat into the oil to make it worthwhile. And I think oil needs to get hot to absorb the combustion products properly. It's also my belief that on a big iron-block engine, the oil and water both swap heat with the block, and so they *tend* to arrive at the same temperature. Obviously the oil temp will vary according to where you measure it, and it is possible to make it smoke. If was going to change it again, I'd use a water/oil intercooler which would help the oil temp rise as well as cool. Re pressure, I can't help feeling that keeping the oil over-cool *may* merely be hiding a bearing-wear problem that will get worse, though I do accept that the purpose of the pump is to get the volume flow through the bearings, rather than just to build pressure per se.
-
With D type overdrive you should check that both coils in the solenoid work. Typically either the thick one fails (in which case it won't pull in) or the thin one fails (in which case it pulls in but won't stay in)
-
That may be true for many cars, especially modern ones with fuel injection and good gas dynamics, but many old cars definitely improved with more spark energy, like the Hillman in my other post. Remember that the voltage needed may vary with cylinder conditions, and it's the voltage that forms the spark, but the current that provides the energy. The CD system supplies more energy because it uses the coil only as a transformer (though an uprated coil and ignition amplifier can help too). A criticism at the time was that the CD pulse was very short, and that a fireable mixture might not happen to be anywhere near the plug when it fired. My response was always that if you couldn't fire the mixture properly at the right time, the fuel in the cylinder was basically wasted anyway (because the late spark means less cylinder pressure and thermal efficiency drops like a stone), that a big quick spark is more likely to fire a mixture than a long thin one, and that if it doesn't, the mixture is too weak for decent power anyway! There's also the point that the original inductive coil ignition had a delay (due to the slow voltage rise) which was constant in time but increased in degrees at high rpm and reduced the ignition advance significantly. It's arguable how good or bad that was, but the bottom line was I *almost* always got better performance with CD ignition provided I could tweak the ignition timing and (if necessary) mixture too.
-
I have a dual system. Optically triggered Lumenition to stop the advance altering when the CB (or the plastic heel!) wear, and a Sparkright capacitor-discharge system to give more spark energy. Lately it has been playing up, though, so I've switched it out. I believe in getting a really *big* spark - have done ever since I built a CD unit myself back in the 1970s and fitted it to a Hillman Minx 1725. Opened up the plug gaps from 25 thou to 50, and the difference was amazing! From a top speed of 70mph max, to somewhere around 85mph (all indicated). Clearly, the Rootes head needed a big spark to fir the mixture reliably. BTW I never believed all the c**p about needing a long spark - if the mixture hasn't fired within a fraction of a milli-second of the initial spark, it's too late.
-
FWIW I prefer to keep the engine temp lower for a variety of reasons. I found a land rover 76 degree thermostat (IIRC) which worked well for me. In reality, the thermostat is open a bit most of the time, and temps are hotter than this in some places - a lot of heat comes off the manifold. I also lagged the exhaust manifold to reduce this - the car was also less powerful when it warmed up, though not as badly since I put the air intake back to the front of the car . . .
-
New tyres and subsequent issues. Help please
Tony68 replied to Jessica Herald1961's topic in Running Gear
1316 wrote: We decided to try the intermediate size 175/65 and found that these worked really well. The size is larger diameter than the 185/60 but still a bit smaller than the 155/80, so the speedo is still a little wrong. However, it is close enough for our needs. We have experienced no rubbing or handling problems at all. What 165/65 tyres did you manage to find? I remember looking and not finding any. -
1953 wrote: It was a good idea in theory, but what it has actually created (at least in my case) is a messed up bulkhead, a messy appearance as there is a jumble of pipes on the bulkhead and many hours lost time trying to get it to work. Once I got it to work, the pedal travelled too far and the vacuum it took seemed to have a negative effect on the engine. I just fitted a small remote servo to mine, on the passenger front bulkhead next to the dizzy.
-
heraldcoupe wrote: Next, beware of master cylinders with a small reservoir, they are not intended for disc brake applications. There's nothing wrong with them in terms of hydraulic operation, but consider how a disc brake system self adjusts. As the pads wear, the caliper's rest position moves further along the bore. This in turn means more fluid is held in the caliper, so the level in the reservoir drops. In a standard cylinder with the large reservoir, the fluid level under all conditions will sit between the max and min marks - theoretically at max with new pads fitted, min when they're worn down and approaching replacement. Cheers, Bill. I fitted transparent plastic extensions to both master cylinders on mine, which not only increase capacity but allow me to see how much fluid is in there! I had to use plumbing tape (the thin white stuff) to get a good seal to the old metal. I got them from a car show a long time ago, so can't remember the source, but it wasn't a Triumph specialist - May have been Dave Gleed?
-
New tyres and subsequent issues. Help please
Tony68 replied to Jessica Herald1961's topic in Running Gear
Jessica_Herald1961 wrote:Think Tim put lowered springs on it. I have already put spacers on it. Tyres are 5.5 with 165's. Front wings are kind of falling apart but not THAT bad to cause rubbing every time I turn a corner. Could try it Clive- think the ones on the car are 3/8" Spacers will adjust the offset but I don't think that's the solution for rubbing issues. Which tyre size do you have? straight 165s or 165/70s? I have 175/70 tyres on my Vitesse on 5.5j rims, and had to fold the wheel arches over flat against the sides (front and rear) to avoid rubbing/cutting into the sidewalls. They don't rub on the wheel arches on the correct rims, but I have another set with more outset where the clearance is much less. And I've tried a TR7 set where they did rub. Once you fit 5.5j rims, everything gets close one way or another. Also mine rub slightly on the bulkhead on full lock, especially over a bump, but that's not an issue in normal driving (just in production car trials). -
9716 wrote:The complicated linkage is designed to provide slower throttle opening at light throttle (where small changes make a big difference) but swing the butterfly open quickly as the pedal is pressed further down (when small throttle changes make no difference). This is a Good Thing and nearly all modern cars do it one way or another (often by having Very Complicated Mathematics in the ECU to decide upon the throttle target). The cam-and-roller method on the 2500S isn't the best. It has a very noticeable knee point between the slopes, which feels like the end of pedal travel to a driver more accustomed to a Mk2 Spitfire. However, it does give better throttle control / linearity than "a piece of Meccano or Dexion with a single arm". It certainly *should* do! But mine feels much better since I took the cam and roller off and reverted to a single arm. I was aware of the reasons for the original arrangement, and my alterations make use of different angles on the arms at each end of the operating rod to give an equivalent variable-ratio effect with less friction. I did takes some pics to show this, but they don't very well; essentially, the driving arm starts at an acute angle to the rod and the carb arm starts at a right angle, giving about 2:1 reduction, and at full throttle the positions are reversed to give 2:1 gain. The bonus is that the throttle return spring tension is also multipled to give increasing force with throttle, which I like. I agree that some non-linearity is essential, though. Without it, touching the throttle lightly on a big six is like being hit in the back with a sledgehammer :-) And if you have big feet like me and accidentally catch the throttle when braking, the throttle tends to win which wakes you up pretty quickly :'(
-
JohnD wrote: Air will have a lot more oxygen in it than exhaust fumes, but CO will still support combustion, and I doubt if it has any scavenging properties. More likely. the raised temperature of exhaust will help evaporate any residual fuel. To which end a steam cleaner may be best, but it should be a proper, 'live' or dry-steam cleaner, not one of those wall-paper removers. And my Norwegian friend is Morten Larsen. We discussed this subject before: http://club.triumph.org.uk/cgi-bin/forum10/Blah.pl/Blah.pl?m-1356659599/s-5/highlight-Morten+Larsen/#num5 John Mine was an old tank that had been sititng in a cellar for years, but just to be absolutely sure, I washed it with water and then purged it with CO2 from my welding cylinder (a big one from a pub!), then dropped a few matches into it at arm's length with eye's closed. ;D But then I'm a kind of engineer and like to have belt, braces, and a pocket full of string and scissors just in case. ;-)
-
5820 wrote:This is a TR3 tank fitted to my Herald, the filler is in the middle of the rear deck, used the TR tank because it has internal baffles which should help stop fuel starvation with the fuel injection, but l did add a swirl pot and fuel pump from the escort tank. I chucked a tin of tank seal afterwards which was worthwhile because there were a couple of tiny hole :B Nice installation! I did wonder about doing the same thing on mine, but I found I needed the boot length and spare wheel more than the extra width.
-
Slimboyfat wrote: Strange, its never happened to me. Hmmm, on mine it did tend to equalise the fuel level in two tanks if you'd filled one up and left the other near empty, but it didn't bother me too much. In theory it shouldn't happen at all with two pumps, but I always assumed the non-return valves in the Jag pumps were a bit too weak or didn't seat fully.
-
JohnD wrote:Guy in Norway - name escapes me Ill look him up - has two tanks for long distance touring. Clever Jaguar thing was the electreically controlled valve by a switch on the dash that controlled which tank the engine drew from AND which tank tthe gauge sowed from. No nedd for two dials! John Yes, I was going to do that but decided I wanted to know how much fuel was in the *other* tank too! And on the Jag it is simply a changeover switch with fuel pumps, the same as I had.
-
Not sure that routing pipe behind head is that great an idea, personally. Had a prang in the Vitesse once and the engine got pushed back into the bulkhead, squashing and disrupting the various pipes and cables there. On mine the petrol pipe comes up next to the dizzy and across the front in a little P-clip.
-
I may be wrong, but I thought the spacer was required to fit the non-pre-engaged started to the engine backplate, whereas the pre-engaged ones fitted without a spacer? I know that they fitted a range of starters to a range of engines in typical Triumph mix'n'match fashion. :)
-
[quote=1344]Buy the way who said "you have to fit the starter before the 6-3-1 manifold" You can't fit the manifold if you fit the starter first, you have to put the manifold loosely in place then fit the starter. Ah, interesting pic. Did you have the 6:2:1 manifold before you fitted the 6:3:1? What differences did you see?
-
I have a feeling the advance curve is not the same between 2000 MkI and 2500 engines (cam profiles are different - less overlap on the MkIs?) but probably neither are exactly right anyway for modern fuels, esp if you've done any tweaking to head or exhaust. I'm told most tuners reduce the total mechanical advance (the RR did for mine). I can recommend a rolling-road tuneup - from somebody who knows about these cars - *when* the engine is running okay to start with.
-
[quote=1344]Alec, I've had a look and they don't list the bit I need I can sort the connecting rods between the carbs It's this bit I need (pic deleted) I don't think much of that linkage. I had to modify it heavily in my car (okay, it's a vitesse, but manifold and carbs are straight from late 2500TC) just to get the throttle action nice (pedal weight, linearity, etc). I think a piece of Meccano or Dexion with a single arm would do as well. Also, it may not be obvious from the pic, but the rest of the linakges on the setup are very good, allowing each carb to have its slow idle set independently (unike the cheapo Stromberg arrangents) and so on.
-
heraldcoupe wrote:The factory approach was to take a standard tank and add a neck on the opposite side, welding a neat patch into the original aperture. I have an early tank modified this way in store, but it's never been fitted to any of my cars. Cheers, Bill. That's basically what I did. I had twin SU electric fuel pumps with a changeover switch on the dash (and two fuel gauges!) a la Jaguar. The original reason for that was that the mechanical pump couldn't keep the engine supplied with fuel at full throttle . . . so when I found two pumps in the back of a Jag in the scrap merchants, it seemed a pity not to use them both. ;)
-
Has anyone else ever made a right-hand fitting fuel tank? I had a second tank in my vitesse 2.5 some years ago when I did a lot of miles on trips and got fed up with filling up twice in one day. But this had the filler inside the boot which wasn't ideal, so I made one with the filler pipe on the right-hand side. (It was the narrower Herald tank, not the 8-gallon Vitesse tank). Despite all the warnings about welding petrol tanks I managed to do it without blowing myself up, and it doesn't leak either. I never got around to actually fitting it in the car, though, and as I don't do so many miles now I'm not sure if I'll bother. Anyone else tried anything similar?
-
cliftyhanger wrote:Me! the 1500 engine is notorious for eating cranks, and an oil cooler is an essential bit of kit on them, even a moderately-hard driven car. I lost a crank at goodwood as oil pressure sank to zero as it got over-hot. That was no more than 10 mins out on track, and the car was not really highly tuned. Good point. I recall now that I used to have oil pressure issues when the engine got hot, but haven't had them since the rebuild (6-cyl engine) - maybe I haven't been driving it hard enough lately? ;) I had the feeling that where this is a problem it tends to occur *before* the oil is actually over-heating, due to the natural drop in viscosity with temperature. Don't really want to go too far off-topic on the subject of oil pressure, but though 80psi is nice to have when the oil is cool, you surely only need enough to keep the flow through the bearings going (AIUI it's the hydrodynamic pressure in the bearings due to bearing rotation which is important, not the static pressure which simply keeps the flow high enough so that the surfaces are fully wetted), so if the pressure is dropping toward zero it may be a bearing/crank problem rather than an actual oil overheating issue? But I'm a newby on this forum, so I don't know if this been discussed at all on another thread.
-
Forgive me querying your motivation, but unless you're circuit racing, do you really need one? I fitted one to my tweaked Vitesse and found the oil was being over-cooled, and sludge built up in the cooler. It's actually quite difficult to keep enough throttle open enough of the time to get the oil really hot unless you're lapping a racetrack in something more than a few laps at a time. FWIW my own experience (NOT racing!) is that in the Triumph engines the oil is mostly cooled by the water via the block. My own personal view is that (a) an oil-water intercooler is better as it *warms* the oil which is helpful (cold engine oil does not do all that it needs to do). I've seen these advertised (b) it is more effective to fit a lower temperature water thermostat (land rover 79 degree, for example). (c) the place where you put an oil temp gauge sensor affects what conclusions you can draw from it. (d) Unless your oil is actually smoking after a fast run, it probably is *not* getting too hot! (e) I suspect that many people fit oil collers as I did simply because it's part of the tuning ethos. As I say, this is my own viewpoint. I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has suffered any actual effects traceable to overheating oil.