steve knight

These oil feeds are not needed. No restrictors - No nothing. Who stared this barking idea ? Ever stupid, I followed the "advise"; not having other information. I then thought, with all that wonderful oil being fed to the head - would it not flow back down the block gallery where it was not needed. So .......... I blocked the oil gallery, so the head would get it all!! What happened was there was so much pressure pumping upwards which could go no further, it BLEW the new head gasket, which pumped full pressure oil out the back, over the bell housing / everywhere. It took me three weeks of investigation, gearbox out, new seals, before I had the head off to find out the truth. Sure, if you've got a crap pump, rattling bearings, daylight in the rocker shaft, it may stave off the inevitable termination of the rockers. But reality is: forget the additional feed.

If I remember with Scimitar Essex turbos, they did use wills rings - not copper was it ? which is too soft. Why not try flat rings which you just place on the fire ring of the gasket. I think an American idea. Sounds good to me / no machining. Who knows where you get them from.

I thought the valve turned as the rocker tip scuffed across the valve - and then wondered how rollers would do so. But minds immeasurably superior to my own, said the valve SPRING does it - compress and it slightly turns. Not entirely convincing - but is it the best we've got.

Mill out six long slots in the available space between the outer clutch face and the ring gear ( tack weld the ring gear in place ) Easier still fit a 2L flywheel which is 17lb OE & needs the long crank bush. Try WINS winsintltd@sky.com for a Heritage clutch. Lighter and cheaper than B&B who recently introduced a 3 rivit plate that broke in half.

At 80mm would it not be best to bore and sleeve the block. Then an equa' spaced bore and re jigged CRANK. - which would have to be steel billet? @ £2.5K! which will break! Or can you run 80mm with the rods offset on OE crank. Is the block now seriously weakened taking out so much metal. Will an aluminium sump help. What is that metal plate made to bolt underneath. Why not cross brace some threaded rod in the lower area ? so may questions ... so little money.

The two part cap is supposed to help turn the valve. Some can crack so I use one piece, but either will do. With double springs, the bottom locator is important. Some recommend discarding that ?? what a crap bit of advice. The valve springs would / do rattle about, 2.5 OE is a useless miss-fitting collar. The best are the thin pressed steel from the 2L. or they can be located externally. High revving 15K+ F1 V8 actually allow double or triple to touch each other so harmonics don’t cause them to break. Japanese make the best polished steel - looks like chrome - assembled with gloves.

Thanks Mark for that info I just dont think I can go forged pistons at nearly £1K. Thats half the cost of the whole engine. Perhaps it's never essential ?

So its Volvo, Lada, Toyota, and VW. What models are these from ? and which might be the best ? It took me hours to find a suitable Mazda for the 2.5. Can someone in the know help me with the 2 litre / 2.2L They must NOT have a oil scrapper slot.

Which VW pistons fit the Triumph 2L six to make a 2.3 motor. Are they stronger than OE Stanpart. Do they need any further modifications to pin or crown. Are there any other options like Volvo or Lada. Obviously you have to buy two sets from a 4 cylinder car. Their bore is about 78mm ? Has anyone cut a gasket from a sheet of copper and beaten the price of £150 - thats nearly more than the pistons !!

Read Des Hammill book on the K series. You should hear what else he says: like the bloke on the production line who found it easier to put some grease on the dry fit hose. He caused 5 million pounds of warranty. But that pales into insignificance to the 2000 million £ that the government pumped into BL over 25 years, as management buried their head in the sand. The K engine and MGF was a fantastic design. Let down by a small cooling problem around the exhaust - sideways cured by a very high spec H/gasket. But the Rover lives on - just look and see how many are still on the road.

Vizard. One of the first to excite my mind about cylinder head tuning. These new articles tell the facts from one of the most experienced men. Interesting ( and obvious ) that the inlet charge on the Triumph does not turn easily 90deg on the short side of the port; but more is to be gained on the long side. And that flow benches may not always tell the truth. Then there is that other myth that smaller valves give more torque - when it is in fact smaller ports that do that. Largest valves regardless, are best, thus making the S head the positively the worst choice in all cases. Should have read the book.

OE pistons are the limiting factor. To get more power from your motor you increase the compression ratio. The factory did that. Over 11:1 is what to aim for, but you will not be able to use OE pistons. We are aware that Kastner wrote 12+ but this would not have been on standard pistons. He would not have been able to say so, as BL financed his work. Many have written to that effect ( even GT? ) I know they will crush up at 11:1 as the oil scraper slot is immediately under the squish side ( 10.5 may be the maximum ) Race pistons do not have any slots or split skirts for this reason. Toyota, Lada or VW may be stronger. Certainly Mazda for the 2.5 are. This is then coupled with a performance cam; the TR5 profile is not that, when compared with what is now available. 30/70 or more / installed at 110 deg is more the sort of timing worth fitting for an improvement in performance. Fit a proper 6:3:1 and cylinder head (skimmed) with a bit ( or allot ) of porting, valve and exhaust work. Although they are interesting to look at - graphs don’t actually give you any more power.

If the Phantom is a geared LSD like the Quaife. then in many instances they are useless. If one tyre lifts even slightly then it will instantly spin. The Salisbury with friction plates will not do this. I beleive a company has started to re-manufacture a simular set up. Circuit racers may manage with a Quaife type, but rallying or rough ground - forget it; c.... comes to mind.

The pistons are the limiting factor. They will not stand 11:1 unless strengthened. Maybe 10.7 depending on squish size. Decking the pistons flush is okay, but running them .015 pround will smash up the ring lands on the squish side. This unfortunately is the weakest part of the piston; unless you bodge them !!

That is 100ml ( same as cc ) = 100 gm. 40cc combustion chamber = 40 gm. ( one gallon is just under 10 lbs ) Would it work ? An ink jet syringe and perspex cover might be easier, although not as accurate as a Burette. But it is more important that all chambers are exactly the same, than being a few decimal points adrift in CR calculation.

Wicks / laminate contact adhesive

What type of engine block was fitted to the Vitesse 1600. Was it basically an early 1960's Triumph 2000 type, which went on ( with wider crank case ) to become the TR6. What was the bore size - 74.7mm ? If not can they be bored out to that size. Was the only basic difference in the crank throw. Did they have a low crankcase breather. Smaller bearings ? Were they lighter !!!! Ahhhh ....... now we know where he's going.

This thread has fizzed out. That's not going to do the Bible any good. Amongst all the other controversial stuff is: location studs do nothing but locate the part; so you can remove them with confidence. It is BOLTS that help to secure a part like the flywheel. Where the clutch cover has locating pins, you can ignore them and machine out the metal to make the flywheel lighter. Tack weld the ring gear in six or more positions. It usually slips out of place anyway.

Some will say piston size makes not allot of difference to actual hp. Undercutting the combustion chamber - near to the wall, where the inlet is opening - has just one line in my tuning manual. Maybe it deserves a bit more exposure. !! A bigger gasket would give the space for more conventional fettling, but @ £150.00 a time I will stick to the £4.50 gasket, and recommend undercutting. It has no effect on the fire ring itself. but I should imagine an infinitesimal part of the burning power stroke maybe lost.

I would skim flat top or recessed blocks 30 thou, which gives a much better squish and CR advantage. Fuel will not be efficiently burnt in that OE space, so eliminate it - with an added advantage. I also believe the fire ring is too exposed on recessed - what is more likely to burn? cast iron or a thin piece of tin. Pistons can run 15 - 20 thou proud, but unfortunately OE / especially Hepolite are weakest on the squish side ( one of my bodges can cure this ). An aftermarket head gasket measures 035" compressed. I have never had any mismatched piston heights, but minimal skimming is acceptable. Measure the crown thickness with a vernier depth gauge. or clamp a rod in a vice just touching the underside of the piston, then place the piston at the side, and measure the difference.

The Triumph Performance Bible. What to call a tuning manual ? It took me months, actually years to decide on a title. Does anyone have any suggestions. Working title ( as authors do !! ) was How to Tune Your Triumph without having to sell your Granny Bit too long and obscure. One of my proof readers ( an eminent editor ) said I had to have page numbers / and an index? which I didn’t want - so as to keep the option of editing or adding text, photos and pages, which I do all the time. So the idea of Chapter and Verse! "The Bible" !! Instead of Christianity trying to control the thoughts of society for thousands of years; I can finally get some mileage out of him. I also wanted to self publish; as you can with today’s desktop, and actually have any income in my bank rather than printers and retailers. H gets less than a £1 on each of his books, and he's done all the work. So there you have it - set out as I like to reference stuff - no waffle just the facts - according to .......

Fair comment about the inlet ports. I did this at least 10 years ago, hoping someone could taper bore my inlets and I would fit bigger butterflies - they couldn't, so it went no further. I was experimenting with my ideas, that's what I do, now 10 years on I probably wouldn't go so far, But the exhaust stays.

Mr Ncoll – this is one of the most interesting series I have read – well done. I was encouraged to visit this S/S site for the first time by gt6... and it is certainly more of what I want, rather than … ” what car did you see today ” or bees. It is also the easiest site to navigate and nothing gets lost. I’ve spent the last 6 months winding up you and the TR site, so I know you do not like an alternative point of view, but here goes anyway. My own DIY tuning ( Darryl calls it scrap-yard tuning ) hasn’t got the benefit of flow benches, graphs and seat cutters. ( who has ? ), so it appears I will take a different angle – starting with three angle – seats ( and valves ) These are designed for long life, not really in the equation of race engines. My opinion is, a smooth radius gives far better flow into the chamber, and any ridges upset this, and the flame front inside the chamber itself. It is obvious that any humps do nothing to help, it was just the way the factory machined the head. Also proven for other heads is to grind out ( or fill in ) that dip where the inlet valve protrudes. The Triumph 6 is a rubbish engine to tune – nothing seems to work very well until you tackle the exhaust tract. The standard ports are too small, so open them up – why not round? … probably the only way to make them bigger. This gives the biggest improvement ( apart from the cam ) to the six cylinder - I know it does. I modify my own manifold gasket.