triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re[2]: GT-250?

To: msecres@ibm.net (IPM Return requested), mdporter@rt66.com (IPM Return requested)
Subject: Re[2]: GT-250?
From: Peter Mchugh <"/c=US/admd=ATTMAIL/prmd=gov+dot/o=FAA/ou=FAAgw/dd.ccMail=Peter Mchugh 'at' AWAASY1PO/"@dotms2-gw.dot.gov>
Date: 26 Feb 1998 10:39:38 -0500
Alternate-recipient: Allowed
Cc: triumphs@Autox.Team.Net (IPM Return requested)
Conversion: Allowed
Disclose-recipients: Prohibited
Original-encoded-information-types: IA5-Text
X400-content-type: P2-1988 ( 22 )
X400-mts-identifier: [/c=US/admd=ATTMAIL/prmd=gov+dot/; 025DD34F58CBA130-MTAdot2]
X400-originator: "/c=US/admd=ATTMAIL/prmd=gov+dot/o=FAA/ou=FAAgw/dd.ccMail=Peter Mchugh 'at' AWAASY1PO/"@dotms2-gw.dot.gov
X400-received: by mta MTAdot2 in /c=US/admd=ATTMAIL/prmd=gov+dot/; Relayed; 26 Feb 1998 10:39:38 -0500
X400-received: by /c=US/admd=ATTMAIL/prmd=gov+dot/; Relayed; 26 Feb 1998 10:39:38 -0500
X400-recipients: non-disclosure;


     Martin's last question seems to beg yet another... why 
     take a perfectly good, faster revving, little coupe 
     with known handling problems and trouble it with 
     additional torque????  There are more than enough 
     performance options on the 2.0 liter to satisfy most of 
     our desires (and driving abilities)...
     
     Martin, unless something has happened recently (besides 
     turning the distributor) that makes your existing 
     engine unserviceable, don't screw with that nice little 
     white GT... if you do... I have an extra 2.5 liter 
     engine to trade for your 2.0. 
     
     Cheers!


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: GT-250?
Author:  mdporter@rt66.com at Internet
Date:    2/26/98 2:09 AM


msecres@ibm.net wrote:
>
> Some idle questions.
>
> 1)  A GT6-3 weighs 1,936 lbs.  What's a TR6 weigh?
     
Ummm, about 2300-2400, maybe.
     
> 2)  It's my understanding that a GT6 Mark 3 engine can easily be stroked 
> to 2.5 liters by installing a TR6 crankshaft and pistons, and modifying 
> the oil pan so that pistons 1 & 2 clear it on the downstroke.  Anyone
> done this for themselves?
     
NickBk has, I believe. I bought my Mk III with a TR6 engine in it. 
Despite someone here mentioning that the rods are different, the early 
TR6 rods are the same size and casting number as those in the GT6. About 
block clearance, I'm not sure--don't know if a little grinding here and 
there is necessary for rod clearance. There's also a problem with carb 
clearance--the stock 175s are taller and bang on the bonnet. That means 
finding a late head and putting a GT6 manifold and 150s on it, or 
putting on a mid-late GT6 head and manifold.
     
> 3)  Can you do it with the engine in the car?
     
You might be able to do it in the car, but why? If one's a natural 
masochist, it might be fun. For the rest of us, it's a pain in the butt 
to get the crank out in the car, and if there were any clearancing 
required internally, you'd go nuts trying to do it, test fit the crank, 
take it out, check again, etc. I definitely wouldn't attempt to remove 
the pan, beat clearance dimples in it, fit it again and find out the rods 
still hit it. By the way, this little trick is absolutely necessary to 
put the longer stroke engine in a GT6. The stock TR6 pan rests very 
nicely on the rack tube, and they wear together, along with creating 
_lots_ of vibration.
     
     
> 4)  Can someone please get me a new skull?  Mine's got too many gears in 
> it lately.
     
There's a couple of other considerations, as well--the extra torque of 
the larger engine is particularly hard on the gearbox and third member. 
Gotta find a way to beef those up, or you'll have more gears in your 
head than your gearbox, after a while.
     
Cheers.
     
--
My other Triumph runs, but....

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>