Ok, So then the crankshaft's on all GT6's Post 68 are all the same. Because
that's how they make up the difference on a TR6. The Later crankshaft, (Post
1972 CF or CR engines) is longer in the oil seal area. I looked on Rimmer
Bros and they don't list part numbers for the crankshafts. What I would love
to see is the parts catalog for a 1973 GT6. ( I wonder if one ever existed
for the last of these cars).
Thanks for the info.
Steve Harris
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Porter [mailto:mporter@zianet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 3:34 PM
To: Stephen Harris
Subject: Re: GT6 Flywheel's
Stephen Harris wrote:
>
> Is there a difference between the early GT6 flywheel's and a 1973 GT6
> Flywheel. By Early I mean Post 1968. I know there is a difference in TR6
> Flywheels, It seems to have to do with the Depth of the wheel to the
> crankshaft as well as weight. The 73 GT6 engine is supposed to have
recessed
> block face etc, just like the later TR6 engines. Any Thoughts??? I am
trying
> to figure out if the 68/69 GT6 engine in my 1973 GT6, may have a 1973
> "shorter" flywheel on it. This may be why the previous owner installed a
3/8
> drill bit in the slave cylinder that is approx 1 inch longer than the
stock
> slave cylinder rod.
I don't believe there is a difference. Flywheel assembly 143689 was
fitted up to engines KC5000. From KC5001 onward, 148042 was used. My
parts catalog only goes through GT6+, but Rimmer Bros. still shows
148042 as good through `73.
I doubt seriously that the `73 block is any different than earlier
engines (at least at the flywheel end), since the bellhousing would have
to change to maintain the distance from the flywheel face to the
throwout bearing and linkage, and that number is unchanged throughout
the range.
For reference, only very late MkIIIs (probably non-rotoflex models) had
cylinder recesses in the block face.
My first guess about the longer pushrod is that the clutch linkage is
extremely worn and sloppy, and that the home-made pushrod was installed
to take up that slack. The other possibility is that the clutch cover
used was not stock and was shallower and required the extra travel. But,
in short, don't think it's the flywheel.
Cheers.
--
Michael D. Porter
Roswell, NM (yes, _that_ Roswell)
[mailto:mporter@zianet.com]
`70 GT6+ (being refurbished, slowly)
`72 GT6 Mk. III (organ donor)
`72 GT6 Mk. III (daily driver)
`64 TR4 (awaiting intensive care)
`80 TR7 (3.8 liter Buick-powered)
`86 Nissan 300ZX (the minimal-maintenance road car)
`68 VW Type II Camper (Lancia twin-cam powered, but feeling its age....)
Remember: Math and alcohol do not mix... do not drink and derive.
///
/// triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
///
|