Help needed to identify 2 litre 6 cylinder Engine

[Joner]

I bought an engine a couple of months back that was sold as a Vitesse/GT6 engine.  When I took delivery it had a gearbox attached too.  I took the gearbox off and the bellhousing and found a very odd arrangement that doesn't bear any resemblance to anything in my manuals for the Vitesse.  It doesn't seem to have a clutch but on the end of the flywheel there's a sort of a big 'pumpkin' shaped thing with some fins on it.  It has a spline that locates into the gearbox.  My first thoughts on this is that it's an automatic gearbox.  I can't however find any records on these forums or on the internet in general of there ever being an automatic GT6 or Vitesse.

My question(s) therefore are:

1/ How do I get it off?  I can't see how it's attached at all.
2/ What is it?  Out of interest.  I only really want the block and head etc but would really like to identify it and find some documentation for it?
3/ Does anybody want it?  I don't need this part or the gearbox so will scrap it pretty quick unless I can find a home.

[Jonny-Jimbo]

Sounds like you're talking about the torque converter, which would make it an autobox.

Can you post photos? Although Vitesse and GT6 were never built at the factory as Autos (maybe one or two special ones), but someone may have converted it in later life. What is more likely is that you have a 2000 engine and autobox.

If it is a 2000 engine then the front and back plate are different, and the engine is canted over something like 11 degrees in the 2000.

Photos will really help.

[Joner]

Will try and post some photos tonight although it's a real ball ache trying to upload photos to this forum.  The front engine plate is definitely different to the vitesse cos it's got the engine mountings on it.  What do you mean by 'canted' over by 11 degrees?

[Joner]

Thanks Jonny-Jimbo I think I'm on the right track now.  This seems to be a 2000 enginge with a Type-35 Borg and Warner automatic box.  

I think I can remove the Torque Converter by unbolting it from the flywheel through an access hole under the starter motor hole.

Can anybody tell me if ...  I can replace the engine plates front and rear and fit a clutch plate before putting in my Vitesse?  Does an 11 deree cant mean that I'll need to fit a different inlet manifold, oil pump or anything else to convert it?

[RobPearce]

The 11 degree cant is a result of the engine mountings on the front plate, and possibly (can't remember for sure) differences in the backplate. It was needed for the Mk1 2000 to make room for a giant battery (and possibly other reasons but most of the ones I've seen claimed don't appear to make sense). It is possible to swap out that front plate for a Vitesse one, or, if you're desperate, to cut off the mounting lugs. You will need a set of Vitesse mounting adapters to fit the castings on the sides of the block. You may also need to tap the 3/8" UNF threads into the holes for fitting them - the 2000 saloons don't use them so the block may not have been tapped. You can also swap the back plate for a Vitesse one. Once you've done that the 11 degrees issue goes away.

The plate that the torque converter attaches to is NOT a flywheel but a starter ring gear adaptor plate. I don't think the crankshaft was different between manual and auto, though, so once you've got the torque converter off it should be possible to remove the adaptor plate and fit a Vitesse flywheel.

[Dogsbody47uk]

Because of the cant, the sump is different on a 2000 saloon. It is also canted. Vitesse/GT6 sumps are horizontal.

[Nick Jones]

Sounds like a 2000 auto lump.  Actual spec will depend on the year - may be some clue from the engine number.

The early ones especially are fairly similar to Vitesse Mk2/GT6 Mk2/3.  Block and head castings are same (or at least directly interchangeable) as are the crank, rods and pistons.  Later engines have domed pistons and deep combustion chambers in the head to make the head common with 2.5 versions.
The true Vitesse (HC) and GT6 (KC) engines have a hotter cam (same as the early PI saloons), higher compression and double valve springs which makes them a bit more powerful.

To fit in a Vitesse or GT6 you'll need to swap the backplate and flywheel.  You'll also need to cut the engine mounts off the front plate or swap that too.  Ideally you'd also swap the sump though it is possible to get by with the saloon one and a big hammer.  The Vitesse/GT6 flywheel should be used and you'' need to make sure that there is a proper pilot bush fitted in the hole in the end of the crank.

Nick

[Joner]

Thanks a lot!  That's exactly what I needed to know.  I've got a front plate as it goes.  I was also thinking of buying a lightweight fly wheel as a performance enhancement so I think now is a good time to do just that.  I'll use the 'big hammer' modification on the sump since this is a spare engine I want to use while I recondition the original.

[willows40]

I could be totally wrong, often am. Don't the auto box's have a different end that sits in the engine and the bit there needs changing, I hope that makes sense

Cheers Andy

[Dogsbody47uk]

A Vitesse flywheel is considerably lighter than that from a 2000 saloon.

[Nick Jones]

Quoted from willows40

I could be totally wrong, often am. Don't the auto box's have a different end that sits in the engine and the bit there needs changing, I hope that makes sense

Cheers Andy

Hence my comment about the pilot bearing.  On some cars (Rover P6 V8 for example) the auto version has a steel bush in the back of the crank presumably as a location point for the torque converter, which actually has more or less the same ID are the bronze bush used on the manual version.  If you don't spot this when you fit a manual box, the first time you hold the clutch down in gear for any length of time the whole lot friction welds itself together and the car sets off on it's own whatever colour the traffic lights.....  It's also an absolute howling b@st@rd of a job to get the gearbox off again......  Guess how I know this.....

Certainly it is worth checking carefully!

The standard Vitesse/GT6 flywheel is light enough for all but competition use IMO.  The saloon ones weigh as much as a small moon and are useful as anchors, sign bases, ballast etc.

Nick

[JohnD]

Quoted from Joner

Will try and post some photos tonight although it's a real ball ache trying to upload photos to this forum.  The front engine plate is definitely different to the vitesse cos it's got the engine mountings on it.  What do you mean by 'canted' over by 11 degrees?

Pro bably because they are too big.
No larger than 640x480 pixels

2000 fws weigh. 12kgs probably e npougb to reachfthe ground if entering gEarths atmosphere at azteroijd velocity.  Vitezse 9kgs.   Cane be reduced go 7 with safety if properly done. Sure I've posted piupiucs before.

But "performance enhancer'?   Only if you have done ALL other mods and are desperate for another 0.05%s worth.  Plus, a really light few makes the car undriveable on the street,  as only with lots more idle speed will it tick over smoothly.
John

[Richard B]

Standard GT6 Vitesse flywheel should be light enough. Also as its an auto engine, there will be less wear to the thrust washers 😎

[Jonny-Jimbo]

John have you been drinking??

Isn't the inlet manifold different on the 2000 engines? So the manifold sits flat even though the engine is canted over?

[Joner]

Quoted from Richard B

Pro bably because they are too big. No larger than 640x480 pixels

This would have been unacceptable 10 years ago.  Today......c'mon, sort it out.  And there isn't even a 'pile of pooh' emoji to adequately express my contempt!!!

[Andy Flexney]

Quoted from Joner

This would have been unacceptable 10 years ago.  Today......c'mon, sort it out.  And there isn't even a 'pile of pooh' emoji to adequately express my contempt!!!

and unnecessary today! Why would you want to put in a picture larger than 640x480? If you can't reduce the picture size go back to repairing cars.

A little aggressive perhaps, therefore my apologies, but this forum has been serving the Club Triumph community very well for a long time. If you had been here longer you would know that a new, modern forum is being tested and will be implemented as soon as the VOLUNTEERS have it ready.

Please if you have constructive criticism please send it to one of the moderators but please DO NOT slag the forum unless you are volunteering to make the changes.

AndyF

[RobPearce]

As Andy said, though perhaps with less aggressiveness....

How big is your screen? I run a fairly big one here - 1920x1080 - which is more than most home users get. So let's assume you're on a 1380x720 or whatever the current norm is. Now allow for the window borders and the browser tab bar and the list of blogs & meetings on the right and the user ID on the left... you've got maybe 900x600 to play with in the actual post. So maybe you might not want to be limited to 640x480 but for the sake of simple politeness you DAMN WELLL OUGHT TO shrink your pictures to no more than 800x600 (which the forum software will already handle perfectly happily).

[Dogsbody47uk]

To get back to the original point... Yes, the 2000 inlet manifold is slanted to allow for the engine being canted over whereas the Vitesse manifolds are flat/horizontal.

[thescrapman]

Quoted from Joner

This would have been unacceptable 10 years ago.  Today......c'mon, sort it out.  And there isn't even a 'pile of pooh' emoji to adequately express my contempt!!!

Easiest is to share the photos on a suitable website.

Plus point of the direct upload limit is that it helps keep the clubs costs down, as bigger pictures consume bandwidth, which costs.

Also helps those of us with piss-poor broadband speeds. Someone whacks a 20MB picture in and a cuppa is in order whilst it loads....

Cheers

Colin

[JohnD]

Quoted from Jonny-Jimbo

John have you been drinking??

You think there are people who DONT drink at Le Mans??
In fact it's my teeny weenie, onscreen tablet keyboard that made me appear inebriated.
I've been too busy to drink - TR3A Michael Cotti Racing team lad, me!
See Miller Oils website http://www.millersoils.co.uk/blog/

That's me banging the wheel spinners.
John

[Joner]

Quoted from AndyF

and unnecessary today! Why would you want to put in a picture larger than 640x480? If you can't reduce the picture size go back to repairing cars.

A little aggressive perhaps, therefore my apologies, but this forum has been serving the Club Triumph community very well for a long time. If you had been here longer you would know that a new, modern forum is being tested and will be implemented as soon as the VOLUNTEERS have it ready.

Please if you have constructive criticism please send it to one of the moderators but please DO NOT slag the forum unless you are volunteering to make the changes.

AndyF

Yes, was a little aggressive.  I am a passionate and driven man.  I'll try and rein it in a bit in future but I had assumed this was developed and paid for by membership fees.  Despite that I haven't changed my mind.  This limit shouldn't be necessary.  You can use a multi-part mime form to upload images of any size.  There may be a limit on the webapp but it seems your a 'bit behind the curve' (note restraint) on that score too.   Yes there is a work round (there is always a work round) but it is onerous and adversely effects the end user experience.  At the end of the day I get a lot out of this forum, I intend to keep my Triumph and membership for the long term and would like to see a slick modern site that attracts users in and keeps the ones that are here.  Probably better to put up or shut up, so if you put me in touch with the development team I'll sort this out and do some ongoing development work on a voluntary basis.

[RobPearce]

BOLLOX!

As I said, despite all your hype about modern capabilities, MOST PEOPLE HAVE SCREENS TOO SMALL for your 4000x3000 images. Shrink them. It's only polite and it's NOT AT ALL HARD. To claim it's "onerous" makes you look like a petty-minded, selfish, lazy jerk. To claim it "adversely effects the end user experience" shows that you've not even thought about the end-user. Your big images are what ruins my experience, because they don't fit on my screen.

[Joner]

Quoted from RobPearce

BOLLOX!

As I said, despite all your hype about modern capabilities, MOST PEOPLE HAVE SCREENS TOO SMALL for your 4000x3000 images. Shrink them. It's only polite and it's NOT AT ALL HARD. To claim it's "onerous" makes you look like a petty-minded, selfish, lazy jerk. To claim it "adversely effects the end user experience" shows that you've not even thought about the end-user. Your big images are what ruins my experience, because they don't fit on my screen.

LOL.  Try hitting it with a club.  I think I can safely assume your not the lead developer on this project then.

[Joner]

Rob, sorry, I didn't mean to wind you up.  You've been very helpful with my car and I really appreciate your expertise in that area. There's no point in getting angry about this sort of thing - its a complex issue and I didn't want to go into detail.  This is a Vitesse forum and software development is off topic.

Basically there are much better ways to deal with images.  There are a vast array of devices for uploading images nowadays, smart phones, tablets, laptops, desktops and even the odd camera still kicking around. If, like me, you take a photo on your iphone and upload it directly from the phone to the site, resizing the image first is very difficult if not impossible.  Just look at the latest release of iphoto of an example of the way things are going.  You can directly upload to facebook, ebay etc.

The way this kind of thing is dealt with is by allowing users to upload whatever they want in terms of image size then deal with it on the server.  So once you upload the image is converted into several different formats for display typically a thumbnail, small, medium and large res as well as maintaining a copy of the original.  This means that when you come to view the image on the website or app, it doesn't matter what the user uploaded, you the end user always gets a consistently rendered image.  We couple this with an elastic approach to styling which essentially means that the web page renders on any end user device regardless of your screen size or resolution.  This is achieved by strict adherence to the HTML specification and a disciplined approach to styling with CSS.

There are many websites out there that you probably use on a daily basis that do exactly this e.g. ebay, autotrader, booking.com, tripadvisor, etc etc.  I'm not being arrogant when I make these remarks, I'm saying that a much better job can be done of this sort of thing for the common good of all users.  

[JohnD]

Joner,
If you want an ID of your engine, shut up about pics.
You obviously know a lot about web publishing, but not about engines.
See your thread about valve guides, and my (I hope)helpful post about replacing them.

JOhn