The Triumph Dolomite Club - Discussion Forum

Ron

Well, interesting question. When the car was rebuilt the brief was to fix all and any corrosion, make it look great externally but not worry too much about places out of normal sight.

And so the chassis rails have had a fair amount of welding. Subsequently the whole lot was flooded with that body wax treatment; really good product but can't remember the name offhand.

And I thought job done. That was probably 20 years ago mind you . Earlier in this saga I did investigate the sub frame mountings on the basis saggage in this area might be causing the knock that at the time was probably more related to the exhaust. I did find that the mounting on the OS was not in optimal condition, It was basically strong but featured some decay on the top side under the washer.

This was fixed/bodged mildly with rust remover, that stronger than steel epoxy and zinc paint. As part of that I did end up faffing about with the tube between the chassis rails. It was all a disappointing outcome to be honest but do I feel it is a significantly different shape or lacks strength - no. It has new mount cups, bolts and shaped bushes on both sides. There might be an effect from fixing this up but I'd be surprised. It was always the intent to get it looked at at some point in the future just in case. Maybe that time has come but again I think its pretty solid.

I'll go with the current plan but when I'm under it again I'll check chassis rail deformity; also frame to body gap consistency

Thanks

Thought - if I move the rack towards OS even a tiny amount - say 1 or 2 mm this may well act to increase the pump<>rack mount gap but it would also move the UJs closer to the sub frame and or bodywork?

Or would it? The change of angle might actually help?

m

Tricky. One other thing. Anyone know where I can actually get a new standard steering rack clamp? Rimmers don't have them and I'm not sure who else would?

Thks

I did some more investigation and took some measurements and photos. Photos in random dump order below. Long post follows sorry.

For the measurements it's not easy to be definitively accurate but with combo of 6 inch steel rule and vernier caliper I measured :
- subframe to body gap at front NS 26mm OS 27mm
- and then at rear from lower lip of subframe NS 17mm OS 19mm
- also rear gap by putting caliper vertically near suspension bracket NS 13mm OS 10mm
- and rear gap by resting end of ruler on subframe NS 16mm OS 12mm

And one other angle measurement at rear NS 10mm OS 9mm

These measurements are all"OK" but probably +/- 1mm. Having said that the data indicates the subframe is nearer the body on the OS. You will also see from the photos that there is a degree of concave bowing on the chassis leg faces on both sides of the car. This may not mean anything though

A few things :

1) Re Rons comments I'm struggling - given the engine is bolted to the subframe and that is the issue we are addressing in terms of the engine then being too close to the steering rack clamp - why does it matter if the subframe is closer to the body? Obviously collapsing chassis legs all bad for other reasons but in terms of these specifics I can't see how it has as bearing
2) Re Rons comments on gearbox sitting lower I get that principle but what is the spacer of which you speak? I thought I put this back together with the only leftover part being the "outside" rectangular dished plate.
3) Opinions on chassis legs and photos in general would be appreciated
4) Steering rack clamp assy - does anyone know where to obtain a decent one? Rimmers are out. Wins and Quillers look like they have stock but have written to ask
5) Replacement chassis legs. Should it come to this am I right that the Club stocks these? Can they be shipped to Australia and assume they include the tube and related end bits/flange etc?

Re 5) how much of the car do you have to take apart to replace these? I have to admit I just don't get how this is all supposed to sit together as will be evident if you go and look at the thread from 2015. Yes unbelievable, looked back and this has been going on over 4 years on and off.
So the chassis leg includes a tube and on the lower face the tube sticks through the leg and presents as a sort of washer/flange with short locating tube sticking through. In due course the suspension bush cup locates against this with conical suspension bush in-between.
Chassis leg is welded to floorpan. Top of chassis leg tube thus sits vertically and top of tube does .... something.... at inner wing. Either goes through it or sits there or is welded to it? ***
And thus when the whole thing is bolted up its a hard washer and bolt clamp at top of inner wing, zero compression across depth of chassis leg and then bush between subframe and chassis leg and second conical bush below per above. All of the measurements would have to be sufficiently precise that when clamped a) the subframe is located in the right place b) as suspension cup is tightened it locates on the chassis leg tube and tube protrusion is long enough that bush can be properly clamped before the cup reaches the face of the chassis leg

Maybe I do understand it. But how the heck would to locate the subframe in the right place to do this? Presumably you have to put faith in the front subframe locations and then just position the replacement legs so they are in line?
And note from *** above I know the tube is missing on one side - pretty sure it is the OS ..brain fade.. and was fixed up with modified tube used for front subframe mounts. Also that inner wing face on NS is dodgy as part of the process but nowhere near very dodgy and was fixed up with epoxy metal.
Still can't see though why this matters in the context of the engine to rack mount gap - both are bolted to the same thing !

Thanks, mark



NS chassis leg end concave


NS chassis leg end


NS rear mount top


NS rear subframe gap 1


NS rear subframe gap2


OS chassis leg end concave


OS rear mount top


OS rear subframe gap1


OS rear subframe gap2


OS subframe front gap

/bump

Any further thoughts on the above anyone?

thks

Well...... I don't much like the look of either of the rear subframe mounts, especially the offside one, the concavity you mentioned is indicative of weakness in the leg. Whether this is critical, or compromising the structure in any way is a bit hard to tell from a photo.

I've seen this a few times and it's not a GOOD sign, but neither does it make the car irretrievable. and as you say, it can't possibly have any bearing at all on your most pressing problem, that of the oil pump to rack clearance.

Which is mainly why i've kept quiet recently, i'm waiting for some results on upending the engine mount, adjusting the steady bar and trying a different rack mount. I don't see any reason why the solid mount SHOULD cause a problem, many people have fitted mounts of that design without problems, myself included. I'd try the other 2 first, especially as they are free!

It is possible, just, to replace a chassis leg with the engine and subframe mostly still in the car. but it's not a job for the faint hearted, it's serious surgery! But the gist is that the new leg comes from the club with the bolt tube in it. So you mill out the top of the old tube with a dremmel or similar and drill out the spotwelds holding the leg to the floor and use the hole in the upper section to align the tube for position. Obviously there is some stripping necessary to get to all this, the intermediate steering column and servo/master cylinder need to come out to access the o/s and the heater blower as a minimum on the n/s as well as lowering and supporting separately the rear of the subframe.

However, "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof", cross that bridge, when and if, you get to it!

Steve

Did a few measurements on mine this afternoon.

Subframe:

N/S/F 12.5mm
O/S/F 12.5mm
N/S/R 27mm
O/S/R 26mm

Are you sure you didn't mix up front and rear??

I took a few pictures of various bits. I measured the height of the rack above the subframe. N/S 7.5mm (bottom of flat on rack "flange" to surface of subframe), O/S 4.5mm - basically thickness of the "lip" on the polybush. I included a few pictures of the rack location for you to compare with yours.

I currently have 11mm clearance from the rack to the oil pump. I say currently because this does change when you adjust the stabiliser bar.

One last measurement I did was at the gearbox. I laid a ruler flat across the overdrive "sump" then measured the gap between the ruler and the floor of the bodyshell where the transmission cover bolts on - 21mm both sides (N/S was difficult to accurately measure due to the exhaust)

Have you tried just adjusting the stabiliser bar yet - as Steve says, simple and free!

Roger

Thanks gents.

Steve - yes, thinking I might purchase some chassis legs for the future. I reckon the NS is pretty solid. The OS doesn't have a decent hole in the engine bay end and the tube is not there but was substituted with a sawn off version of the front top hat tube. I know because I did it much earlier in the saga. Getting the length right for that was almost and probably was in practical terms impossible. Top part around hole repaired with epoxy metal. It is solid but not right obviously. Is it awful though, Id say not.
But hence I feel chassis legs are in my future.
The thing is if the subframe on the OS was a little closer to the body due to mild collapse or solid but misshapen then yes rack and engine still in exact same proximity. But the gearbox end of the whole motor assembly would still be where it was meaning that possibly in effect the rear of the subframe is raised releative to the transmission train thereby bringing the engine closer to the rack given a mild pivot around the mounts that are at the front of the engine.

No point doing anything until I have all the bits. Don't know where to get a rack clamp from. Workshop guy reckons he has one, checking Friday. Do you know of any other sources? And not Wins, I'm not paying them GBP45 delivered, total joke.
I'll get a polybush from Rimmers. The mount swap and stabiliser bodge not a parts issue
So it will be a weekend or two away

Roger - thanks for all the photos and effort. I didn't mix up front and rear In my "OS subframe front gap" photo above I measure the big gap to the left of the actual mount in that photo. I will try the stab bar when I have the engine jacked up a bit to swap various mounts. I still feel this is a stab bar and not a strut to drag the engine in place though. Might be wrong but gut tells me its the chassis leg that is the fundamental issue. Anything else is going to be staving off the inevitable for a while is all

thks

I don't have a new rack clamp, but I do have a sizeable collection of decent used ones (mainly due to my penchant for solid mounts) I'd be happy to send you one for a lot less than £45! Like about £5 + whatever the postage is!

Steve

Yeah well anyone want to buy a Sprint because I'm sick of the whole situation to be honest.

First up the guy who designed the tied rod bolts so they are only accessible via 1/3 turns alternating the spanner each time should be publicly humiliated and his entire extended family made to sit a basic mechanical engineering course until they achieve a 100% pass rate.

I looked at the tie bars this afternoon. They are on but not tightened up and await finalisation and re-install of A/R bar.

I swapped the engine mount over. Final proof not yet confirmable but I don't think it did anything at all.

I couldn't change the rack mount because I couldn't jack the engine high enough to get the U bolt out. I reached the point where the car was lifting off the axle stand sub-frame supports. Just $#$@@ ridiculous. Who designs this s##t? Because it is s##t. I probably broke something else trying this - just waiting for something to leak or demonstrate snappedness to be honest.

It might be the case that my u bolts have longer threads than normal - there is certainly plenty protruding beyond the nut. So the only option is to grind lower with angle grinder and then repeat the exercise

But I suspect its all academic anyway. I got a rack mount and poly bush from the local guy - see photos. I'm not sure which way around the bush goes into the clamp assy???

Either way you can see the total height is a little over 5cm, say 51mm. Its very difficult to measure the height of the current mount but I reckon its something like 45mm. So we can see that clearly a replacement won't even fit. And we know that the position isn't adjustable because the clamp assys go in the one place on the sub frame so the U bolt will be where it is and we know its the U bolt that touches the oil pump. So that's that. Pointless to even bother I reckon.

I can probably tighten up the stabiliser bar a bit. The location of the bolt for that is probably the dumbest thing on the whole car (and the bar is set pretty low). So that will be a crappy job but certainly achievable. ......
........ except the stabiliser bar shouldn't be in perm tension dragging the engine across so a) we'e just addressing a symptom not the fault and b) it will likely wreck the stabiliser bar in due course when the ball pops free of the socket.

So we are back at sq one. The engine mounts are supposed to be NOS. The gearbox mount is replaced but the Volvo one. I have a feeling there are spacer washers in it but can't recall.

I have had the epiphany that I haven't got any real enjoyment out of this car for probably the last 5 years and if there was a ready market for it quite honestly I am in the mood to sell it. It's just a monumental pain in the ass and despite vast man hours of effort both directly and on here from all of us nothing has really changed. It looks great but essentially isnt driveable

I have three thoughts:

1) Thinking about the geometry we have a rigid engine and gearbox suspended at the rear (ie gearbox) and at the front (engine mounts). The engine mounts are also on the subframe and sub frame is attached to the body. The steering rack is someway back from the front although I'm sure not halfway back - maybe 40% of the way since at back of the engine.
So depending where the washers are and/or depending on whether the Volvo mount truly keeps things in the same relative position we could be seeing the back of the gearbox lower than OE. The whole transmission chain will therefore pivot slightly around the engine mounts and since the subframe is rigid this will act to bring the engine closer to the steering rack.
2) Could insert a plate between OS engine mount and subframe effectively jacking up that side a little
3) Thinking about same geometry as above - if rear sub frame mounts are higher than they should be then the back of the engine to subframe gap will be reduced. The engine and transmission will otherwise be in the same position but the rear of the sub frame being closer would cause the steering rack to be closer to the engine

I'm open to any further thoughts because right now the car is at the end of the line. Since it isn't driveable it isn't really a car and then what's the point of having it at all?

My feeling is one or both chassis legs are dodgy causing the subframe to be raised at the rear. I can't fully remember but I think I put spacer washers in when I did the gearbox mount but I can't remember where or how. They can only really sit between crossmember and mount or mount and gearbox and I suspect the latter. In either case this would act to raise the gearbox relative to the crossmember but perhaps more washers are needed? I recall humming and haaing about how many to use but maybe I should add a few more?
And then in the short term a spacer on the OS mount to bump up that side a little?

I dunno. Kind of lost the will to think about it tbh

I also included a snap of the ends of the two old tie bars - one a bit bent and the other highly worn.

m

OK well I probably over ranted last night but honestly we are no closer to a solution here than we were last week or last year.

Consider this image that represents how the engine and transmission are suspended



The red line is a figurative centre line and the solid blue line a representation of the sub frame position. The Volvo gearbox mount is less tall than the OE part and looking back at the thread it's supposedly 9mm less tall. The OP there provided that measurement and in his own case used a 6mm shim of washers. I can't recall what I used but I have a vague memory of feeling like less was more. And so with less height at the mount the gearbox end will be lower having the effect of pivoting the engine around the engine mounts which are literally at the other end of the arrangement. This in turn will bring the back of the engine closer to the rack.

Likewise if the rear of the subframe is a little higher than it should be because the chassis legs have collapsed slightly - which is debatable in my case I think - but just to make the additional point, then this would cause the same effect in reverse by bringing the sub frame and rack closer to the engine.

Thoughts?

Personally I think everything else we've talked about is not valid.

Two things :
1) is it possible for me to buy chassis legs from the Club. I am not a member but then again over here I can't really benefit from being a member so....
2) could someone measure the depth of their chassis legs next to the sub-frame mounting please i.e. distance from floorpan to out face of the chassis leg immediately adjacent to the rear sub frame bushes

Thanks

m

I totally agree with you conclusions regarding the subframe. If it is too close to the body at the back it will reduce the clearance in the way you are seeing.

When the weather calms down a bit I'll see if I can get time to go down to the garage and make some more measurements to add to your diagram so you can try to pin point where the lost clearance has gone.

With regards to the worn drag strut ends, they look quite bad, a lot worse than mine were. I would also be looking at the mounting holes in the subframe, mine were quite worn and elongated. I ended up welding them up and re-drilling them.

The rack mounting bush you show goes the other way round, the bottom flat part of the flange on the rack rests on the lip along the bottom of the bush. You can see it in one of the pictures I posted.

Roger

Thanks

I noticed this on the https://forum.triumphdolomite.co.uk/vie ... 0&start=15 My alternative to the clone TKC1044 Sprint gearbox mount thread which I wrote around the time I installed the Volvo mount :

"
I'm in the process of replacing the gearbox mount using this method and wanted to share a little bit of extra info.

Three things :

1. the Volvo mount is a pretty solid decent looking item and a close match to the OE part. See photos below showing heights and effects of washers. In terms of mounting hole alignment then as described earlier in this thread
2. I bought some subframe mounting washers from Rimmers for another purpose and it turns out they are ideal for the washers described as necessary above. The Rimmers part no is UKC312. These washers are 45mm OD, 13mm ID and about 3mm thick. I will likely use 2 to create a 6mm spacer when I reattach the assembly (Edit - actually ended up wrapping mount in thick plastic "bag" [used part of one of those garden plant protector "tubes"] and then decided I only needed one washer above the gearbox mount. The test was deciding whether the propshaft looked straight with the aid of a laser level)
3. There's no need to use the restrictor plate that clamps up on the underside of the OE part. The Volvo part can be clamped directly although I will add a small washer between mount and nut
"

Clearly there were other ramifications not obvious to myself or others. And so, everything else being exactly equal, I have used one 3mm washer where the height difference between Volvo and OE is stated elsewhere to be 9mm.

I can't find the other UKC312s I'm sure I ordered at the time so I'll get a few more and proceed down this route first

m

Measured mine top face of subframe bush to floorpan ie chassis leg depth and got 36mm OS and 38MM NS

It would also be useful to check that large spacing between subframe and body at the front ie that gap to the rear of the mounting area. Just to check that end of the subframe is in fact ok

thks