Harry Webster down

I had one of the last 500 Triumph Vitesse 2000 convertibles built. I was
only after I bust a valve spring after many years did I find out they
finished the line with what was left over (so the man in the spares dept
said). I was told initially by him it was a 2200 engine but later found
out it was a 2600 according to the engine serial number. It was fitted
with carbs. It was registered as 1998cc Went *very* well but bust two
diffs early on (under warrantee) until they fitted an 'improved' one.

 

They could all be 'convertibles', just a matter of unbolting the roof
and fitting a hood.

That's bollocks.

That's bollocks too. It would have been 1998cc as the late Vitesses
all had the 2000 donkey and only a very few of the early ones had a
1600cc six-pot.

Triumph didn't use a 2200cc motor in that era, nor a 2600cc. 2000cc
or 2500cc, either with carbs or the reviled mechanicla fuel injection.
Yer man in the spares dept was talking out of his arse so much his
breath must have been vile.

 

Really?
Makes note to self:

It didn't come in kit form it was bought from a show room.

You don't need different shaped door windows for the slower curve of the
roof in that model, which also lines up with the bolt on hard top, which
I bought as an option.
You don't need a different rear seat.
You don't need a different top rear panel.

Makes note to self you can smash the seats off of the valve spring bases
and fit double springs 'a la Vitesse' and not the single springs as
fitted in some of the larger 2.5 straight 6 from Triumph.

I understood that the 1600 and 2000 were both produced for about the
same length of time give or take a year with a similar number produced.
I had a Mk2. Your historical comments are noted.

I agree the 2200 just didn't tie in with anything I'd heard of. But the
2600 was me pressing the wrong key on the keyboard. 6 comes next to the
5 on my key board hence I meant 2500 which often has a single valve
spring set up and not the double as on the 1998cc.

The mechanical injection was good if you readjusted it after every time
you started the engine. I had a friend with the system on a 2.5. He
spent most week ends with his head under the bonnet looking for the 10
mpg that had disappeared some where.

I dare say he's dead now but he did have to refer to a completely
different set of Microfiche for my model as he said it was one of the
last 500 off of the line.

Which if you note:
I said it was one of the last 500 and registered as a 1998cc with carbs.
The serial number on the engine, designated it as from the 2500 range.
Now it could have been sleeved down to 1998cc but it did go a lot better
than other Vitesses of the 2 litre ilk.

But I wouldn't get too stressed about it.

 

I assumed it had been sourced from a showroom.

OK, I phrased it poorly. For my sins in previous lives, I've been
involved with a few Herald/Vitesse repair projects and so am aware of
the roofing options. I should have said that you can whip the hood
off and the hardtop on, come Winter. There's not many modern cars you
can do that with and the Stag is the first one that springs to mind
from that sort of era, although a decade or so later.

Yes, if you need to stash the folded hood it needs somewhere to go and
that was behind the rear seat, with a panel to go over it. The hood
requires location on the strip at the top of the screen, too.

I was making the point that what the parts man told you was bollocks.
I've sourced many engine parts for straight sixes (2000/2500 saloons,
granted) from BL dealers, mostly straight off the shelf. They weren't
bad engines, but they weren't built to rev hard. When you put one on
a banger track and use second and (a detent-free) overdrive second
exclusively, they get a bit excitable and the weakest point seemed to
be the valve springs. Double springs let them rev a bit more and were
far more reliable.

I had to check that as the memory fades over 25 years. I was stunned
to see that they produced more 1600 Vitesses than 2000cc cars. I've
only ever seen a handful of 1600s.

Hehe. I still wake up sweating thinking of injection by the Prince of
Darkness. Mind you, the Solex and Stromberg carbs they used weren't
much better. Gimme an SU any day.

I'll have to get a book out for that. I don't think the bore was the
difference between 2/2.5, it was the stroke. Different crank.

I'm not, I'm ambling down memory lane.

 

Now if that is so, could I deduce I had a 2.5 block and head with a
proportionally smaller combustion chamber. Perhaps a crank throw for a
1998cc. Would the cranks be interchangeable or a different source? That
would answer why the block serial nos said it was a 2.5 and the head,
with single springs, valve sizes said so too. Maybe the larger(?) valves
gave it the extra 'apparent' bhp?


Open to suggestions. (Feed lines R us)

 

message

Hm. You've just cleared up an old mystery. Ta for that.

Ali