ibrooks

I'm with Craig on this one - never ever grease wheel nuts. A smear of grease or better copper grease on the mating face will help prevent them becoming one with each other but on wheel-nuts it just messes with the torque figures and clamping forces that they are designed to have. They should be done dry but if they are stiff then only ever apply a drop of light oil and once the nut has been run onto the threads and back off again they should be wiped clean before re-fitting. Iain

I tend to use pyro clips with a little bit of washer tube. The pyro clips cost buttons for hundreds at an electrical wholesalers (or if you know a friendly electromagician... ). These are big for brake lines but the addition of a piece of windscreen washer tube makes for a nice tight fit with the extra plus that they are now rubber mounted - possibly un-necessary but a nice thing to have on a material that work-hardens and cracks if you flex it too much. Iain

I've only ever once had a problem with refections off a Hood - following Mitch in Wales before he fitted the spare wheel on the rear panel. I've seen the MINI story on a couple of the forums but what gets me is - if it's chrome how is it going to get scratched or scuffed? one of the main properties of chrome is that it's seriously hard. Iain

Depends on whether they'll fit in the hole where the injector comes out of on the throttle-bodies you get. As with the original question the answer is "maybe" - depends on all sorts of other things. In your position I'd be speaking to Tony as it sounds like he's done it already. Assuming he's using the same engine he can tell you if the gixer 1100 injectors were OK out of the box or whether he had to source others and whether they are easily available. Iain

A throttle-body is a throttle body so in theory yes you can use some off a bike. Since throttle-bodies don't have float chambers and resevoirs like carbs do they are also less sensitive to being mounted at the right angle than a carb and therefore more versatile. There are always going to be problems like some daft bracket that serves a vital purpose on the bike but just gets in the way of something in your car and maybe some part of the cable linkages that are on the frame on the bike but you don't have on your car but you can come across the same things with a carb (be it from a bike or a different car). One throttle-body specific problem is injectors. Your fuelling will be managed by a brain of some sort. It needs to be told how much fuel to put into the engine at any given time and it will have been told what the flow rate of the injectors is. A simple bit of maths on it's part let it work out that for the necessary amount of fuel it needs to hold the injector open for X milliseconds. To add more fuel you hold the injector open for longer. Thing is that you only have so long whilst the cylinder is on the intake stroke to get the fuel in after which you are squirting more fuel at the back end of a closed valve. To get around this you fit "bigger" injectors which have a higher flow rate and can shove in more fuel in a shorter time. Now this is all basic throttle-body/fuel injection theory but where it becomes relevant for bike throttle-bodies is that they don't necessarily use a standard fitting of injector. This means you suddenly don't have the same sort of choice when it comes to picking the right size for your engine which is likely to have very different characteristics to the bike. Do some research to find ones that are an easy retro-fit and see if you can find some that use a relatively common type of injector so that you know you will be able to get the thing running right if the standard ones won't do the business. Iain

The Aldi hose on the reel has a slightly larger internal diameter than that one so should be just as good from a flow point of view. I use the same style of PCL connectors that you've pictured but I was debating changing to the ones that were suplied with the Aldi kit as they have a larger bore and are known as high-flow connectors (fairly sure they are a PCL standard too - although it's unlikely that the Aldi ones are actually made by PCL). Just been having a dig and I think they are PCL ZF connectors but from the literature the ZF series is compatible with a couple of other manufacturers connectors so they might be someone else's standard that just happens to closely resemble the ZF stuff. Either way the important bit as far as flow is concerned is the size of the hole down the middle which is a nominal 10.5mm whereas the original PCL type that I'm using and you've pictured from Machinemart has a nominal bore of 4.8mm. The only other place for there to be a restriction is in the valve gear inside the couplings in which case you just need to replace those with decent ones instead of the dodgy pattern parts. Further digging - the Aldi ones might actually be XF (or equivalent) in which case the above still applies but the nominal bore of the supplied connectors is only going to be 7.4mm. Should still give a higher flow than the PCL original stuff. Having said all that I've never had a problem running any of my gear down the PCL connectors (apart from the D/A sander that my compressor simply can't keep up with). Iain

Mr Loopyonion you are a BAD MAN - you're going to get me into serious trouble. I haven't even got the engine in the car and running yet and I'm thinking of 300+bhp. I had been thinking about single or twin turbos but this just sounds sooo much easier. Iain

I've got a couple of wheels at least that you could borrow - I'm sure at least one will have the horn ring intact. I've also got two different styles of Cosworth wheels for the SPD which I suspect may be a smaller diameter than the normal Sierra so might make life a little easier. Iain

This is from memory but the tethered petrol cap idea is so that you can't drive off and leave it on the pump or similar. The exemption is that it deosn't need to be tethered if it works off the same key as the ignition and the key can't be removed from it in the unlocked position - theory is that you would notice that you hadn't re-fitted it when you tried to start the car and founf the cap was still on the end of the key. I don't think there are any rules about where the tether attaches to so it could be held on the car inside the boot or with one of the rivets/screws that hold the rear panel on which make it easy to remove without leaving holes after the test. Attaching it to the cap depends on the cap itself really. Iain

MSSK050 is the seal kit from Minispares - less than a fiver for the bush with O-ring, oil seal and gaitor or the seal on it's own is AHU1672 - just over a pound. The seal kit is well worth fitting though as the extra support from the bush makes the seal last longer. Don't be surprised if you find a second seal that has just been pushed in with an extra fitted on top as it's a quite common "fix" when they start changing their own oil through the selector shaft seal. Iain

That's one of the many things that hacks me off about insurance. Accidents or claims count across the board bu no claims only work on one policy at a time - they shouldn't be able to have it both ways. To be honest I think that since we don't have any option but to buy their product (it being a legal requirement and all) the government should defend us and force them to give us a reasonable deal by capping their profits at a reasonable level. Iain

If it's the same size as the oil pump splined bolts I've got a socket to do them. Iain

As mentioned dud engine mounts can make it jump out of gear when running but won't generally cause a problem whilst the car is stationary. What can cause a problem is if the relationship between the selector and the box changes as the stick is moved so.... The top rod is just a steady. There's a small rubber bush where it connects to the diff housing if the rubber has gone it can allow the whole selector to move and reduce the amount of movement that the selector rod actually makes in relation to the amount the stick is moved. It's not usually enough to cause a problem on it's own. The bottom rod should rotate and move fore-and-aft as the stick is moved. There are two cotton reel type bushes that connect the selector to the floorpan - if these have gone soft then again the selector can move rather than turning and pushing the rod. Look underneath whilst someone else moves the stick and see if the selector is moving around. You can also drive the pin out of the selector rod on the gearbox - when the hole in the gearbox part is horizontal moving the rod into the box puts it in 4th and pulling it out puts in in 3rd with neutral in the middle. If all this shows nothing then it sounds like there might be a problem with the selectors in the box. Unfortunately 1275 lumps are getting pricey and fetching money out of all proportion with their condition and history. Iain

When changing the rear Calipers on the GTM I had to shorten both cables (seperate cables for each side). Problem is that they have a threaded fitting for the handbrake handle and a clevis pin at the caliper. I left the handle end alone and shortened the clevis end. I drilled and tapped the clevis to take an M6 bolt. I then drilled through a length on M6 studding just large enough to clear the cable when the teflon had been stripped off it. Obviously the cable goes inside the bolt which the screws into the clevis. I assembled it all to establish the lengths and on the car I used a pair of mole-grips to crimp the bolt onto the cable so it couldn't move whilst it all came back off (the crimp was strong enough to check for operation on the car and on the back side of the clevis so it could still be removed). Back off the car and removed the clevis so I could cut the cable leaving about 1/2" sticking out of the bolt. Finally the clevis goes back on for keeps and out comes the welder. As you hit the end of the cable with the arc it draws back so you chase the bead back along it's length (that's why it's left long) until you're in the bottom of the clevis where the clevis, bolt and cable all become one. Sounds more complicated than it is and when you're only looking to put a nipple on the end of the cable rather than a clevis it's even easier. Iain

Some do and some don't. If it has drums then chances are they do. If it has discs it'll have the Lobro style shafts and you will see a row of torx or allen bolt heads around the driveshaft - if they are there you need to undo those at both ends and the shaft can be removed. There are a very small number of cars with drums and Lobro shafts (I've only ever seen one in the flesh and pictures of two others) These are the same as disc setups from the point of view of removing the drive-shafts. It's also possible to construct a mongrel driveshaft with the Lobro joint on one end and the push in joint on the other end (usually done to use a limited slip diff with drum brakes) - obviously in this case one end pushes in whilst the other un-bolts. Iain

I often do but not for any sealing properties - as already mentioned that'd done by the pipe deforming to the shape of the seat it's mating on. The PTFE I use is to reduce corrosion in the threads of the fittings and hopefully make life easier if I have to pull it apart again in a few years time - more relevant on bleed nipples usually. Iain

If you whip the lid off a computer hard-drive there is a magnet in there that'll do the job - yes I know it's a very odd idea thinking of a dead powerful magnet inside a magnetic storage device but they are there. Iain

Dare I reply? That's an inertia valve. It's the original method used on the Sierra to dynamically adjust the brake bias in relation to the deceleration going on at the time. The term bias valve is usually applied to a valve that limits hydraulic pressure to the rear brakes to a fixed amount. You can get versions that are just a permanently fixed valve or ones that you manually adjust with a knob or lever but even with the adjustable ones the pressure is limited to a fixed amount for a single brake application (unless you feel happy trying to adjust it whilst steering the car and standing on the brake pedal). Iain

I seem to remember that the Sierra Cosworth used the same ends on the cable but it was longer to avoid the turbo. Iain

How is this not roadworthy?. Step on the brakes at 70 and you MUST use a reduced rear braking effort to that which you could have used at 30. At those sorts of speeds under any sort of braking - especially heavy braking there is a huge weight transfer to the front wheels and almost any braking force applied to the rear wheels will cause them to lock. This is what an inertia type valve allows for. At the SVA or IVA test they measure the braking force to ensure that the rear brakes are not putting out enough effort to lock the wheels in your above situation (the worst case scenario and therefore the minimal braking effort). BUT they measure it when the car actually has nearly it's theoretical MAXIMUM weight on the rear wheels and take no account for any dynamic situations although they do allow for valves that do. So for the test you can only produce the minimal braking effort on the rollers. With this in mind I would say no you shouldn't fit THE INERTIA VALVE for the test as it will only reduce your effort below the minimum that you are starting at. Cars with different weight distribution need more or less rear braking effort and depending on the components used in your build and their placement the weight distribution of Keith's car will not be the same as anyone else's. With different combinations of calipers, disc diameters, drum diameters and piston sizes you will get different braking efforts from the brakes themselves. Some of the Sierra brake setups can and do produce "too much" rear braking effort for the test and so you often do need to fit a pressure reducing valve of some sort. As for Keith's original question of "do I need a bias valve?". We don't know - there are too many factors at work. And I never said I could hold the rear of my 2B up - I could lift it, briefly I'll admit but I could get both rear wheels off the ground to shuffle it around the garage. No way could I do that with the front. No pictures or video of this as I sold it some time ago. Iain

Where the hell does this 50:50 figure come from? I could lift the rear end of my 2B in road trim by the spare wheel tube. Best of luck trying that at the front - a Pinto is HEAVY. As far as all Hoods (and your implication all sevens) needing the same braking effort and distribution.... Some people use donor seats and some use composite seats. Some put the battery in the rear and some in the engine bay. People use different size fuel-tanks. All these things might only be a small individual amount of weight but considered as proportion of the total weight on a light car like a Hood they can each make a significant chunk. If you build a car with the heaviest of all the possibilities and all the non location critical components at the rear then you can get away with significantly more rear braking effort than a car built with the lightest of all these components and all the other stuff placed under the bonnet. There is no simple answer to the original question. Iain

I think that a big part of the problem we are seeing here is that all our cars are different and you simply cannot assume that two Robin Hoods with exactly the same brake setup will see the same results (and as we've seen here two with the same brake setup is a rarity). For any given car you might be OK with no bias valve or you might need some way of setting it - there is simply no easy answer. The simple fact here is that too much rear braking is bad. If the rear wheels lock before the fronts then the handling characteristics are dangerous. So long as the fronts and rears provide enough effort for the purposes of the test it's the balance that matters - anything else is personal preference and can be sorted later as you start to drive the car and get a feel for what you want. My 2B failed its first SVA on about 4 items and one was too much rear braking effort. They calculate this by measuring braking force on the rollers, weighing each axle and then crunching the numbers back in the office. They work out the front/rear weight split and from this they can theorise whether the front or rear wheels will lock first. I had the Sierra bias valve in place and as people have said it won't work on the rollers as there's no inertia. I was under the impression that if an inertia valve was fitted the tester had to take it out on the car-park, stand on the brakes and observe which wheels lock first. Tester said "no" (which I still think was wrong but I didn't want to wind him up) so i took it away and when sorting the other problems I fitted a Rover Metro pressure limiting valve. On the re-test this had done the job. Under IVA you basically aren't allowed any form of adjustable bias (SVA allowed them so long as they were locked off with something like a roll-pin). IVA has done away with this and although there are provisions for adjustable setups you need to disable them by welding which isn't really do-able at the test centre previously you could have fitted an adjustable valve and tweaked it at the test to set the bias correctly and then locked it off. This is one of the bigger changes between SVA and IVA and one that I can see presenting a real problem as we don't generally have a way to check the brake balance before we go for a test. Iain

To be honest I think something like this is needed but I suspect that as usual the authorities will make a hash of it and end up making life difficult for all concerned (whilst taking another huge chunk of money out of the motorists pocket). Any changes to a monocoque (or chassis) really should be properly assessed. I know I've done it and I'd like to think that any work I've done is safe and leaves the thing as strong, or stronger, than it was before I got there but we all know that without some sort of regulation the cowboys out there will do their worst (and they do now). It doesn't warrant £450 worth of inspection though. I think they would have a hard time enforcing the "any cutting of the monocoque" would "lead to the loss of the V5". The sensible option is to lay down some ground rules that if X percent of the shell is left original and the modifications are safe and done properly then the shell is still considered to be the original. After that you stick with the points system and if the car retains enough points from the original then it's still the original car. But then when has this sort of thing ever been done sensibly? Iain

The only problem you are likely to come across with this method is as you say air-locks as you will effectively create a dead end with no way to bleed it. To get round this the same method could be used with a slight addition. Get a 3-way T-piece with UNF threads. Make your short piece of brake pipe with male fittings on both ends (one metric to screw into the existing T and one UNF to go into the additional T). Screw the pressure switch into the new T. Put a UNF bleed screw in the third hole in the UNF T. When bleeding the brakes just remember this one will want to be done first as it'll be closer to the master than anything else. On the Sierra the brake fitings are all M10 fine threads. The pressure switch you have is likely from a British car and 3/8"UNF (older Minis like mine had them instead of a switch on the pedal). Ali G - there are very few imperial fasteners on the Sierra. Seatbelts will be 7/16"UNF and depending on the engine some of the tappings into the block will be UNC as the engines pre-date the cars by a long way and are of American descent. It's always useful to have a full set of spanners and sockets anyway though as a rusty M8 bolt should have a 13mm head but once you've scraped off the layer of rust it's quite often a little smaller and a 13mm socket or spanner will just round it off a 1/2" spanner or socket will often fit perfectly though because it's 12.7mm. I can highly recommend proper surface drive sockets though. As well as being six sided (sort of) and therefore less likely to just take the corners off a nut or bolt they have quite a bit of flexibility over the size of hex that they'll get a grip on and so can get you out of a hole when you come across that odd fastener that you don't have anything else to fit. Iain

Pay attention to the registration rules too - if you start swapping engines around during the build you can come a cropper at registration time and end up with a Q-plate. Some people have no problem with them but in the main they are not a desireable thing and life can be much easier if you can get an age related plate. To get an age related plate you want as far as possible to use only the bits from your donor car. As people have stated Sierras are getting a bit thin on the ground so you may not have the choice of the engine you want with low miles. My advice would be to see what's available and suitable (if not necessarily the first choice). Build the car with that and then once it's on the road allow tinkeritis to set in. If you want to go Zetec at a later date then maybe look for a CVH powered Sierra and build the car with that. Once it's on the road you can start the swap and some of the CVH bits will come in handy for the Zetec fitting and the exhaust is on the same side so hopefully the Zetec exhaust can exit the same hole in the body panel. I am a fan though of the injected 2.0 Pinto. They are the best of the Pintos for power and reliability (not that any of them are inherently un-reliable) but they are still simple enough to lend themselves to home tinkering by the less experienced. They are also easy to convert to carbs if the injection scares you too much. The torque suits a heavier car like a Hood well and makes them a good road car. A lighter car like a Lightweight (possibly a Zero - I'm not so familiar with them) would be better suited to a Zetec and you've more power to play with when it's appropriate. Iain