GT6 Trimuph GT6 restoration

[MG_Midget_74]

I have owned the same 1974 MG Midget for about 30 years, recently my wife and I built a large garage. The idea behind the garage was that as a hobby I would restore cars. I have always like the looks of GT6, currently I am researching them, by reading articles and viewing forums like this one.
By the way the car would not be resold.

Any words of advice?

 

[Twosheds]

Learn to spell Triumph first.

 

[MG_Midget_74]

I fat fingered, I am unable to ype.

 

[Mickey Richaud]

The GT6 is one cool looking car. When they first hit the streets in the mid sixties, I was smitten.

They can be a hotbox, though; I've heard lots of owners complain about how hot the interior gets in the summer. We have several owners on the Forum; I'm sure they'll add their two cents.

Mickey

 

[TR3driver]

I fat fingered, I am unable to ype.

Eye halve a spell check her
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marks four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

 

[tr6lover]

yup, ive got some advice, find lots of spares. the gt6 was a very underbuilt car meaning the gearbox was built for the 38hp herald and was upgraded for the spitfire and then they further upgraded it for the gt6 and by that point the g/b could not take all that power so the g/b is a weak point. its got a great engine and awsome looks but the rear end is also weak, same problem. the handling wasnt wonderful because if you push it hard understeer snaps to oversteer so be careful of that aspect. it is a result of the swing axle design from one of the rear wheels tucking in. just want you to be aware of these faults when buying one. as far as restoring goes the floors and the rocker panels are stressed structures and the chassis is only down the center of the car unlike lets say a tr3, 4, 5,or 6 so this poses a few more challenges when doing floors and rockers. lots of parts are shared with spitfires, let me know if you need advice on this becaue i started to build a spit six a few years back. the tr6 really is a better car, but the gt6 should leave a tr6 in the dust any day in the same state of tune. really if your going to restore a car it takes the same amount of money to restore a gt6 as any other car, like an e type jag and the value is there for other cars like a jag, i know you said you didnt plan to sell when you did this, but just something to keep in mind. its a good car as long as you know their short comings.
Randy

 

[Twosheds]

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

I am a TR3 guy, but I think the GT6 is kinda cool looking. Negatives I have heard is that they are hot, like Mickey pointed out, and that they are cramped if you are tall. Also that they can be tail-happy, but maybe that's only a problem when they are raced.

Good luck!

 

[vagt6]

Hello, Midget 74 and welcome to the party! Please fill out your profile and join in the fray.

A potential drawback with GT6s and Spits involves their relatively low retail values. It's easy to get "over your head" financially (i.e., spend more on the resto than the car's worth). Of course, it's not generally advisable to do so, but I know plenty of folks who've done it.

Regarding widespread comments about GT6 cockpit heat, the excess engine/gearbox heat may be effectively decreased with modern insulation materials.

The GT6 cockpit is small, but at 6'2" and 200 lbs. I never found the car uncomfortable. I must add, though, that leg/foot room is limited and may become crampy on long trips. And, taller folks may have headroom issues, but not me. Ingress and egress can be a problem for folks with limited flexibility, too. Careful restoration of the stock seats with modern padding materials helps immensely. BTW, I did not like the Miata seat conversion, too tall.

A bone stock GT6 will outhandle <u>many</u> of its period sports car peers, and GT6s won a pile of SCCA championships amd sanctioned races. If the stock suspension is properly sorted, handing is fine unless you regularly thrash or race the car. Yes, the rear end is squirrely but it's controllable with practice.

I've fully restored two GT6s (one rustbucket from scratch) and owned three, plus a Spitfire. Parts, excepting a few rare bits, are readily available with a wide range of aftermarket goodies for suspension and engine upgrades, too. The tilting bonnet makes engine and front suspension work a snap, I think.

The key, the <u>numero uno</u> buying factor with GT6s (and all other LBCs for that matter!) is to find one with NO RUST. This is especially true with a GT6/Spit: since retail values are low, you really can't afford to spend extra money on rust abatement and body work. Don't be lured into that trap!

Be patient: wait for one that has very good body with NO rust. The rest is fun and easy. And they're a blast to drive and never fail to attract an admiring crowd wherever you go. And I must add that the hellish growl of that silky smooth 2000cc six is a pure joy to the ears as you wind thru the gears! Nothing like it, IMHO.

Andrew Mace will also add something here, he's quite the expert on these cars.

Andrew . . . where are you??? /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif

 

[Andrew Mace]

Andrew Mace will also add something here, he's quite the expert on these cars.

Andrew . . . where are you??? /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif

Sorry, I spent much of the afternoon under a Mazda B3000 pickup trying to figure out how an errant oil filter wrench could've shorted out the doggone starter. Do NOT me started on stupid engineering.... /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wall.gif

My advice might sound a bit contrary to some of the above. I can't disagree with a lot of itper se; on the other hand, I've not experienced some of the legendary faults of these cars. Granted, my first 6+ was Jasmine Yellow, so maybe it didn't heat up quite as much inside as one in a darker color would. But even with black vinyl interior, I never thought it was all that bad.

I bought that car used and put about 65,000 miles on it. I think it had been used a bit hard by the earlier owners, but it really gave me very little trouble. I never had a moment's trouble with the gearbox, although I admit second gear synchro was a bit weak when I stopped driving it due to excessive rust. I like to think I've always been sympathetic if not outright gentle with cars, but I did extensively (and successfully, not to brag but only to point out that the car got quite the workout!) autocross that car, along with a number of road rallyes and lots and lots of commuting. Worst I can say is that it rusted away, and it stunk in the snow!

I also had a Mk3 that I put a lot of miles on it. It, too, had seen some abuse, and at least one pretty serious front-end wreck, before I got it. Again, it caused me virtually no trouble beyond an alternator, brakes and the usual minor tuneup, etc., stuff.

Both of the above were "Rotoflex rear end" cars. It's a complicated setup that can get expensive to repair, but it's a good bit better than the swing axle of the "Mk1" GT6. But even that's easily tamed with dearched springs, camber compensators, or even a swing-spring conversion. Regardless, they're much more of a "tourer" (GT name is appropriate) than a Spitfire, but no less fun. Just different fun with a torquey, lazy (as in I never felt the lack of overdrive to be a problem) but strong engine and handling not quite as nimble as a Spitfire.

And value is slowly climbing on these. It may take a few more years, but even now really good examples are bringing pretty good money. Hopefully more and more folks will recognize the enjoyment potential of these before all the marginal ones are converted to Spitfire 6s (like my son and I are doing with one that was well beyond marginal). /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

 

[dklawson]

Our GT6 has been in the family since new and was raced by my father-in-law during the 1970s. It spent 10 years rusting under a tarp before my wife and I picked it up to restore. Were it not a family heirloom I would not have taken on the task. As Mark said, it's VERY easy to spend more restoring a GT6 than its worth. I know. I did... and I didn't even go through the engine yet.

Ours is a Mk1 and it is indeed hot with poor ventilation. Later cars are probably better for fresh air. Ours has also been lowered so its handling may be a bit different than most. I consider it very nose heavy and prone to understeer. It's a nice highway car though.

 

[Flinkly]

the only experience i have is my significant other getting the guts to tell me the mk1 looks better than my mk3.

the gearbox can be worked up by quantum mechanics, and the rear end can be improved as much as your wallet is willing to handle. also, like everyone has said, it is easy to spend too much on a restore, although expecting to never sell the car allows you to use it enough to make up for that.

overall it's easy to repair and restore, and a blast to drive, i hear. just wait for a good example to come along and everything will be great.

it will sure be nice to have another gt6'er in the group too, sure aren't enough of us.

 

[rotoflex]

I have had my GT6 Mk3 since 1975, mostly as a daily driver.

yup, ive got some advice, find lots of spares.

I have lots of spares, but because it is simpler & faster to maintain any car assemblies by swaps (hydraulic cylinders, etc.) than by pulling something off the car, sandblasting it, rebuilding it, etc., all the time leaving the car immobile while working on the removed assembly & discovering any problems with it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]the gt6 was a very underbuilt car meaning the gearbox was built for the 38hp herald and was upgraded for the spitfire and then they further upgraded it for the gt6 and by that point the g/b could not take all that power so the g/b is a weak point.[/QUOTE]

That's inaccurate from the standpoint that development has the same result as the original.

For example, the TR6 engine was originally installed as a 1.6-litre 6-cylinder unit in the Vitesse in 1962, increased in displacement to 2 litres for the Vitesse 2-litre & GT6 in 1966 (with some additional cylinder head & block changes in 1967), then stroked to 2.5 litres for the TR5/TR250 in 1968. So you could say in the same way that the TR6 engine is its weak spot as it was originally a low horsepower 1.6 litre engine built for the early Vitesse.

As for the gearbox, I've never broken anything in one driving "spiritedly" although not on the track. The original gearbox was traded on a gearbox/overdrive unit in the late 1970s, & I think the 2nd gear synchro was gone in it. Upon getting the new gearbox/OD, I was more attentive to maintaining & occasionally changing the gearbox oil, & have not even lost a synchro.

I have destroyed a diff (in the early 80s), but I attribute that to previously having never checked the diff oil level. I have thereafter, & am still on the same differential.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:] the handling wasnt wonderful because if you push it hard understeer snaps to oversteer so be careful of that aspect. it is a result of the swing axle design from one of the rear wheels tucking in.[/QUOTE]

The swing axle was only on the Mk1 cars in 1967. Even then, Road & Track when reviewing the Mk1 GT6 when new said:

"We approach any car with conventional swing axles with a little apprehension but we found that the GT6 could not be faulted on its handling."
[...]
"Breakaway is smooth and one gets the feeling that the car has a degree of oversteer that can be enjoyed and utilized by a moderately skilled driver while never crossing up an unskilled one."

The rear suspension attributes of the Mk1 have been blown far out of proportion, as many Mk1 drivers will state. The hardest track drivers felt they needed better performance from the GT6's rear suspension, & Triumph responded with the upgraded Rotoflex suspension in the GT6 Mk2/+ & early Mk3. As a cost-cutting measure, the last Mk3's had a very well-performing swing-spring rear suspension, which was also fitted to the Spitfire MkIV. Some owners paranoid about the continued availability of quality Rotoflex couplings or putting a great deal of power from modified engines through them seek the coupling-less swing spring cars.

I think it's interesting that in GT6 vs. TR6 over the years, a great number of both cars have been completely unmaintained & trashed, TR6's are more likely to be restored as Sunday & toy cars, but GT6's remain daily drivers. Easiest things to work on, & dependable as anything with points & carbs can be.

I have driven lots of exotic & performance cars, & the GT6 has always remained the one I liked best for lots of reasons, not the least is positioning along the scales of ease of ownership/cost of ownership/fun to drive/sugar for a dime.

I should point out also that the GT6 is a very different car from the TR6, not the least for point of comparison is the engine. The TR6 engine has more torque, but the GT6's revvy personality is its own & very infectious. The Triumph inline 6 is justifiably one of the most famous engines made, & although tastes vary, I think the 2 litre version is its best incarnation.

 

[Andrew Mace]

...[T]he TR6 engine was originally installed as a 1.6-litre 6-cylinder unit in the Vitesse in 1962, increased in displacement to 2 litres for the Vitesse 2-litre & GT6 in 1966 (with some additional cylinder head & block changes in 1967), then stroked to 2.5 litres for the TR5/TR250 in 1968. So you could say in the same way that the TR6 engine is its weak spot as it was originally a low horsepower 1.6 litre engine built for the early Vitesse....

To be painfully correct, the six was little more than the Herald engine (that engine having started out as 803cc around 1953) with two more cylinders. It started as a 2L in the Standard Vanguard Six and was "sleeved down" for the original Vitesse 6...and ultimately "stroked" for the big TR and big Triumph sedans.

The Triumph inline 6 is justifiably one of the most famous engines made, & although tastes vary, I think the 2 litre version is its best incarnation.

I agree, although the 1600cc version is not far behind. Both lack the torque of the stroked 2.5, but they do tend to rev better.

As for pretty much everything else you said:

/bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/iagree.gif

 

[2wrench]

I fat fingered, I am unable to ype.

Eye halve a spell check her
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marks four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

As an aside, I am very entertained by this.
Being a Court Reporter, often times I am
asked: Won't you be replaced by technology
any time soon?

If this is any indication...and I think it is....
I suppose the answer would have to be ....not yet.

 

[rotoflex]

To be painfully correct, the six was little more than the Herald engine (that engine having started out as 803cc around 1953) with two more cylinders.

I had forgotten that! I remember seeing photos of some early 6's that showed blatant casting marks on the blocks which looked like a graft onto the block of a 4!

 

[foxtrapper]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]A bone stock GT6 will outhandle many of its period sports car peers...[/QUOTE]
It was defeated in the turns by a VW Karmen Ghia and an Opel GT.
https://members.tripod.com/~michaeljay/spitfires/cdtest/index.htm

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:] The swing axle was only on the Mk1 cars in 1967. [/QUOTE]
66,67, and 73. The MK1 was swing axle, as were the later Mk3's. Although the Mk3 had a swing spring as well.

 

[rotoflex]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]A bone stock GT6 will outhandle many of its period sports car peers...

It was defeated in the turns by a VW Karmen Ghia and an Opel GT.
https://members.tripod.com/~michaeljay/spitfires/cdtest/index.htm
[/QUOTE]

I have that issue of Car & Driver from which the information on that page is abridged.

It is a track test among 6 cars to yield track analysis based on rules for SCCA Showroom Stock/Sedan Class.

It was not "defeated in the turns by a VW Karmann Ghia & an Opel GT". I am assuming that refers only to the standalone skidpad test for which the graph was made.

In the track test, the C&D testers ranked the cars by their finish times on Ontario Motor Speedway 3.63 mile road course. They ranked the cars:

1. Fiat 124 Spider
2. Triumph GT6 Mk3 (0.2 seconds behind the Fiat)
3. Opel GT (0.8 seconds behind the Fiat)
4. Porsche 914 (1.5 seconds behind the Fiat)
5. MGB (5 seconds behind the Fiat)
6. Triumph Spitfire (14 seconds behind the Fiat)

That web page can be misleading where it states "The editors of C&D even gave the three fastest cars an extra advantage of the maximum legal-size rubber, from which the Spitfire did not benefit. (The GT6 did.)" The C&D article states "There's only one fissure in the rules to allow legal tuning: tires. The benefit will vary from car to car, depending upon the quality of the standard tires, so we've mounted an alternate set of maximum [SCCA SS/SC rules] legal-size rubber on the three fastest cars. From last year's tire test we know that the Semperit M401 is the best all around tire for SS/Sedan racing. In some cases, like the Triumph GT6, the change is dramatic."

They did not perform an additional test with new tires on the three slowest cars on the course; understandably, as the object was to isolate the faster cars.

In fact, the GT6's biggest problem was its original-equipment radial-ply tires.

The article states for the GT6 that "part of the deficit was traced to the sloppy steering. As is common in cars with rack & pinion steering gears, Triumph uses a rubber-isolated mounting where the gear attaches to the frame. (Generous hint: by sliding the the retaining clamps along their slotted holes in the direction that provides more preload on the rubber we were able to firm up the steering a great deal.) Then, too, there is the problem of the standard equipment Goodyear radial-ply tires. They are slow in response and not too much on what the NASCAR boys call 'side bite'. Replacing them with 165 SR-13 Semperits produced a fantastic transformation. Lap times dropped to just 0.2 seconds off those of the Fiat & they could be maintained at that level with great consistency. In addition to markedly improved cornering ability, steering response was much crisper & the brakes were more controllable."

The article does not mention whether the comparative skidpad test was done with the OE tires or with the 3 top cars using the better Semperit tires.

Nobody who's driven them will deny that a Spitfire is a zippy, fun-to-fling car, & the GT6 is very different with its greater frontward weight distribution. Both are famous for those characteristics, & both are fun & useable. Classically, the GT6 in corners technique has been move in, then stomp it & scream out for maximum bite & speed.

In the off-track tests, the GT6 did have the lowest skidpad numbers, but the highest acceleration & braking that was exactly in the middle.

All the cars had strengths & weaknesses, but note that the GT6 came in 2nd overall & just 0.2 seconds off the leader. And that in 79 hp 1973 emissions trim.

Note also that the test was of the 1973 GT6, which had the swing-spring suspension that was a cost-cutting measure & not as good as the rotoflex suspension of the GT6 Mk2/+ & earlier GT6 Mk3's.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:] The swing axle was only on the Mk1 cars in 1967. [/QUOTE]
66,67, and 73. The MK1 was swing axle, as were the later Mk3's. Although the Mk3 had a swing spring as well.[/QUOTE]

No, the Mk3's all had only rotoflex (GT6 Mk3 up to commission number KE/KF 20,000) or swing-spring (GT6 Mk3 from commission number KE/KF 20,001 until the end of production). No swing axle rear suspension was fitted to the GT6 Mk3. Swing axle was fitted only to the GT6 Mk1.

cf: part number 631410

 

[Andrew Mace]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:] The swing axle was only on the Mk1 cars in 1967.

66,67, and 73. The MK1 was swing axle, as were the later Mk3's. Although the Mk3 had a swing spring as well.[/QUOTE]

No, the Mk3's all had only rotoflex (GT6 Mk3 up to commission number KE/KF 20,000) or swing-spring (GT6 Mk3 from commission number KE/KF 20,001 until the end of production). No swing axle rear suspension was fitted to the GT6 Mk3. Swing axle was fitted only to the GT6 Mk1.[/QUOTE]Sorry, but the 1973 model-year GT6 Mk3 had a swing-spring and the 1" longer rear swing axles as per the Spitfire. As for the "Mk1" GT6, that actually ran two MODEL YEARS: 1967 and 1968. Although some folks refer to the earliest ones as 1966 models, they really weren't. Since the car was introduced in fall 1966, it's very unlikely that any manufacturer would introduce a brand-new "last year's model"! GT6+ and Mk2 ran for the 1969 and 1970 model years, and the Rotoflex GTY6 Mk3 was model years 1971 and 1972.

 

[svtmikey]

I am currently restoring a 69 GT6, and it is very easy to get in over your head with the restoration...... I speak from experience. I had never restored a British car before, mostly muscle cars, and not real heavy body work....I know I should've walked away from this one, but I can't back down from a challenge! Yes be very careful when you buy one take your time and get a good one...
I know I sound a bit bitter, but to be honest I have really enjoyed this one, even though it was more than I bargained for.
The GT6 was my idea of a sports car when I was a kid, and I knew I had to have one....it's just taking a little longer than I thought it would.
Good luck
Mikey

 

[foxtrapper]

No swing axle rear suspension was fitted to the GT6 Mk3.

You're wrong. The swing spring is installed on a swing axle rear suspension. Cripes, just go look at one.