vic
New Member
I have been a member of this club since 1966. I am just very quiet.
Posts: 6
|
Post by vic on Jun 23, 2022 18:36:12 GMT
I have had my Mk3 since June 1963. I was told when I bought it that it was a fast and capable Sports Saloon and had an MGA engine and box and Austin Westminster front brake drums with Morris Minor rear drums. I would go about your upgrades quietly (read cheaply) When the car was new to me I was told many times to take care in it. You would be surprised how fast the car seems. The gentlemen who, on this forum, advise that the brakes are adequate are spot on. They are also spot on saying the tyre/road interface is inadequate. It does need wider tyres because it is all to easy to brake and stop the wheels but not the car. (Co-eff of sliding friction being less than coeff of rolling friction make it difficult to get the thing back under control.) In the Winter though. with winter tyres. the narrow rubber cuts through the snow better. I would set it up as a Mk3 but with wider tyres then later introduce your modifications. Just an opinion from an old fella. By the way - if you can get rid of the rust you will have a good car that goes on and on and on and on seemingly for ever. It, the One Point Five, was Riley Cars best ever sales success and if you keep it you will eventually realise why.
|
|
|
Post by sgives on Jun 23, 2022 20:37:34 GMT
Herb, Bruce,
Thanks both. In fact I am fitting a rebuilt 1977 MGB engine so the car should be reasonably able to keep up with traffic. But at 70mph with the standard gearbox the engine will be doing about 3800rpm; a five speed box should cut that to about 3200rpm which is much kinder to the engine, my ears and the fuel consumption. The gap between second and third is reduced too. Searching back through the classifieds, I found an ad for a One Point Five with the MGB engine and a 'Ford Type 9 gearbox' - from a Sierra - at Classic & Sportscar Centre near Malton in Yorkshire, (the car has been sold) so somebody managed to make it fit!
I'll get in touch with the people who make the kits and see what they have to tell me. I'll let you know how it goes. If all else fails I might look at fitting the MG's overdrive box, which ought (!) to mate with the standard bellhousing, and a shortened prop shaft
Simon
|
|
|
Post by canuck on Jun 23, 2022 20:58:34 GMT
Herb, Bruce, Thanks both. In fact I am fitting a rebuilt 1977 MGB engine so the car should be reasonably able to keep up with traffic. But at 70mph with the standard gearbox the engine will be doing about 3800rpm; a five speed box should cut that to about 3200rpm which is much kinder to the engine, my ears and the fuel consumption. The gap between second and third is reduced too. Searching back through the classifieds, I found an ad for a One Point Five with the MGB engine and a 'Ford Type 9 gearbox' - from a Sierra - at Classic & Sportscar Centre near Malton in Yorkshire, (the car has been sold) so somebody managed to make it fit! I'll get in touch with the people who make the kits and see what they have to tell me. I'll let you know how it goes. If all else fails I might look at fitting the MG's overdrive box, which ought (!) to mate with the standard bellhousing, and a shortened prop shaft Simon Simon FWIW the standard Riley 1498cc power unit keeps up with highway traffic just fine in my world. My only mild beef is climbing hills when needed. I can live with that however ................ I am fitting a very nice build 1962 3 main MGB engine to my Riley. I also choose this to keep the mechanical tachometer. I really prefer the movement of the mechanical tachometer to the electric one. The early MGB engine has the tachometer drive fitted, not so your later one. I like my dash panel just as it is. Be aware that the already tender Riley axle half-shafts will be in peril with 95+ HP. Remember that these axle shafts are Morris Minor and served fine for the 48 or so HP that the car had. The Riley 68 HP wreaks havoc to these shafts and without doubt tee 95HP will be less kind. I will be fitting a MGB banjo rear axle to cope with the extra oumph of the MGB power unit. Caveat to this is the MGB axle has 3.9 gearing. Not a big difference however I can have 3:7 gears so this will ultimately become part of the build. All good fun, B
|
|
vic
New Member
I have been a member of this club since 1966. I am just very quiet.
Posts: 6
|
Post by vic on Jun 24, 2022 16:45:30 GMT
Please take great care. The Riley One Point Five Mk3 car is plenty fast enough in standard form. Please let me put it this way. Two drivers I knew turned these cars over ending upside down in a field. The car will not corner like a modern vehicle. Why is this you might ask. Well let us look at the suspension. The rear is on fairly stiff cart springs. The instantaneous roll centre is at mid axle level at this end of the car. At the front the wheels are each attached by almost parallel links. Take a look. The instantaneous roll centre at the front of the car is at road level. There is thus a body shell roll centre line sloping down to the front of the car. The car is quite high and most of its weight (engine/gearbox/battery rad and water etc) is towards the front of the car. Thus cornering force generated and acting at the centre of gravity of the car is above the roll axis at the front. So the car shell will roll on corners. Perhaps the above is boring but it took me a long time to get to understand it. Here then is the interesting bit. The top of the kingpin (for want of a better term) then comes into contact with a hard rubber bump stop that is bolted directly to the bodywork. In other words you then have no front suspension. You might as well bolt the wheel straight on to the bodywork of the car. if that heavily loaded outer wheel hits one of our marvellous council laid potholes the whole front of the car can lift off the road. This design tragedy is common to Riley/Wolseley/Morris Minor and Morris Marina vehicles. I drive Cobra 289, Elise 135/99, Land Rover D2, Range Rover L405 V8 twin turbo diesel, Jaguar X308 Supercharged, Daimler Super V8 with two superchargers, BMW E39 in line six, and E whatever the latest 3 series fast car is. etc etc and the little Riley with absolutely no crash protection gives me the feeling that it is the most dangerous. I had to drive with a police driver sitting next to me each year in a works fast car as part of the testing required before I was allowed to drive Company fast cars so I am not a stranger to fast road work, skid pan or emergency braking and cornering. Yet after all this that I have said there is still something special about the little Riley. Just please take care. Modify only after driving the standard car. Thank You for reading this. I won't write again you may be pleased to know.
|
|
|
Post by canuck on Jun 25, 2022 15:28:37 GMT
Just please take care. Modify only after driving the standard car. Thank You for reading this. I won't write again you may be pleased to know. Hello Vic, Do keep posting please, the more the merrier that share their thoughts is a good thing. You remind us of the shortcomings of the standard car design. So yes, well known fact the Riley is rather 'rolly poly' in turns and add in cross ply tyres and one needs to really pay attention. I have been down this road with a MK1 and Yikes! what a ride, in the kindest sense. Classic cars need to be recognized as old design for sure and there is sensible upgrades both for safety and comfort. Many have been mentioned in this thread. Improved lower ride height done properly, (MK1 vehicles) quality radial tyres on proper width wheels, brakes, (OE drum or disc) in good working order all add to the safety and pleasure of driving this little cars about. The interior is a place to improve for comfort. The OE seats are brutal on lengthy drive, and seat belts play fair in the event of a tussle. Improved lighting provided by fitting modern headlamps, and brighter brake lights all add to safety for driver and those on the road. Great little cars when treated with respect and and maintained properly. FWIW the smiles per mile is unbeatable. Salut Bruce
|
|
vic
New Member
I have been a member of this club since 1966. I am just very quiet.
Posts: 6
|
Post by vic on Jun 26, 2022 17:41:45 GMT
Simon, I think that IMO it is very worthwhile listening to what Bruce has to say. It is true that I am an old man now but I remember what it was like to be young very well and I had just your outlook on cars. I remember very well in my little Riley being able to hang on, just about, to the back of a 3.8 litre Jaguar Mk 2 on the road from Bala to Trawsfynydd. There was an old guy driving it and I was never able to get past him no matter how many times I snicked back and too between third and fourth gears. The car wasn't able to do it. It dented my pride as a driver somewhat but I have, over the years, come to realise that it wasn't really me - the Riley should have some of the responsibility. That's my story and I'm stickin to it!
|
|
vic
New Member
I have been a member of this club since 1966. I am just very quiet.
Posts: 6
|
Post by vic on Jun 26, 2022 18:03:45 GMT
Simon/Bruce and anyone.
So I thought about fitting a Fiat twin cam engine and checked brake horse power figures and I thought about fitting a close ratio box or/and MGB engine and overdrive box. I even bought some if the bits! I worked in a drawing office as a an engineering design draughtsman and I listened to others tell me I didn't have a real Riley. And that the earlier cars were faster/better made/more comfortable. As the years went by I drove over half a million miles in cars like my Riley, my fathers Austin A55 (pre Farina), and my brothers Morris Minor 1000. Going to work and back was a round trip of about 40 miles. The little Riley kept starting. I did then what I do now - all the work on it was done here at my little house and it never went to any garage. It ran through some terrible Winters (for the UK) and year in year out plodded on. As it got older some folks asked if they could buy it but the answer was always the same. The car that the salesman had told me, when I bought it, I could trade into them in two years time as it would still be worth 200 pounds or so just kept running and is still here now, almost sixty years down the road of time. Selling it would be like selling my best friend. i.e. impossible to contemplate. Yet I never even really liked to car. It always looked a bit stodgy to me. But the interior was good.
|
|
vic
New Member
I have been a member of this club since 1966. I am just very quiet.
Posts: 6
|
Post by vic on Jun 26, 2022 18:53:22 GMT
So I have now rattled on like an old twit without getting to the point but that is coming up now. Thank you for reading this. The Riley One Point Five was almost out of date when it was designed. The designer Ricardo (Dick) Burzi did not have much to go on. Thus he used a very poor design suspension system that had been used on the Morris Minor. The rear axle of that car was not located as well as it might have been and the front suspension seems to have been something of an earlier Riley design, itself maybe leaning on a German VW/Porsche torsion bar system. I would guess that Mr Burzi was told to use this (it was cheap and cheerful?) Well cheap it may have been but cheerful it certainly isn't. For the reason I gave yesterday there are times when you need a useful suspension on the front and your loaded wheel may as well be fixed straight on to the body shell In fairness there were only three engineers who had looked into the design of suspension at that time. 1, Mr Maurice Olley (ex Rolls Royce, Springfield Mass.) Then General Motors Design Director, Flint Michigan. Father was head of Llangollen Grammar School a few miles from here. 2. Mr Colin Chapman who, to start, read two I Mech E papers written by Maurice Olley. Costin and Phipps then came on the scene. 3. Earl McPhearson who worked for Ford, Detroit. For all I know these may have been figure heads and it may have been skilled technical staff who truly understood what was relevant I don't know. but years ago I did meet Maurice Olley (who kindly offered me a job) and he seemed to know exactly what he was talking about. And what is the point of all this you might ask. Well it is twofold The engine in the Riley is not important. What is important is the suspension system. a) A few little tweaks as done on the OUMF car will not do it. It needs a radical rethink. b) One dark November night I was in a hurry and took a bend at 45mph at the black gates on the Yr Wyddgrug to Wrexham road. This was pushing it as usually I cornered at 35 mph there. At the pothole the front of the car did its usual trick of leaving the road but this time, when it came back down there was some sort of natural frequency in operation and the car swayed erratically from side to side. There was nothing on the road which was lucky because I was on the wrong side of it. The following day I checked the tyre pressures, they were as spec. I checked for wear in components. There was none. I checked tracking which was to spec and I never found out what had caused the erratic swaying. In other words, this is not a car that can keep up with modern traffic on a twisting road. Any one of our modern cars can take that same corner at the national speed limit of 60 mph. And the OUMF Riley - lowered engine, stiff suspension, discs. etc. Built for the smooth track and thus a different thing altogether. Thank you for reading this. Look on the bright side - I am away for three week holiday in France from end of this week so you won't hear from me. Kindest regards.
|
|
|
Post by sgives on Oct 7, 2022 14:08:26 GMT
Vic, Bruce,
It's been a while but old cars never seem to come back to life quickly. The positive news is that the body is in remarkably good condition - just some very minor welding so far. On the mechanical front, all your comments are welcome and gratefully received. Comments as below:
1. Suspension: telescopic shock absorber kit from a Minor will help plus an anti-roll bar. I may look at doing something at the rear too but later. 2. Brakes: I plan to fit a Minor disc brake kit to the front, probably without a servo. Rear will be standard. I'll need to get the balance right. 3. Wheels: I want to leave it looking more or less standard really so wider steel wheels rather than alloy with decent 155 or 165 section radial tyres. Question: will the wider tyres foul anywhere? 4. Engine: The 1977 MGB engine I mentioned above - if and when it ever comes back from the builder... It's having the head ported and it will be balanced but will otherwise remain standard - 95+ bhp in a car that weighs less than a ton is more than adequate. 5. Gearbox: Massive debate with myself but the standard MGB o/d box seems the best - read least expensive - compromise. If I do 1500 miles a year in the car I'll be surprised (I have another 'classic' that's done 400 miles this year and 750 last...) so there's no point in getting carried away. 6. Back axle: Comments about its fragility noted. What's this 'banjo' axle Bruce? Is it an easy fit? And can I swap the diff gears to retain the 3.7 ratio? 7. Interior: I want to keep it looking standard. Any advice on making the front seats bearable?
And finally I too remember a couple of epic drives across North Wales, the most spirited about 18 years ago in a Seat Leon Cupra diesel. It was supposed to be 150 bhp but it was part of Seat's demonstrator fleet so maybe it had been breathed on. In any event it was extraordinarily rapid and massively competent. Good job there were fewer cameras back then!
|
|
|
Post by canuck on Oct 9, 2022 14:35:58 GMT
Comments as below: 1. Suspension: telescopic shock absorber kit from a Minor will help plus an anti-roll bar. I may look at doing something at the rear too but later. 2. Brakes: I plan to fit a Minor disc brake kit to the front, probably without a servo. Rear will be standard. I'll need to get the balance right. 3. Wheels: I want to leave it looking more or less standard really so wider steel wheels rather than alloy with decent 155 or 165 section radial tyres. Question: will the wider tyres foul anywhere? 4. Engine: The 1977 MGB engine I mentioned above - if and when it ever comes back from the builder... It's having the head ported and it will be balanced but will otherwise remain standard - 95+ bhp in a car that weighs less than a ton is more than adequate. 5. Gearbox: Massive debate with myself but the standard MGB o/d box seems the best - read least expensive - compromise. If I do 1500 miles a year in the car I'll be surprised (I have another 'classic' that's done 400 miles this year and 750 last...) so there's no point in getting carried away. 6. Back axle: Comments about its fragility noted. What's this 'banjo' axle Bruce? Is it an easy fit? And can I swap the diff gears to retain the 3.7 ratio? 7. Interior: I want to keep it looking standard. Any advice on making the front seats bearable? Hello Simon Yes taking ones time to get their car set up properly is a good thing. 1) not sure this is necessary? The OE hydraulic damper, (if in good order) function just fine. If you do fit telescopic you will need to remove the valve from teh hydraulic dampers. Fitting an anti roll bar is a bonus for sure as these little cars are a tad ' rolly polly' whilst cornering. 2) Good idea I think. I am about to fit a disc brake conversion, using the Mr. Grumpy Marina kit. I am doing something else and these hubs suit the requirement. I believe there is a Ford kit as well? 3) Pay attention to the tyres/wheels combination you choose. Some (tyre) will rub, (front) on the steering tie rod end and give grief to either the tyre or the tie rod end rubber seal. No issue at rear. 5) I think fitting an MGB OD gearbox will require some 'cutting up' of the car, so do your homework. The OE Riley gearbox bellhousing is modified from factory to clear the steering rack. The wider/bigger MG OD gearbox will require floor panel mods for sure. Think clutch and flywheel, starter motor etc. while under taking this as well. This will not be as straightforward as we would want. Tread carefully. 6) The MGB used two different style rear axle casing. The earlier 'banjo' style is aesthetically similar to the Riley one and is approximately lighter by 25Kg than the later MGB rear axle. Be aware that this axle is also available in steel wheel and wire wheel configuration. If you go this route choose the steel wheel one, (obvious) hub & brakes and width closer to Riley and easier to deal with. A minimum modification is to cut off the MG spring perches and relocate them to accept the Riley location. The MG rear axle ratio is 3.9:1 but 3.7:1 CP kits are available ( www.ukmgparts.com/product/mgb-midcat-2-submgb35-rear-axle-banjo-type/cw-pinion-3-7-1-banjo-axle-stn371 ). This will afford a 5% difference so maybe the 3.9:1 will suit you? May be easier/faster/less expensive to fit stronger axle shafts ( www.morrisminorspares.com/rear-suspension-axle-propshaft-c87/rear-axle-propshaft-rear-suspension-c88/halfshaft-competition-pair-p831319 ) to the Riley housing? Your call. 7) I should think if you do cut up the floor panels to fit the MGB OD gearbox rethinking the OE seats will be essential. You propose an interesting list of work. I will follow your progress with interest. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by sgives on Mar 27, 2023 18:04:16 GMT
Hi Bruce,
At last we're making progress. I was a bit too optimistic about the lack of rust; we've found some and quite a lot of filler too but it's all fixable. The MGB engine is rebuilt and I've acquired an o/d gearbox (which is fractionally longer than the original) for a lot less money than the 5-speed conversion and which will fit with very little modification, I hope...
You mentioned the ESM uprated half shafts but I wonder if anyone has fitted any other type of half shaft in the Riley axle? 1500 Midget maybe? The ESM units are definietly not cheap.
Regards,
Simon
|
|
|
Post by canuck on Mar 28, 2023 13:31:41 GMT
Simon, I am un aware of any 'tough enough' shafts to fit the Riley rear axle housing. I believe you will find the Midget shafts too short? I am interested in the floor pan modifications, and transmission crossmember engineering you will need to do to fit the OD transmission. Keep posting, with photos I may be keen to follow. B
|
|
|
Post by jonnyb on Sept 3, 2023 11:20:26 GMT
Any news on this?
|
|