S2C Forum Archives
Main Section => Workshop Wisdom => 602's Musings => Topic started by: w3526602 on August 31, 2020, 05:13:10 AM
-
Hi,
I knew ... but had forgotten I knew ... if you know what I mean?
There is more room in a 109 cab than in an 88. I'm guessing an extra three or four inches, meaning room for sliding seat adjustment, and no need for a fillet between the top of the cab bulkhead and the bottom back of a truck cab roof. It has it's attractions.
Has anybody ever fitted a 109 bulkhead into an 88" tub?
OK, it will lose you space in the tub, but that is what trailers are for, and anyway, at my age, what will I want to carry, other than Wilkie?
I suggest there might be a small advantage in fitting the fuel filler hose. ??? Personally, I was quite happy with the under-seat fillers on my several S1s, but the seats on S2 and S3, discourage that idea. How did the military get round this problem? Who else continued used under-seat filling?
Underseat-fill tanks are appreciably more expensive, as are the associated filler caps, but I can probably live with that (don't tell Barbara). Extra tank under the passenger seat? Driving 300 miles up through France in the "small" hours, in a Landy, was a very pleasant experience, apart from buying fuel. You could drive for long stretches without seeing another headlamp ... and then meet dozens of truckers fleeing from the ferry port.
Assuming 2,000 miles per annum, and 20mpg, a quick bit of mental guestimating suggests I'd need to refill about once a month, but in real life I'd like to top up when the needle says half empty. Buying fuel in Milton Keynes is not a pleasant experience. Maybe I don't know my way round yet?
I'm assuming that "rear fill" (as on a 109") is a non-starter. Or is it? Besppke "belly tank"?
Anyway ... back to contriving to fit a 109 cab bulkhead into an 88 tub. ??? The easy answer, is to chop a 109 tub, and replace it with a wooden box (narrow, with "cycle" mudguards, and side-steps), but is there a more civilised way?
602
-
602, I've heard of peoples removing the seat bulkhead in 88's and replacing it with a U shaped strengthing bar. Would the tub from a 5 door just bolt on an 88? Then you just need to make a bulkhead and fuel fillers. Or just buy a 109 regular and be done with it?
-
I've thought about many ways to get the seats in a 88" further back and the fuel pipe is always in the way so you have to fit a MOD top fill tany and seats with a lift up base. So far all I've done is a flat small steering wheel :whistle
These tanks are not cheap but I think these shop bouht bars are expensive and some box tube steel you could make your own but read somewhere that in a 88" unlike a 90" the sides wont flex with nothing
-
I've thought about many ways to get the seats in a 88" further back and the fuel pipe is always in the way so you have to fit a MOD top fill tany and seats with a lift up base. So far all I've done is a flat small steering wheel :whistle
How far back do you want the seats?
The fuel tank parts [tank, filler, filler tube and rubber filler pipes] are the same on both 109" and 88" and the fuel filler cap is the same distance from the drivers door closure on both models, so it should be feasible to doctor the 88" rear body, fit the front part of the 109" body to it and still retain the swb fuel tank unaltered.
It would be a hell of a lot of work including major alterations to the galvanised body cappings and I've never done it so there are probably other odd items to consider as well - it is the main rule on any conversion that once one thing is altered there are a stream of small alterations required to get everything back together and working.
-
If you're chopping the tub about to fit the 109 tub front, why not put a std tank on the passenger side. It's only the driver who has to have the seat in the best position after all.
-
Hi,
Thanks for your thoughts. A 109" is just too big for my octogenerian requirements, which is why I sold The Aunt.
And anyway, a 109 would look silly on 88 wheels and tyres, let alone 185-14s.
Remember, the object of the exercise is to make it easy for Barbara to get into the truck ... at present she cannot get out either of the front, nor back, door of our bungalow ... she cannot lift her foot over the 3" high thresholds across the bottoms of the front doors. Our builder has it on his schedule, and "letters have been sent".
For those of you that do not know, Barbara's right arm was destroyed by a doctor when she was three days old. That is her shoulder, elbow, wrist, and grip. Her current surgeon has explained that the doctor took the right action ... yank ... if done immediately she was born, not three days later. She has never let it hold her back, dealing face to face with Secs of State, learning to drive in a Sunbeam Talbot 90 on Penang Island, and passing her test in South London after one professional lesson.
If Wittsend can find pictures of her with the ST90 on Penang , and her beaming smile after clocking 120mph round Silverstone in a Ferrari and an Aston Martin, I'd be very grateful. Just so you can see what we were up against, BEFORE her knees joined in the chorus.
602
-
If you're chopping the tub about to fit the 109 tub front, why not put a std tank on the passenger side. It's only the driver who has to have the seat in the best position after all.
A good idea :bright-idea
but with the work of putting the filler to the other side, removing the tool box, perhaps a Airportable tank might be easier
-
Very well done Barbara. Go for it. I've got sidesteps for Mrs. B to get into the Land Rover but she's only 5' 2". I don't use the driver's sidestep (yet) but lowered they deter the thoughtless door openers in car parks etc.
At the local filling station once. Sidestep 1 Citroen door 0.
-
Hi,
The cab bulkhead panel differs between the 88" and 109".
The 88" panel appears to have a hole to take the filler hose through the panel, but not the 109". The 88" "top of wheel-box also has a hole for filler hose, while the 109" has a tool box. The 88" has a "cover" behind the cab, to hide (protect?) the filler hose, but not the 109".
Doh! The 109" has a rear mounted tank ... except those that have an underseat tank.
So ... which models of 109"s had an underseat tank?
On the scale of things, the cost of a new under-seat fill tank and filler cap are going to be within budget, but how was the filler cap accessed? Easy on an S1, just unhook the leather strap, throw the cushion onto the passengers lap, spin the turn-buckle and lift the hinged flap ... and all is revealed.
But I might investigate having a rear mounted tank fabricated ... small boats often have bespoke tanks ... see the adverts in Small Boat magazine.
Slab-tank (exposed) behind the cock-pit ... as on pre-war MG Midgets. Petrol tanks must be steel, so no converted aluminium beer-kegs.
602
-
Hi again
I "done a Google". This was the first on the list of replies.
https://www.trimaxfabrications.co.uk/petrol-tanks-fabricated/
Nothing is, as yet, written in stone.
602
-
On a number of threads we have covered getting more space in the 88" drivers position and I think this thread is one.
We have covered column length, steering wheel size/type and moving the rear back in some way or removing it.
I plan to try another option of fitting much thiner seats, thinking very thin seat backs as in S1's or some race car seats or even side facing tip up seats from a rear of a station wagon, this avoids bulkhead or steering work and would be easy to reverse for future rivit counters, any thoughts :bright-idea
-
Hi Oilstain,
In Days of Yore (early 1980s?) several of my mates fitted car seats into their Series, and seemed happy. Personally, I thought they were cramming themselves too close to the steering wheel.
Those were the days when you would fit a new set of seats into your S1 ... and have a queue of people wanting to buy the "swan's nest" that you were replacing ... coz your discards were better than theirs. Thinking about it, its been many years since I've seen seats in that sort of condition.
I believe an S1 steering column is shorter than the later versions, but don't hold me to that.
I briefly wondered about fitting the power steering column from a Lancer "side-loading" fork truck. Check out your local wood yard, though I met them on a SAM site ... used to handle four tons of Bloodhound missile ... with steering you could spin with one finger. Probably overkill. The steering column was almost vertical, so not very long.
Again, briefly, I pondered on replacing to longitudal (sp?) drag link with a PAS rack and pinion laid along the chassis rail, and vertical column ... but then I stopped taking the tablets.
I'll get my coat.
602
-
I believe an S1 steering column is shorter than the later versions, but don't hold me to that.
Yes I've looked for one for one of my 86" but hard to find in good condition at a fair price and as only 1" shorter, I doubt if its worth the work and having to have the very large pinch bolt wheel.
I going to try very thin seats as a ltlle work, easy to remove option
-
Hi Oilstain,
When I was mini-cabbing (1968) I found that if I lifted the drivers seat of my Victor FB, by one inch, I could move the seat forward by one inch, without it affecting my comfort. As we were expected to sometimes carry four in the back, that gave them a smidgen more comfort.
I had to replace both rear springs on my car (funny tinkling sound as the bits of broken metal chase you down the road) and the same on several of my colleagues cars.
I think twelve mini-cabs were written of in Croydon one night ... but that was due to snow. I managed 12 months with such an incident (52,000 miles in South London) and called it a day. Third Party Hire and Reward insurance cost me three hundred and fifty quid, in 1968.
602
-
I am 6ft with long legs and to get a comfortable driving position I have followed the instructions in the green bible about raisimg the front of the seat base but I have done mine in a different way. trhe front of the case is now 2" higher and driving is much more comfortable.
Interestingly our 80" S1 is a comfortable ride in standard form perhaps because of the design and construction of the seatr bases and our 107" S1 is not bad either. We seem to have more room in the cabs of both the S1s compared withj our S2s
Peter
-
Hi,
I briefly considered moving the "buttress" that holds the front bulkhead vertical, and carries the steering box, forward, by one pitch of the three bolts that holds the buttress to the chassis rail. I think that would give you an extra 2". Of course, you'd need to find some packing between the buttress and the bulkhead ... and placate your MOT tester.
Be aware that the height of the hole in the back of the dash cubby will need to be lifted ... I'll let you work that out.
I also wondered about swapping top and bottom arms on the relay..I think they are different lengths, but assume they have the same splines. Maybe, also, two tops, or two bottoms, could be fitted. This should alter the steering ratio possibly allowing a smaller steering wheel. I did not investigate the likely results.
602
-
.... which would leave you with a radically altered vehicle and the consequences.
:RHD
-
109 regulars have the underseat fuel tanks.
:-\Just wait and get a Grenadier for the leg room and a trebouchet to get Barbara in, :agh Of course it will need to be finely tuned or she will wind up in the drivers seat and you will not get to drive! :RHD :LHD
-
finely tuned or she will wind up in the drivers seat and you will not get to drive! :RHD :LHD
Hi Geno,
Barbara would be unable to drive a car with the gear-shift on her right. We were once looking to buy some obscure but interesting car, but had to abandon the idea ... it had a right hand hand-brake. I can't remember what it was ... I suspect a Rootes Group ... but she drove a Sunbeam Alpine sports two seater .. so maybe not.
What's a trebouchet? Don't bother, nom doubt Google wil tell me
602
-
Hi again,
OK, I've got it. Medieval. it said. I thought they were more a Roman device.
602