I've a new chassis with outriggers already fit to it.
I've also new sills to attach. When trial fitting the
sills to the chassis I found a 1/4" gap where the
outer end of the front outrigger is not covered by the
lower "flange" from the sill:
After checking with the vendors I've been assured that
the supplied parts are correct.
I've looked at two different Healeys and seen two
different solutions. BOTH claim to be untouched
originals.
One makes the "adjustment" at the top, setting the
sill down into the outrigger.
The other makes the "adjustment at the bottom. The
sides of the outriggers have a wedge cut out and the
bottoms bent up and welded into place giving a flat
bottom level with the bottoms of the sills.
For what it is worth, the "top" adjusted one is a
later model BJ8, the "bottom" one an early BJ8 with
single turn signals. Both photos are of the right hand
side, but one looks forward while the other looks
back. Both right and left sides of both cars show
similar treatment.
My own car is a very late 1967 BJ8.
Pictures posted along with this messages as a topic in
the Healey discussions on the British Car Forum:
www.Britishcarforum.com
It seems that "notching" the front outrigger and
lowering the sill 1/4" that way would be both easier
and consistent with the later BJ8 I've seen...
But I am worried about the sills alignment and keeping
to the required 3" measure from the top of the
outriggers to the top of the sills. Will this approach
cause problems for the mounting of the doors and their
alignment and "gaps" relative to the other body
panels?
Leaving the outrigger tops alone and maintaining the
sill heights would seem better for door mounting.
Should I:
a) Weld a little plate in to cover the gap, and not
chop up the outriggers.
b) Notch the tops and drop the sills to cover the gap
as per later BJ8s seem to do.
c) "Flatten" the ends of the outriggers cutting wedges
from their sides and bring the the bottom up to match
the sill bottoms as the earlier one seem to do.
d) Leave them open?!??
e) buy an MG.....
I think my preference is for c) but....
Has anyone else encountered this problem?
What is the recommended solution?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
|