DuttonOwners

Dutton Kit Cars and their owners

29th November 1972 (2)

My mate and the cars we bought BT 136 and BT 137 both blue in the yard outside Dutton's factory, early days

Rating:
  • Currently 0/5 stars.

Views: 220

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of DuttonOwners to add comments!

Join DuttonOwners

Comment by Andrew Griffiths on June 1, 2017 at 13:13
Great posts on the B Type just the best Dutton ever built. I have to say Johns B sort of set me on the Dutton road as it was such a stunning original car not messed about with all period. They are after all a lotus S4 on a budget keep it original with trumph or ford power, smiths clocks, alloy sides, black and whites number plates and period wheels. You wouldnt messed up an S4 by modernising it so you shouldn't a Dutton either.

I am restoring P1005 with genuine Sprite 1098 a Series, four speed close ratio box, smith clocks and Dunlop D1 wheels on Michelin XAS radials, it will look like did when it rolled out of the pig shed in 1970.
Comment by Tony on May 31, 2017 at 10:24

John, thank you - that is very interesting and will probably surprise a few people.

Comment by John Tighe on May 31, 2017 at 9:05
Ok so here are the words as written in the original build sheet, "Rear Spring" Using a 6 inch G clamp dismantle leaf spring. Re-assemble with the 4th and 6th longest leaf upside down and UNDER the two main leaves. That is word for word and is for a standard Herald spring, so this gives a negative camber on the rear, handling is in my opinion good and I have never experienced tuck in, only doing something silly will cause tuck in, yes the car can be very twitchy on rough or bumpy surfaces but that's to be expected, I have standard Spitfire shocks on the front with an anti roll bar, and Armstrong adjustable at the hardest setting on the rear, hope this gives you a good insight as to my car and he original design
Comment by Tony on May 31, 2017 at 8:24

I would be interested to know how it handles with the Triumph rear end - did you do any modifications here?

Comment by John Tighe on May 20, 2017 at 22:22
They are just there to give the roll bar extra strength, all the B Types I have seen have it but I don't think that the B+ has it, if you zoom in on my photo BT 137 you should get a better view, another fact was that in the build paper you had to cut 1 1/2 inches off the front springs, my B Type weighs in at 560 Kg
Comment by Paul Sheridan on May 20, 2017 at 18:32

Ok so what does it do? Where does it go?  any close up pictures?

Comment by Dave Adams on May 20, 2017 at 17:54

the car in front is the same style of roll bar.....

Comment by Daryl Heasman on May 20, 2017 at 17:52

All B  Types should have it ,both of mine have , unless its just the early ones

Comment by Paul Sheridan on May 20, 2017 at 16:54

As Dave has pointed out, what are those two bits of tube on the front of the roll bar? It looks like tube welded on just below the roof support bar sockets!    Never seen that before.

Comment by Tony on May 20, 2017 at 9:30

The B type is a very under - rated car.  I had BT 160 (with a 1600 Crossflow and live axle) years ago and did a lot of research then, so it is great to see all this history emerging.  

The chassis and I think all the panels are quite different from the B plus which is taller, wider and has a shorter wheelbase.  The chassis is all 1 inch square tube and the bulkhead/footwells are a riveted aluminium structure.  Very lightweight, mine worked very well, once sorted.  I'm looking for another one!

© 2017   Created by Tim Walker (The Bodger).   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service