Randall,
Some folks think that the rear frame bracket would have to be
moved. If it turns out I can't use them... I'll sell and buy the
correct ones.
But I always thought that the rear suspension on the TR4 and TR3
were way to stiff and very little travel. I will probe this a
little more before deciding.
Brian Sanborn
62 TR4 CT16260L - Groton, MA
My TR4 Restoration Web Site
http://www.net1plus.com/users/sanborn/Home.html
E-Mail: sanborn@net1plus.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Randall [mailto:randallyoung@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2000 3:08 AM
To: Brian Sanborn
Subject: Re: TR4 Rear Springs
Brian :
I believe the change was to improve handling (something about a
better
caster angle ? I just don't recall anymore). And, I believe they
can be
fitted to the earlier cars, if you have the spacers and U-bolts
for
them. At least, the pair hanging in my garage look like they
will fit
on my TR3, if I should ever get around to putting them on <g>
Randall
Brian Sanborn wrote:
>
> Listers,
>
> Your patience for another question.
>
> I bought 2 new rear leaf springs and links on my "parts trip".
I
> knew they were for a post CT23883 car but I bought then anyway.
> If they don't fit my CT16xxx car, I will sell them.... if they
> do I'll use them. The design seems like a better idea.... to
> add a little travel and less harshness to the rear suspension.
>
> The springs are PN 209964 which is the "deep dish" style that
> uses a distance piece under the axle. Does anyone know why
> Triumph made this design change? They came with new links...
can
> these be installed on my 1962 car... and would it be an
> improvement to the 1962 design.
>
> Piggott says there was a "minor chassis change" to accommodate
> this spring design. I assume he means a frame bracket. Just
> don't know. The guy who bought them was going to used them on a
> CT15xxx frame.
>
> Brian Sanborn
> 62 TR4 CT16260L - Groton, MA
>
> My TR4 Restoration Web Site
> http://www.net1plus.com/users/sanborn/Home.html
> E-Mail: sanborn@net1plus.com
|