triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: A few questions for the TR4/TR4A experts

To: tom_winslow@email.msn.com, triumphs@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: A few questions for the TR4/TR4A experts
From: ArthurK101@aol.com
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 16:29:09 EDT
Tom, sorry I haven't answered sooner but things have been hectic here.  See 
my attempts to answer your questions in your message below.
Art Kelly


In a message dated 29-Jun-00 20:53:44 Eastern Daylight Time, 
tom_winslow@email.msn.com writes:

> 1. How may 1965 TR4As were outfitted with the optional rigid rearend and not
>  the IRS?

I have never been able to come up with that exact number.  The closest figure 
I can come up with is about 25-30%, but I have no firm evidence to attest to 
the validity of that.  The US dealers were the ones who screamed at Coventry 
to outfit the TR4A with solid axles for sale in the US.  Their reason was 
that the IRS would not sell.  The factory thought they were crazy but went 
along with it (big market).  So the dealers could order a car with a solid 
axle if the customer asked for it.  As the years went by the number of solid 
axles shipped decreased, however.  People had gotten to used to IRS as a 
viable configuration.
>  
>  2. Were there any rigid rearend TR4As in the later years (1966, 1967)
>  produced (until they ran out of inventory on the TR4 chassis)?

See above.  I would say that there were probably some because some people 
continued to not want the IRS and the solid axle engineering was in place as 
an option.  The frame for the TR4A is different (which was one of the biggest 
reasons for designating the car as TR4A).  Coventry did NOT use TR4 frames 
for the solid axle TR4A's.  They modified the TR4A frame and the attachment 
points to accept the solid axle.  TR4's had been numbered CTnnnn. TR4A's 
continued that numbering but added a C for CTCnnnn.  I find it interesting 
that Triumph considered the two cars close enough that they didn't completely 
change either the TR4 designation or the numbering prefix, except to add the 
C.  The TR4A IRS cars had the CTC commission number, as planned.   However, 
the solid axle TR4A's continued with just CT (maybe the engineers were poking 
some fun at the dealers).  BUT the numbers ("nnnn") were assigned in build 
sequence w/o regard to the CT or CTC designation.  The last TR4 was CT 40193 
(built 1/1/65), the numbers then skipped to the first production TR4A which 
was CTC 50006 (50001 thru 50005 were prototypes) and it was built on Jan 5, 
65.
>  
>  3. How many of the 1961 TR4s were actually titled as 1962s?

Difficult to say. Remember that the cars were built, then shipped to a port 
in the UK, then transported overseas, unloaded, transported to a dealer, 
prepped and then put up for sale.  This could take weeks or more.  Then the 
car would sit in the showroom for who knows how long.  Since the US dealers 
were trapped in the "new model each year" syndrome for all cars, they would 
almost certainly list the cars as whatever the model year was at the time of 
sale and register them that way.
IMO a car should be listed (and registered) as the year in which it was 
built, but that is a subject for debate.  BTW it is easy to determine the 
build date from the commission number because the records exit and are easily 
obtainable.
>  
>  3. The TR4 had the rack and pinion steering and the TR3 had the worm gear
>  type steering. Were there any early TR4s produced using the TR3 type worm
>  gear steering?

No. That was one of the big deal design features of the TR4.
>  
>  These questions came out of a discussion among several of out club members
>  (Piedmont British Motor Club) but remain answerless.

Hopefully I've shed some light on the questions.  Cheers.

Art Kelly '64 TR4 CT33118L (original owner, built 14May 64, picked up in the 
UK on 11June 64 by me)
VTR TR4 vehicle consultant

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>