Received: from sioux.hosts.netdirect.net.uk ([195.7.224.43]) by
prserv.net (in3) with ESMTP id <2001012800313610302uoif3e>; Sun, 28
Jan 2001 00:31:37 +0000
Received: from jonmac (th-pm07-39.ndirect.co.uk [195.7.228.167]) by
sioux.hosts.netdirect.net.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id
AAA01922 for <joemato@attglobal.net>; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 00:31:33 GMT
From: "John Macartney" <jonmac@ndirect.co.uk>
To: <joemato@attglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Strombergs on TR's
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 00:30:36 -0000
>Didn't the use of Strombergs come about because Triumph didn't want
>to support SU as they were part of BMC? Also,please write out
FWIW,been
>trying to figure it out for a while(too long).
Hi, Joe
It was more the other way about in that BMC who owned SU didn't want
to support Triumph. Quite apart from using SU carbs on many BMC cars,
the company also had a substantial level of output to other
manufacturers in the UK - Jaguar, as well as Volvo in Sweden for the
Amazon range. Because of this, their production was stretched and they
wanted to find ways of partly if not completely reducing it. The
development of the Stromberg was timely for Standard Triumph and on
the longer term worked to its advantage. With the arrival of smog
legislation in 1968 in CA, the SU clearly demonstrated that it wasn't
the ideal carb in its original form and this saw much major reworking
taking place. The Stromberg however proved to be more emissions
compliant, though the units used before the introduction of air pumps
had some major differences on US cars than on those used for other
markets.
I find the condemnatory observations of some listers towards the
Strommie rather curious. In many ways it's a far better unit, though
its only fairly consistent drawback is the weakness of the dashpot
diaphragm.
Hope this helps
Cheers
John
///
/// triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
///
|