Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*TR4\'s\s+vs\s+6\'s\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*TR4\'s\s+vs\s+6\'s\s*$/: 16 ]

Total 16 documents matching your query.

1. TR4's vs 6's (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 21:32:00 EDT; I'm a long-time 6 owner who is presently looking at a 65 TR4. Needs work but not a total restore. Aside from the stylish Michelotti body, does anyone out there speak strongly for this model? Some cal; /html/triumphs/1999-06/msg01171.html (7,273 bytes)
2. Re: TR4's vs 6's (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 22:07:45 -0400; John, TR-4's are the best cars Triumph ever built. (Actually, I may be a bit biased as I've got one running, one not, and enough parts to build a few more.) Brian; /html/triumphs/1999-06/msg01172.html (7,860 bytes)
3. Re: TR4's vs 6's (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 21:40:30 -0500charset="iso-8859-1"; John, I bought a red TR4 around 15 years ago and drove it as a daily driver summer and winter for three years both in St. Louis and Omaha. now own a 1976 TR6 and can saw they both have their unique p; /html/triumphs/1999-06/msg01175.html (8,290 bytes)
4. Re: TR4's vs 6's (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 20:05:25 -0700 (PDT); No, not much difference mechanically- but that body makes quite a difference. The spare tire is in the trunk, not in a cubby. The hood (bonnet) is bigger, and lets you get at more of the engine. It's; /html/triumphs/1999-06/msg01177.html (8,917 bytes)
5. Re: TR4's vs 6's (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:26:25 -0400; John, IMHO a good running TR4 has the same or more power than most TR6's especially in the torque dept. I've owned several TR3's, TR4's and sixes and my favorite still is a live axle TR4. TR4 not 4A; /html/triumphs/1999-06/msg01183.html (8,660 bytes)
6. RE: TR4's vs 6's (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:24:08 -0400; Can it be made into a lively little car? Any John, Wait a moment while I take the knife out of my heart. I have owned a new TR4 in 1962 and new TR6 in 1972. I have longed for all my life to have a TR; /html/triumphs/1999-06/msg01187.html (8,627 bytes)
7. Re: TR4's vs 6's (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 13:24:47 EDT; << have owned a new TR4 in 1962 and new TR6 in 1972. I have longed for all my life to have a TR4 again and have all but forgotten the TR6 as just another car I owned. The rigid axle TR4 with the supe; /html/triumphs/1999-06/msg01207.html (8,572 bytes)
8. Re: TR4's vs 6's (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 14:06:03 EDT; John, all TR's are "transition models." The acceleration and speed of the TR4/4A'a DO "measure up." (0-60 in 10.5 sec for a TR4 is not anything to be dismissed - according to some reports the TR4A is; /html/triumphs/1999-06/msg01211.html (9,628 bytes)
9. Re: TR4's vs 6's (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 14:28:53 EDT; John, in my last answer to you I was comparing the TR4A to the TR6. My reason was that only 250 TR4's were built in '65. You said that the car was a '65. Check the Comm number on the car that you are; /html/triumphs/1999-06/msg01213.html (7,762 bytes)
10. Re: TR4's vs 6's (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:08:51 EDT; Ed, you are partially correct. CTC means IRS. TR4 comm numbers run from CT1 to CT40304 (NO CTC for TR4's). All TR4's were "live axle" since the frame is basically a widened TR3 frame. No TR4's were e; /html/triumphs/1999-06/msg01260.html (9,198 bytes)
11. Re: TR4's vs 6's (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:20:17 -0600; I was under the impression that all TR4A's rolled down the assembly line with both Live axle and IRS rear suspension packages bolted on at some stage of the buildup and not down different assembly l; /html/triumphs/1999-06/msg01263.html (10,371 bytes)
12. Re: TR4's vs 6's (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:02:40 -0700charset="iso-8859-1"; Joe, Art, and List, Having pulled apart my 65 4A CTC 53**L (damn, no "O") for restoration, I can address this issue. There are many small diferences between a TR6 and TR4a frame, ost dealing with the; /html/triumphs/1999-06/msg01267.html (10,605 bytes)
13. Re: TR4's vs 6's (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 13:23:33 EDT; Joe, good point. Remember that the TR4A frame was DESIGNED FOR IRS. IRS could not be accomodated on the older TR2/3 or TR4 chassis and when Triumph decided to go to IRS they had to redesign the frame; /html/triumphs/1999-06/msg01269.html (9,498 bytes)
14. Re: TR4's vs 6's (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:45:55 -0700; Hi John, Up front, know that I am biased! However, I bought my 4 back before they were even slightly collectible. I like the simplicity of the 4. The solid rear axle gives a stiffer ride, but superb; /html/triumphs/1999-06/msg01277.html (10,433 bytes)
15. Re: TR4's vs 6's (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 14:52:24 EDT; << snip >> The TR4A "bell and A" frame is also not as stiff as the earlier TR4 frame. The TR4A frame has more torsional flex which is why some racers prefer the earlier frame. Cheers. Art Kelly; /html/triumphs/1999-06/msg01278.html (7,892 bytes)
16. Re: TR4's vs 6's (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 14:52:23 EDT; OK, OK, I started this and I'm still having fun. Let's take a look at what we have. 1) ALL TR's (TR2 -TR6) are transitional. That means that changes (some more significant than others) occurred throu; /html/triumphs/1999-06/msg01279.html (10,426 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 16
Page: [1]