triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: GT6 rear suspension.

To: Rik Back <rback@env-comp.devon-cc.gov.uk>
Subject: Re: GT6 rear suspension.
From: Andrew Mace <amace@unix2.nysed.gov>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 10:02:50 +0500 (EST)
Cc: "'Triumphs'" <triumphs@Autox.Team.Net>
On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Rik Back wrote:

> Hi everyone, I have a 72 spitfire tub / chassis with the front end and
> interior of a GT6-III (Engine gearbox, suspension, steering, brakes
> etc), I wanted to swap the GT6 rotoflex over as well but there are two
> brackets missing on the spitfire chassis and two locating holes blanked
> on the bodytub, I could have these measured / made / fitted but .... i
> was reading the other day that towards the end of the GT6-III BL ditched
> the rotoflex because of cost and fitted the last 4000 odd cars with the
> spitfire IVswing spring suspension. Has anyone any experience of this
> setup, should i bother ( the rotoflex is in a bit of a state and needs
> much work ) or is the gain of little consequence and i should leave the
> existing swing spring (overhauled only two years ago)  alone? 

How about locating a pair of those late GT6 Mk.3 axles complete and using
them with the swing-spring? That way you'd get the relatively inexpensive
benefit of the swing-spring setup in a bolt-in operation, plus you'd get
the wider rear track and larger rear brakes. (Make sure you use the fatter
front sway bar that goes with the swing-spring setup.)

The Roto-flex might be somewhat better, but it involves a fair bit of work
to adapt (as you know).

--Andy

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Andrew Mace, President and                *
*   10/Herald/Vitesse (Sports 6) Consultant *
* Vintage Triumph Register                  *
* amace@unix2.nysed.gov                     *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


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