[BOUNCE triumphs@Autox.Team.Net: Non-member submission from [Giles Nelson
<Giles.Nelson@cl.cam.ac.uk>]]
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 18:23:05 +0100
From: Giles Nelson <Giles.Nelson@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Rear suspension and uprated shock absorbers
My 1973 TR6 is in for its yearly test, and my friendly TR garage
have pointed out that the rear shock absorbers have reached
the end of their useful life. They are Armstrong lever arms.
They recommend the fitting of telescopic shock absorbers, secured to an
additional mounting bracket which needs to be welded to the chassis.
Another TR garage that I've used doesn't recommend telescopic shocks at
the back - rather uprated Armstrongs.
As I'm not particularly concerned with originality, and am happy with
reasonable
modern improvements, my feeling is that telescopics would do a better job, and
apparently they also last longer. Obviously they should be chassis mounted -
the alternative of body mountings sounds very dodgy! Furthermore, the choice
in telescopic dampers seems to be between Spax and Koni. My perception is that
Koni have the edge on quality, but Spax are adjustable. I won't be modifying
the suspension settings so post-fitting adjustability isn't important.
I'd be pleased to hear anyone's opinions on this.
In addition, it seems an appropriate time to consider uprating other parts
of the suspension, i.e. springs and bushes. I've read the recent
Polyurethane or Nylatron? (Shane F. Ingate) thread with interest, and the
consensus certainly seems to be that plastic bushes are better than rubber.
I'd like to make the handling rather tauter (perhaps in preparation for
some engine tuning work next year) but do not want to forsake ride quality.
Do I therefore need uprated springs as well?
What are your suggestions?
Many thanks,
Giles Nelson.
|