>Did I read correctly this past week on the list that someone stated to
>shift the TR6 into reverse you needed to lift up on the lever? I've
>owned TR6 since 1974 and none of them were like this.
>
Pete, here. I'm the one responsible for the lifting into reverse thing,
and well, I've brought proof. From a February 1969 Car and Driver article
on the then new, of course, TR6.
"... We don't much like the mightly lifting motion required to gain
entrance to the reverse slot. The driver has to lean over to the middle of
the car (which isn't very far) just to get the required anatomical
leverage."
Now, as I said in my original posting on this matter, it is not unusual to
find a car that does not require this lifting motion. Much of the time my
car goes in without lifting, or with only a very slight lift. The step in
the gearchange mechanism which effects this gets rounded off a little, and
so many times you won't need to lift. Also the spring involved weakens
with age... maybe that's the main cause. Furthermore, I knew a guy once
with a TR6 who broke something in the linkage as a direct result of NOT
lifting. He just kept pushing. His particular car was not worn as much,
apparently.
Jeff Nathanson, who asked the list about his car's reluctance to shifting
into reverse, was afraid that he was in line for an overhaul or something.
He e-mailed me back saying that now that he lifts, it always slips right
in.
Thanks,
Pete Chadwell
|