triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TR] Non-synchro gearbox

To: Bob Labuz <yellowtr@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: [TR] Non-synchro gearbox
From: John Macartney <flywheelcoventry1@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:56:54 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: "triumphs@autox.team.net" <triumphs@autox.team.net>
Delivered-to: mharc@autox.team.net
Delivered-to: triumphs@autox.team.net
References: <018f01cdf433$69572280$3c056780$@uprichard.net> <50F72722.4080203@adelphia.net>
Bob Labuz wrote:
<I sort of wish all Triumphs retained this setup.>
 
I also
sort of wish Triumphs retained many other features that were abandoned on
purely cost grounds - like:
 
being able to drain rear axles instead of
assuring the customer "the oil was good for life."
Removing flitch panels in
critical places that accelerated rust
Fitting smaller radiators
Fitting
inadequate sized front brakes on FWD saloons, then fitting a booster to
improve braking
Using inferior quality alloys on the Slant 4 and Stag engines
- until reliability issues forced the upgrade as specified by Engineering
 
the list is a long one. I wish I could remember some of the rest of it :)
 
Jonmac

** triumphs@autox.team.net **

Archive: http://www.team.net/archive

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