triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Rear suspension.

To: Andreas and Jim <diggle@clear.net.nz>, Triumph <triumphs@Autox.Team.Net>
Subject: Re: Rear suspension.
From: Steven Newell <steven@newellboys.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:36:34 -0700
References: <000a01c4c95c$79fcc780$0201a8c0@ath2200>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02
Andreas and Jim wrote:

 >What measurements do I need to do to see if the rear end of my solid axle 1962
 >TR4 has been raised.
 >The car seems to sit up at the rear, maybe it is my imagination.
 >The leaf springs have the correct no of leaves.
 >
Jim, if the springs were re-arched I suppose that might change ride
height. But I think on most TR4's the rear end looks a bit high,
probably an optical illusion. On my car, there's about 8cm between the
top of the tire (165R15) and the edge of the rear fender at the top of
the arch, but on the front there's only about 5cm -- so it *looks* like
the body is higher at the back. Second the rear wheels are a centimeter
or two inset compared to the front wheels, I don't know if that's
because of body or axle width differences. Again that gives the
appearance of the body being higher at the back. My front seems a little
low compared to other cars at shows, but the rear is about the same. The
distance from the bottom edge of the frame to the garage floor, directly
underneath my axle, is 21 cm.

-- 
Steven Newell
Littleton, CO
'62 TR4




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