Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*3\/4\"\s+vs\.\s+0\.70\"\s+rear\s+cyls\s+on\s+TR3\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*3\/4\"\s+vs\.\s+0\.70\"\s+rear\s+cyls\s+on\s+TR3\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. 3/4" vs. 0.70" rear cyls on TR3 (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 11:57:49 -500; My post-60000 3a is equipped with 3/4" rear brake cylinders. From Piggott (or maybe it was somewhere else) I was led to understand that Triumph went through many iterations of front/rear combination; /html/triumphs/1999-12/msg00706.html (7,297 bytes)
2. Re: 3/4" vs. 0.70" rear cyls on TR3 (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 10:19:05 -0800; According to the latest Moss catalog : 1) Both .75" cylinders and rebuild kits are available 2) .75" was used on TR4 to roughly CT5700, .70" after that. So the .70" was used for the majority of TR4,; /html/triumphs/1999-12/msg00708.html (7,403 bytes)
3. RE: 3/4" vs. 0.70" rear cyls on TR3 (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 13:09:31 -0700charset="iso-8859-1"; Minor correction... The latest TR6s used .75" rear brake cylinders. TRF's catalog notes this. -- Peter Zaborski CF58310UO -- (late 6 with .75" cylinders); /html/triumphs/1999-12/msg00714.html (7,206 bytes)
4. Re: 3/4" vs. 0.70" rear cyls on TR3 (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:53:09 -0800; Oops. There I go again, believing what's printed in the Moss 250/6 catalog : "Original wheel cylinders had .70" bores. Other sizes (eg .75") may have been fitted as replacements." Thanks for straight; /html/triumphs/1999-12/msg00727.html (7,110 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]