Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Rear\s+suspension\.\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Rear\s+suspension\.\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. Rear suspension. (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:40:48 +1300; 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; /html/triumphs/2004-11/msg00245.html (6,371 bytes)
2. Re: Rear suspension. (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:36:34 -0700; 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; /html/triumphs/2004-11/msg00249.html (7,789 bytes)
3. Re: Rear suspension. (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:49:19 -0700; List -- this was the question about a 62 TR4 with what appears to be a too tall rear ride height... Looking at some parts books it appears that at CT 23383 they went to different springs that in turn; /html/triumphs/2004-11/msg00270.html (7,944 bytes)
4. RE: Rear suspension. (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 08:59:08 -0800; But the problem would be abundantly obvious, because the rear axle would be pressed firmly against the frame even with the weight of the car on it. Assembly would also be rather tough, since you'd h; /html/triumphs/2004-11/msg00272.html (7,007 bytes)
5. Rear suspension. (score: 1): Author: Andreas and Jim <diggle@clear.net.nz>; Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:40:48 +1300; 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; /html/triumphs/2004-11/msg00801.html (6,999 bytes)
6. Re: Rear suspension. (score: 1): Author: Steven Newell <steven@newellboys.com>; Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:36:34 -0700; 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; /html/triumphs/2004-11/msg00805.html (8,442 bytes)
7. Re: Rear suspension. (score: 1): Author: Geo Hahn <ahwahnee@cybertrails.com>; Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:49:19 -0700; List -- this was the question about a 62 TR4 with what appears to be a too tall rear ride height... Looking at some parts books it appears that at CT 23383 they went to different springs that in turn; /html/triumphs/2004-11/msg00826.html (8,581 bytes)
8. RE: Rear suspension. (score: 1): Author: "Randall" <tr3driver@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 08:59:08 -0800; But the problem would be abundantly obvious, because the rear axle would be pressed firmly against the frame even with the weight of the car on it. Assembly would also be rather tough, since you'd h; /html/triumphs/2004-11/msg00828.html (7,636 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]