Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Fot\]\s+Coil\s+Overs\s+at\s+the\s+Rear\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Fot\]\s+Coil\s+Overs\s+at\s+the\s+Rear\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [Fot] Coil Overs at the Rear (score: 1): Author: Charles WATSON <clw2000@msn.com>; Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:05:33 -0500 FILETIME=[E964DA10:01CDDDF1]; Friends: I see a lot of folks in various marquees (including Triumphs) using coil-over shocks in the rear to supplement a tired leaf-spring. I noticed Ratco is selling this as an upgrade to the TR su; /html/fot/2012-12/msg00238.html (9,091 bytes)
2. Re: [Fot] Coil Overs at the Rear (score: 1): Author: Vince G <vangoughv@hotmail.com>; Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:59:36 -0500; Charles, there are some set ups out there for the GT6 if you want a completely new/more modern set up. I think PRI sells what looks like a good conversion. Im on a budget so I took the 15 dollar rout; /html/fot/2012-12/msg00239.html (11,542 bytes)
3. Re: [Fot] Coil Overs at the Rear (score: 1): Author: Christopher Bock <SeaCubeCo@aol.com>; Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:48:40 -0500; I did see the conversion from PRI. It looks sweet and cool. If I had the green I would go for it. But... What about using coil overs and just a single leaf. Use the coil over to do the ride hight and; /html/fot/2012-12/msg00241.html (13,273 bytes)
4. Re: [Fot] Coil Overs at the Rear (score: 1): Author: Charles WATSON <clw2000@msn.com>; Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:39:31 -0500; The question I am asking myself is: If this is a good idea then why didn't Triumph build them that way when they first went to rotoflex (minor clearance issues aside)? It's not like the technology wa; /html/fot/2012-12/msg00244.html (14,419 bytes)
5. Re: [Fot] Coil Overs at the Rear (score: 1): Author: Chuck Gee <chasgee@aol.com>; Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:04:06 -0800; Most of us haven't done this because of a rules limitation. Make sure you check with the organization you plan on racing with before spending the money. Chuck clearance do this figure _______________; /html/fot/2012-12/msg00246.html (15,993 bytes)
6. Re: [Fot] Coil Overs at the Rear (score: 1): Author: Jason Ostrowski <jason@multivintage.com>; Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:09:16 -0600; Unfortunately/ fortunately, there are lots of answers to these questions. The pri independent rear looks neat.... but coil over shocks are specifically mentioned as "not allowed" with all the vintag; /html/fot/2012-12/msg00249.html (10,998 bytes)
7. Re: [Fot] Coil Overs at the Rear (score: 1): Author: Bobby Whitehead <igofaster@att.net>; Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 07:39:08 -0800 (PST); As far a coil overs on the rear of a GT6? I'm not an engineer buy on the MKII and MKIII the shock towere is on the inside of the wheel well... I don't think there is enough clearance without major mo; /html/fot/2012-12/msg00259.html (14,822 bytes)
8. Re: [Fot] Coil Overs at the Rear (score: 1): Author: Chuck Gee <chasgee@aol.com>; Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 07:44:24 -0800; Just use the Spitfire mounting points to get the clearance. You might need to find the brackets that mount to the frame. Chuck MKII think adapt inside from and the the trailer _______________________; /html/fot/2012-12/msg00260.html (16,958 bytes)
9. Re: [Fot] Coil Overs at the Rear (score: 1): Author: "Barr, Scott" <sbarr@McCarty-Law.com>; Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:52:09 +0000; I feel sure Joe Curry will chime in here, but some part of that solution might be what's available on his web page. http://spitlist.info/Shock.Mounts.htm No provision for coil-overs there, though the; /html/fot/2012-12/msg00261.html (10,948 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]