On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 DANMAS@aol.com wrote:
> Conclusions? Evidently, the factory design called for lifting to go into
> reverse, but over the years, wear has made it possible to shift without
> lifting. Since most of us didn't own the cars when new, and the owners manual
> says nothing about this, we have been shifting the hard way. Wonder why
> Triumph didn't see fit to put this in the manuals? OTOH, if the slope is
> intentional, not the result of wear, then it was just meant as a means of
> preventing ACCIDENTAL shifting into reverse. Most manual transmissions I am
> aware of have a similar feature. Does anybody have a new reverse shifter that
> they can take a look at?
Wrong conclusion. I posted the following in response to this thread
several days ago, but apparently a lot of people didn't see it:
TR gearboxes through early TR6 had a step in the reverse selector that
acted as a reverse lockout. You have to lift the lever to clear the step
before you can get into reverse.
Later TR6 gearboxes have a ramp in the selector instead of the step. This
let you move the lever into reverse by applying extra pressure to the
right, but you don't have to lift.
I don't know when that change was made. Perhaps someone with a TR6 parts
manual can tell us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chip Old 1948 M.G. TC TC6710 NEMGTR #2271
Cub Hill, Maryland 1962 Triumph TR4 CT3154LO (daily driver)
fold@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us
If cars had evolved as fast as computers have, by now they'd cost a
quarter, run for a year on a half-gallon of gas, and explode once a day.
|