Howdy,
I think all 4A's (well, at least my 4A) have/has the rear brackets in place
for the leaf spring/solid axle arrangement. The front bracket bolts on the
frame where the outer trailing arm mount goes. In theory, at least, an IRS
car could be converted to solid axle by simply removing the coil
spring/diff. mounting "bridge piece" from the frame and adding the proper
bits. (I gotta say, it's a painful thought...)
It never ceases to amaze me how much Triumph did with so little! What other
car ever offered a choice of suspension types on the same basic frame?!?
I just want to add for the TR6 guys out there that they shouldn't take TR4
(and 4A) owners pride in their cars as a slam on the 6. It's just that too
many folks (especially Americans) often labor under the illusion that bigger
(i.e. 6cyl vs 4cyl) is always better/faster. Tain't so.
I love all Triumphs and I would own a copy of every single type from 1923 to
1980 if I could! (I think Andy M. is about 1/2 way there!)
The cars we missed in America! A 2.5PI Saloon! I'd love to get a drive in a
16v Dolly Sprint! Vitesse MKII! A Herald Estate! Oh to have the $35k to buy
that Triumph Gloria Foursome Coupe on the VTR classifieds website!
Sorry, I'm foaming at the mouth now, raving wild eyed...I have to work now.
Good thread. :>)
Chris Lillja
'66 TR4A
'74 Norton Commando 850
'71 Spit MKIV
http://members.aol.com/lilljaweb/index.html
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-triumphs@autox.team.net
[mailto:owner-triumphs@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of ArthurK101@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 1:24 PM
To: spitlist@gte.net
Cc: triumphs@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: TR4's vs 6's
In a message dated 23-Jun-99 12:34:13 Eastern Daylight Time,
spitlist@gte.net
writes:
> I was under the impression that all TR4A's rolled down the assembly line
> with both Live axle and IRS rear suspension packages bolted on at some
> stage of the buildup and not down different assembly lines. This means
> that the TR4A frames were made to adapt to either live axle or IRS
> suspensions depending on the dealer (or owner) preference.
>
> Was the TR4A frame redesigned to accomodate both assemblies over the TR4
> which only had the Live Axle, or am I "All Wet"?
>
Joe, good point. Remember that the TR4A frame was DESIGNED FOR IRS. IRS
could not be accomodated on the older TR2/3 or TR4 chassis and when Triumph
decided to go to IRS they had to redesign the frame. They only went to
"live
axle" TR4A after much pressure from N. American dealers. The frames for a
TR4 and a TR4A look completely different. (The TR4 and TR4A body tub and
most panels are identical. Trim is a little different.)
BTW - The TR4A frame also continued right on through the TR6.
According to all my references -- the "live axle" TR4A was a MODIFIED TR4A
frame. To modify the new, AS DESIGNED, TR4A frame new brackets (to fit
the
older type semi-elliptic springs) needed to be welded on the chassis rails
AND the welded larger bridge piece (designed, as an integral part of the
frame, for the independent springs and axles of the IRS) in the rear of the
TR4A frame was removed so that the solid axle could go across the chassis.
BUT it does make sense that they would just not install (weld) the
bridgepiece but instead leave it off and weld on the brackets for the older
type springs. What ever they did it still was a MODIFIED TR4A frame. When
the chassis rolled off it was either IRS or "live axle." Hence the comm #
was applied as CTC or CT.
I said nothing about different TR4A assembly lines and don't think that
would
have been necessary or desired. Maybe Jonmac can give us the real scoop on
EXACTLY when and how they modified the TR4A frames to accept the "live
axle."
Cheers.
Art Kelly
|