[Fot] TR3 front end conversion to TR6 parts: Camber - moving the ball joint inward

[John Styduhar]

I would still go with the TR6 lower trunnion and control arms because the
diameter of the threaded end on the TR6 vertical link is larger and more
robust for competition use.  Using the TR6 trunnion also lowers the front
end an inch which makes the car sit more manly.

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Bill <ponobill at gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually the late TR4 trunnions with caster seem to be more easily
> available and they have the pressed in shaft. At least that used to be the
> case as I recall. I have those trunnions in Peyote.
>
> On May 22, 2016, at 3:36 AM, John Styduhar <johnstydo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jack, if you are going to do this conversion you will also need to acquire
> the later model lower control arms (or modify your lower control arms if
> possible) because the trunnion assembly for a TR6 uses a thru bolt and not
> the shaft type on the earlier TRs.  You will also need to retrofit the
> inner lower control arm bushings from the later model onto the TR3 mounting
> points. Everything will bolt together.
>
> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 1:34 AM, Jack Brooks <JIBrooks at live.com> wrote:
>
>> I am hoping to upgrade the front suspension on my (street/AutoX) TR3 this
>> summer by changing out the upper A-arm, vertical link and trunnion to TR6
>> parts.  I will use “the” Jag ball joint and shim it as required.  Due to
>> the complexity of shortening the upper A-arm or moving the inner pivot
>> point inward, I am considering welding an extension to the upper A-Arm ball
>> joint mounting tabs on the inside to mount the ball joint further inward
>> and produce a similar result to shortening the A-arm.  I have not removed
>> my TR3 A-Arms yet, but it appears there is room to move the ball joint
>> inward at least an inch in this way.  I know I can’t go as far as those of
>> you who have shortened the upper arms, but it seems like it could be a
>> decent compromise.  I am concerned though, as this seems too easy.  None of
>> you guys have done it. Instead you have shortening the upper arms which,
>> from what I have read, is challenging, as is moving the inner pivot point
>> and retaining substantial structure.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, the question is. . . . . . . Why is simply moving the ball joint
>> further inboard not a good solution?  What am I missing?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>>
>>
>> Jack
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fot at autox.team.net
>>
>> http://www.fot-racing.com
>>
>> Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
>> Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
>> Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
>> Unsubscribe/Manage:
>> http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/fot/johnstydo@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> fot at autox.team.net
>
> http://www.fot-racing.com
>
> Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
> Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
> Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
> Unsubscribe/Manage:
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/fot/bill@ponostyle.com
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://autox.team.net/pipermail/fot/attachments/20160522/bb0c001e/attachment-0001.htm>