exint2 Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 This is purely an "out of interest" enquiry. Reading an article about the TR4A launch it contained the line " at that time Triumph standardised on the Stromberg carburetor" (slightly paraphrased) - but looking at various cars throughout the run that certainly doesn't seem to be the case. Was there any rhyme or reason as to what got fitted - was it just what was lying around or was it US cars got Strombergs and UK SU's or is the propensity of SU cars now due to "upgrades" made in the last 50 years - and is there actually any practical difference between the 2 (in performance or Economy or ease of keeping in tune?) Thanks Nick Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fireman049 Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 (edited) Hi Nick ~ For ease of tuning give me an SU carburettor anytime. I believe the reason that Triumph went over to Stromberg's was due to the fact that British Layland weren't happy to supply Triumph with SU's? I'm sure Graham Robson or Mike Ellis will have the correct answer. Tom. Edited February 14, 2017 by Fireman049 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest ntc Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 My guess a/ cheaper b/ better for emissions in the us. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AndyR100 Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 Summarised as: TR4 changed from SU to Strombergs at CT16801 Strombergs remained in use until..... TR4a changed from Strombergs to SU at CTC61291 ....... Andy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nick Webster Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 As I recall, Triumph were very concerned about continuity of supply regarding SU carburettors because the company had bad labour relations and was being badly affected by strikes in the early 1960s. Delivery was patchy. The Stromburg CD (constant depression) was actually part designed and developed by Standard Triumph who I think went so far as to put money into the firm along with Zenith. Having gone to the effort of doing all that (carefully avoiding SU patents) it is of course logical to use one's own product. I would suggest that a return to SU occurred partly because that company continued to update the detail of the design and security of supply was resolved. Nick Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Graham Robson Posted February 15, 2017 Report Share Posted February 15, 2017 Nick Webster has got the Stromberg-SU scenario exactly right. The basic reason (as told to me by both Alick Dick and Harry Webster) was that SUs were manufactured by a company owned by BMC, Standard-Triumph was clearly a competitor of that combine, and the commercial implications of that situation were obvious. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
exint2 Posted February 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 Thanks Guys! Nick Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.