TR3 or TR4 ?

[Kral]

Hello,

 

I'm a Belgian guy of 25 who would like to buy together with his dad an old english sports car to use during week-ends. As we love Triumph cars we hesitate between a TR3A and a TR4.

 

My favourite one is the TR3A. I like the roadster style and its suggestive body. My father prefers the TR4 because it can be used more easily for longer trips (for example due to the improved watertightness of the top).

 

So here is my question : Is it possible to drive 300 miles a day with a TR3A to go on holiday ? Do you drive on the motorway with your TR3A ? Is it really a problem if it rains ? Would a TR4 perform a much better job ?

 

Thanks a lot for your answers !

 

Alex

[marvmul]

The TR4 is a lot more comfortable, so the question is how much comfort do you or does your father need? The cars are very much the same mechanical wise. I would not exclude the TR4A : a well sorted original TR4A is a pleasure to drive. A surrey top can be fitted to a TR4 - TR4A : that's a very nice feature to have, much better than a hardtop (TR2-TR3A).

On the other hand, I went to Tchechie with my freshly restored TR3 in 2000, and we had no complaints about the lack of comfort.

[tr3timme]

Hi, Alex: The 3A is more exposed and it probably leaks more than a 4 (through the doors, under the windscreen and via the sidescreens, for example. But if you are prepared to rough it just a little, put on extra layers of clothing and waterproofs, it's reasonable enough and you do get a different experience of direct contact with mother nature!

I've had my 3 for 32 years and haven't actually used windscreen, sidescreens or roof on it, since 2001. In these 6 years I've taken the car to Le Mans a number of times, to Jabbeke, round the Nurburgring, etc. and can say that the 3/3A is a car which can be happily driven at 80 or 90 miles an hour for hours - so don't worry about motorway driving. When I come back from Le Mans, I generally leave Maison Blanche around 7am, go straight through to Calais and straight on up to Newcastle - back by 9pm. and still feel I and the car could go on for more. I think that's around 580 miles - so no need to worry about comfort. Just wear a good bobble hat and - when it rains - goggles!

I've never had a 4 - but I like them a lot. Maybe the only real difference is that you get a little less buffeting in a 4....

Tim.

[Richardtr3a]

The TR3 is a quite different experience. There is more noise, more draughts, no wind up windows and a general lack of creature comforts. But if it is only a fun car for high days and holidays, these shortcomings will only enhance the experience.

I have had my 3A for over 40 years and it is still good fun. It copes well with long distances. These cars are only at a disadvantage when driving next to enormous european lorries in the rain, in particular leaving Dover harbour at the end of a trip. Thats when you need the Volvo.

[North London Mike]

Hello,

 

I'm a Belgian guy of 25 who would like to buy together with his dad an old english sports car to use during week-ends. As we love Triumph cars we hesitate between a TR3A and a TR4.

 

My favourite one is the TR3A. I like the roadster style and its suggestive body. My father prefers the TR4 because it can be used more easily for longer trips (for example due to the improved watertightness of the top).

 

So here is my question : Is it possible to drive 300 miles a day with a TR3A to go on holiday ? Do you drive on the motorway with your TR3A ? Is it really a problem if it rains ? Would a TR4 perform a much better job ?

 

Thanks a lot for your answers !

 

Alex

 

 

Alex

I had the same debate, its a good game

 

Both are nice. I came from the dark side of sidescreen cars (Hot 1340 cc Frogeye) and quite often did 300+ in a day and once did 800 driving two hour shifts. So a good 3 would be just as able

 

But in the real world the four is better and the reason it replaced the 3. You can wind up the windows, lock it, waterproof it, drive it longer faster etc.

 

Its just more useable BUT the 3 is great fun ...................pay your money, take your choice !

[jean]

Alex, come with your father and see the Belgian TR Register, not supposed to join if it doen'nt please you. We are an enthusiast TR Club and will give any advise you wish. There is no discrimination to Nationality or Language, all TR freeks are welcome. To start, take some days off, and visit the International Weekend at Malvern in July, great fun, many TR's from all over Europe

[North London Mike]

Alex, visit the International Weekend at Malvern in July, great fun, many TR's from all over Europe

 

 

Jean

 

Excellent Idea

 

Just about every TR in the UK (that is owned by people that deserve them! Alec) will be there and in every sort of condition.................and most of them will have covered 300 miles to get there! Case proven

[Don Elliott]

When I drove to Oregon, we were driving 550 to 600 miles a day. The driving took 6 days and we stopped a day in Yellowstone National Park. The most I ever drove my TR3A in a day was 785 miles from Springfield Ohio. I was home by 8:15 in the evening. It was motorway all the way.

 

As for rain, I'd estimate that, in 16 summers of driving (94,000 miles) in North America, my top has been up for about 4000 miles and the sidecurtains have been on for about 3000 miles. I suppose it depends what the weather is like where you live.

 

http://www.triumphest2006.com/images/clubc...tt'str3.jpg

[pfenlon]

Hi Alex,

 

The TR3A is a car of the 1950s, the TR4 a car of the 1960s. There was a lot of progress between the 50s and 60s !

 

If your father is looking for more comfort and a better ride, then probably the 4A is a better bet than the 4.

 

If you want style, the 3A wins hands down !

 

As for long distance ability . . . in the mid-1970s, when I was still 25, most of our TRs were just old sports cars. Abused, battered, beaten-up old dogs. Not such reliable, well-restored, well-maintained cars as they are today. In a 4 day weekend, Friday to Monday, we could cover 2000 miles - TR2,3,4,5,6,7 it didn't matter which. All TRs could do it. The older cars were harder work than the newer models, for sure, but not a problem.

 

Any TR, if it is in good condition and well maintained, should be able to do 300 miles in a day - no problem.

 

The only problem today is that too many TR owners have the wrong car - they shouldn't have a TR, they don't need it or deserve it. They just want a car to pose in at weekends and drive a few miles to the pub, and maybe take it to a show on a trailer !!

Hello Alec,

your not supposed to write stuff like that, you could upset someone by telling it like it is, I tried it in TRaction but they wouldnt print it, keep up the good work

regards

Peter

Good luck with finding the right TR.

 

Cheers,

 

Alec

[jean]

Don, weather in Belgium is awfull most of the time but I must say for the latest years Global Warming brought some relief . Excuse me when living at see level.

See my 3 a few month ago, but it was fun

Edited May 23, 2007 by jean

[julian c]

I often go down to the West Country and back to London in 1 day, a round trip of approx 550 miles.

 

My `3B only has aeroscreens, but you get use to the draughts very quickly and its not too bad really.

 

Reliability is no problem, apart from modern replacement parts letting me down occasionally.

 

I found that its like driving a motorbike without a crash hat and feels not too different (at times) to a go-kart.

 

For me, the coarse and (by modern standards) primitive feel of the sidescreens is the reason for their addictive appeal.

 

Oh, and they do look the biz too!

 

If I didn`t want wind in my hair, I would have bought a modern convertible.

 

For me I would definately let the heart rule the head and go for a sidescreen.

 

julian

[Ade-TR4]

Hi,

 

I'm a big fan of the TR4 and find it great for long distances (LEJOG for instance!). They are very water tight compared to earlier cars and look smart with the hood-up too. They're quite good for taller drivers too and have a good equipment spec.

 

however...the shape of the 3 (and my favourite 3A) is stunning and is a classic of the British Sports Car industry of the era.

 

You have a most enviable dilema! And I don't think you'll be disappointed with either: Both can be made to go extremely well (I have no trouble in modern traffic at all) with very mild tuning, or can be turned into monsters with help from the vast number of specialists and club knowledge. You can also "modernise" your TR to add creature comforts if that's what floats your boat.

 

I have found mine to be reliable, fun to use and rewarding to drive.

 

Happy hunting!

 

Cheers

Adey

[Andrew Smith]

Hi Alex

 

Ade and the others are right, you will not be disappointed whatever TR you choose, but TRing is not necessarily about creature comforts, and so what if you get a little (or a lot) wet on the inside with the roof up?! Skin is waterproof!

 

The sidescreen cars are no easier or harder to drive than other models over long distances; for sure you will get a bit more buffeting due to the lack of windows (and that can get tiring) but that is all part of the 50s driving experience, but hey fit sidescreens and a windbreaker if it’s a real concern.

 

I've had a number of TRs over the years 6s and 4As and they have their particular strong and weak points, but you cannot deny the aesthetic charm of the sidescreen cars.

 

Good luck!

Andrew

[ianc]

The TR4 does have a larger boot than the TR2/3, which is advantageous for longer trips. In addition, there is greater width in the cockpit.

My personal opinion is that 6 joints in the transmission line, the camber changes at the rear and the less rigid chassis hardly rate as an improvement in the move from TR4 to TR4A - but I have always driven TRs with leaf-sprung rear ends (since 1963), so am biased!

Ian Cornish

[BrianC]

The TR4 does have a larger boot than the TR2/3, which is advantageous for longer trips. In addition, there is greater width in the cockpit.

My personal opinion is that 6 joints in the transmission line, the camber changes at the rear and the less rigid chassis hardly rate as an improvement in the move from TR4 to TR4A - but I have always driven TRs with leaf-sprung rear ends (since 1963), so am biased!

Ian Cornish

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Ian. If I could only have one TR, I would have the TR4 (or at a pinch, a live axle TR4A), on the grounds of comfort, security, driveability and luggage space. However, when we were looking for a TR4 for Lynda, for the best part of a year, there were very few suitable cars for sale within reasonable viewing distance, so we compromised on the TR4A - alas IRS variety. However, Lynda is happy with it, as it reminds her of the long-lost TR4A that I owned when we first met, and in which we went on honeymoon. Although I enjoy driving it, I really can't wait to get my own TR3A back, hopefully in time for Malvern - there is nothing as enjoyable (at least in terms of driving) as a sidescreen car (of which I rate the TR3A as the best - a rare example of a model improving over it's lifetime) top-down and without sidescreens and wind-breakers! At least I don't have to worry about wind in the hair these days.

[Andrew Smith]

The TR4 does have a larger boot than the TR2/3, which is advantageous for longer trips.........

 

Ian, if you had seen TRK loaded down for Le Mans last year you might just change your mind and, you don't have to take it all out again when you get a puncture!

 

Cheers

Andrew

[stuart]

I have to agree with you Brian, my personal preference is for a sidescreen car for fun days but I do like the room and slightly improved weather protection of the Michelotti cars.

I was in the same position when I was looking for a 4 in the early 90s, I couldnt find the one I wanted anywhere at the time so instead thanks to John Sykes at TR Bitz who I was having a deal with on a 3a for a customer at the time, he persuaded me to buy a non IRS 4a which to my mind is the best of both worlds and also by way of a bonus has decent enough ground clearance to cope admirably with the country lanes in this part of the world and urban speed bumps without any grounding at all and much envyed by our local IRS owners.

Stuart.

[BrianC]

Ian, if you had seen TRK loaded down for Le Mans last year you might just change your mind and, you don't have to take it all out again when you get a puncture!

Andrew, don't forget Ian has the option of reverting 4VC to rally spec with a spare on the bootlid. I do wonder whether this might be a good idea for any of the later TRs when touring. Apart from the obvious benefit of quick access in an emergency, which is least likely to be damaged, vandalised or stolen from the bootrack - a spare wheel or luggage?

[ianc]

Yes, access to the spare wheel is easier on a TR2/3/3A, but you are limited to about 165 section tyre. The Works TR4s used alloy bootlids (without a frame) on Tulip and Alpine Rallies, but steel bootlid (with frame) and the extra spare wheel for the really bad stuff (Liège-Sofia-Liège). All three cars (3/4/6VC) have their original unframed, alloy bootlids.

 

Solid axle TR4A: the frame is waisted in the middle (as on all the IRS cars), so is not quite as strong in torsion as the TR4. However, I am not sure one would notice the difference. I can say that a TR4 chassis with the full Works Rally mods and the metal "Surrey" lid is certainly stiffer than any other TR with a chassis, unless one goes the whole hog and installs a roll bar with side arms (across the doorways) and a hoop beneath the scuttle.

 

You may be interested to know that Neil Revington has made use on 6VC of the considerable space either side of the spare wheel tray (and behind the rear wheel, inside the arch), and is able to carry a compact trolley jack (nose down into the space) on one side and a tools on the other. The mods are only visible if one looks under the wheel arches or into the boot. Cunning! Of course, one could make similar modifications to allow space for more conventional luggage in a "touring" car.

 

Ian