Dazzer Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 Contemplating refurbing dials on 64 TR4. Does anyone know when they changed from domed to flat glass? The existing are flat glass but might not be original. Also, where are the interior lights supposed to be situated? Missing on mine, although there are holes on the underside of the dash N/S below the glovebox and O/S below/left of steering column, could these be the fixing points for the bulb holders? Any information gratefully received Many thanks Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 Hi Dazzer, And welcome ! Your car will doubtless have had flat glass instruments originally, as a 1964 TR4 - chassis number will confirm that. From memory the change point for rhd cars was 15054, and for lhd cars 11308 . . . ? Interior lights might be considered an exaggerated description . . . footwell glimmers might be nearer the mark ? Sounds like you've found the correct location for the bulb holders, but bear in mind that they're tiddly little bulbs, only 2w apiece BA7 bayonets I think - if I'm wrong, it'll soon enough be corrected by someone more knowledgeable, I'm not that well up on TR4s. Cheers, Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TR 2100 Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 From memory the change point for rhd cars was 15054, and for lhd cars 11308 . . . ? From memory? I'm impressed - I certainly had to look in the Parts Book! As Alec says, no need to worry about numbers - as a 1964 car, certainly flat glasses, smaller instrument with flat glass and individually illuminated, later style seats etc. would be original for your car. I have had a couple of lhd TR4s with numbers around the CT17,000 mark, BOTH with early style seats and early style gauges with convex glass. One certainly not modified (one family, 35,000 miles from new), the other one very unlikely to be modified but cannot be verfied - BOTH had early style seats and early style gauges which contradicts the Parts Book. Incidentally, the Parts book lists a different number for VERY early seat cushions - anyone know what the difference was? Logically, it could have been that very early 4s had the thicker TRR3A style cushions but the part numbers given in the TR4 Parts Book do not list them as being the same as the 3A. AlanR Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Hi Alan, Nothing to be impressed about, I had reason to check the numbers a few months back, and I have an irritating habit of retaining useless numbers in my memory . . . A regards your comments on later cars with earlier fitments. I don't think there's anything particularly unusual in that, given the strike and strife torn nature of the British Motor Industry during the 1960s and 70s, and the proverbial cash flow problems of Leyland/Standard Triumph and later BL. If cash flow is approaching meltdown, then what do you do ? Start looking at anything and everything in stock to see what can be categorised temporarily surplus or overstock component - and then utilise it in the interests of getting cars out and cash in . . . It only needed one hiccup in supply, industrial action or cash flow, from a component manufacturer, and the car production line would be raiding stores for anything that could reasonably be made to fit. The Vauxhall factory at Ellesmere Port was notorious for this, HA and HB Vivas of the early and mid-60s in particular - basic models coming off the line with fitments from the better specified models, for example, because that was all that was available. Quarter of a century on, and Astras and Cavaliers were prone to anomalous front suspension and brake fitments for simple reasons of irregular component supply. The Rootes Arrow range was another instance, late 60s/early 70s Minx, Hunter, Gazelle, Vogue and Sceptre often had anomalous fittings of all descriptions - commandeered from another model of the range. Needs must and all that. Cheers, Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stuart Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Hi Alan, Nothing to be impressed about, I had reason to check the numbers a few months back, and I have an irritating habit of retaining useless numbers in my memory . . . A regards your comments on later cars with earlier fitments. I don't think there's anything particularly unusual in that, given the strike and strife torn nature of the British Motor Industry during the 1960s and 70s, and the proverbial cash flow problems of Leyland/Standard Triumph and later BL. If cash flow is approaching meltdown, then what do you do ? Start looking at anything and everything in stock to see what can be categorised temporarily surplus or overstock component - and then utilise it in the interests of getting cars out and cash in . . . It only needed one hiccup in supply, industrial action or cash flow, from a component manufacturer, and the car production line would be raiding stores for anything that could reasonably be made to fit. The Vauxhall factory at Ellesmere Port was notorious for this, HA and HB Vivas of the early and mid-60s in particular - basic models coming off the line with fitments from the better specified models, for example, because that was all that was available. Quarter of a century on, and Astras and Cavaliers were prone to anomalous front suspension and brake fitments for simple reasons of irregular component supply. The Rootes Arrow range was another instance, late 60s/early 70s Minx, Hunter, Gazelle, Vogue and Sceptre often had anomalous fittings of all descriptions - commandeered from another model of the range. Needs must and all that. Cheers, Alec And it keeps us restorers on our toes as well! Stuart. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ianc Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 According to Phil Biggott's "Original Triumph TR4/4A/5/6", "initially convex glasses were used for all instruments, but these were replaced by flat glasses from car numbers CT11307 (left-hand drive) and CT15053 (right-hand drive)". That said, variations do occur because something may have been to hand, or not! It seems that Alec's memory has not been completely demolished by an access of incohol! Ian Cornish Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dazzer Posted June 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Hi Dazzer, And welcome ! Your car will doubtless have had flat glass instruments originally, as a 1964 TR4 - chassis number will confirm that. From memory the change point for rhd cars was 15054, and for lhd cars 11308 . . . ? Interior lights might be considered an exaggerated description . . . footwell glimmers might be nearer the mark ? Sounds like you've found the correct location for the bulb holders, but bear in mind that they're tiddly little bulbs, only 2w apiece BA7 bayonets I think - if I'm wrong, it'll soon enough be corrected by someone more knowledgeable, I'm not that well up on TR4s. Cheers, Alec Thank you for the info, flat glass it is then. Footwell glimmer sounds rather disappointing, hardly seems worth reinstating, although might have been handy for illuminating the wiper wheel boxes which I recently replaced! Thanks once again Cheers Dazzer Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MikeF Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Hi Alan, Nothing to be impressed about, I had reason to check the numbers a few months back, and I have an irritating habit of retaining useless numbers in my memory . . . A regards your comments on later cars with earlier fitments. I don't think there's anything particularly unusual in that, given the strike and strife torn nature of the British Motor Industry during the 1960s and 70s, and the proverbial cash flow problems of Leyland/Standard Triumph and later BL. If cash flow is approaching meltdown, then what do you do ? Start looking at anything and everything in stock to see what can be categorised temporarily surplus or overstock component - and then utilise it in the interests of getting cars out and cash in . . . It only needed one hiccup in supply, industrial action or cash flow, from a component manufacturer, and the car production line would be raiding stores for anything that could reasonably be made to fit. The Vauxhall factory at Ellesmere Port was notorious for this, HA and HB Vivas of the early and mid-60s in particular - basic models coming off the line with fitments from the better specified models, for example, because that was all that was available. Quarter of a century on, and Astras and Cavaliers were prone to anomalous front suspension and brake fitments for simple reasons of irregular component supply. The Rootes Arrow range was another instance, late 60s/early 70s Minx, Hunter, Gazelle, Vogue and Sceptre often had anomalous fittings of all descriptions - commandeered from another model of the range. Needs must and all that. Cheers, Alec I would not claim to ahve the insider/informed knowledge of Alec, but was an irregualr visitor to the factory and development areas of various motor companies in the 70s (still visit component suppliers). I can only say taht Alec's memory is correct but rosy - I've stood in earshot of factory manager going through list of the day's end of line faults and saying (polite version) "I don't really mind too much if it hasn't got any ...drivers door glass...doors.... carburettor....etc - please just send it out , it'll be a dealer rectification"! Such was the pressure to keep the output numbers looking good. This was in management culture in BL BLMC etc and never eliminated till Rover finally imploded, in direct contrast to other companies and their own suppliers such as Lucas/TRW etc [who were in direct competition with overeas component suppliers for non BL business] Mike 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.