Cockeyed

[daveargie]

The left rear of my 1965 TR4 (not IRS) is about 3/4 of an inch lower that the right side rear...enough to be noticable. The front is OK. I don't see anything out of the oridinary underneath but I'm not sure what I should be looking for...bent leaf springs, bad shock, bent something else?

Thanks

Dave

[stuart]

The left rear of my 1965 TR4 (not IRS) is about 3/4 of an inch lower that the right side rear...enough to be noticable. The front is OK. I don't see anything out of the oridinary underneath but I'm not sure what I should be looking for...bent leaf springs, bad shock, bent something else?

Thanks

Dave

Dave it could be spring settled more one side or could be the body is higher one side or could be the front rear spring bracket to outrigger area giving up. With the car on a flat surface have a look at the clearance each side between the chassis rail and the axle tube as that will tell you if the axle is sitting straight relative to the chassis. As it is a US import it may have a extra packing piece on one spring which was the norm for them to correct one person occupancy. May be that they have been fitted the wrong side as they normally sit driver (Left side for US market) side higher. The repro springs available for them dont have the extra packing and are therefore universal. I fitted a pair to mine and found that they need the extra piece in both to get them to sit above the chassis and not jammed down on top of it!

Stuart.

[daveargie]

Dave it could be spring settled more one side or could be the body is higher one side or could be the front rear spring bracket to outrigger area giving up. With the car on a flat surface have a look at the clearance each side between the chassis rail and the axle tube as that will tell you if the axle is sitting straight relative to the chassis. As it is a US import it may have a extra packing piece on one spring which was the norm for them to correct one person occupancy. May be that they have been fitted the wrong side as they normally sit driver (Left side for US market) side higher. The repro springs available for them dont have the extra packing and are therefore universal. I fitted a pair to mine and found that they need the extra piece in both to get them to sit above the chassis and not jammed down on top of it!

Stuart.

 

Stuart

OK so you are on to me...how did you know that it was a US import? Were all of the UK spec 1965s "a"s or IRS?

 

Great info here. Can't wait to get back under it and check out some of your suggestions.

Many thanks

Dave

[vivdownunder]

Dave, you have quite a rare car, as only a couple of thousand live axle TR4A's were made.

 

And all were LHD examples for export to the States.

 

Over and above what Stuart suggested, also check there are no broken leaves in the RHS spring, as that usually causes a fair drop.

 

What I have done is to get the local auto springworks to fit a new main leaf to a sagged rear spring, and this solved the problem in a car that was down 30mm (1.75") on one side. Wasn't expensive either.

 

I recall being told of the origin of the live axle TR4A by an enthusiast in LA some years back, whose father had been in business with USA West Coast TR distributor Dorothy Dean's husband. It seems that some TR4A buyers were put off by the splay on the new fangled IRS rear wheels. With two up, a full tank and luggage, this splay could be quite alarming. And increasing luggage capacity (weight) with a boot rack didn't help.

 

Thus the live axle TR4A overcame this problem until the IRS was more accepted.

 

Regards,

 

Viv.

[stuart]

I think it was also cheaper in non IRS version as well Viv. Dave just out of interest does your car have a drain plug in the diff as there was a mention in TR Action that the drain was deleted on solid axles at the time of the 4a although mine definitely has one.

Stuart.

Edited July 22, 2008 by stuart

[daveargie]

It does have a drain plug on the diff. The title and history say 1965 model year but it isn't an "a".

dave

[stuart]

It does have a drain plug on the diff. The title and history say 1965 model year but it isn't an "a".

dave

Dave they only made about 300 4s in 65 before going over to the 4a so yours must be a very late one.

Stuart.

[Ragtag]

I recall being told of the origin of the live axle TR4A by an enthusiast in LA some years back, whose father had been in business with USA West Coast TR distributor Dorothy Dean's husband. It seems that some TR4A buyers were put off by the splay on the new fangled IRS rear wheels. With two up, a full tank and luggage, this splay could be quite alarming. And increasing luggage capacity (weight) with a boot rack didn't help.

 

I think our American chums had also been put off IRS by the bad reputation of the Convair (I think thats the name) for flipping over!!!

[Alec Pringle]

Hi Ragtag,

 

Close, but not quite . . .

 

Convair was an American aircraft manufacturer, perhaps best known for its B-36 line, the first of the intercontinental bombers capable of hauling the H-bomb from the USA clean across to the USSR. Mainstay of the strategic stalemate of the Cold War, until superceded by the B-52, it was nicknamed 'The Peacemaker'.

 

The car you're thinking of was the Chevrolet Corvair, possibly the most radical American mass-production car ever. Introduced in 1960, it's been summed-up as Detroit's answer to the VW Beetle. Ralph Nader castigated its quirky handling in his infamous 1965 book "unsafe at any speed", but without adequate justification. The Corvair was one heck of a car, introducing more than a few innovative features, and in 1962 the second mass-production turbo after the Oldsmobile Jetfire engine.

 

Whether or not Nader's ravings had any real influence on the 4A is questionable. I used to read the major American motor mags in the 1960s, and anything resembling IRS was treated with suspicion, it was an import car thing. The average American auto buyer seemed to be a relatively conservative individual.

 

Cheers,

 

Alec

[Ragtag]

Close, but not quite . . .

 

Convair was an American aircraft manufacturer,

 

 

........... The average American auto buyer seemed to be a relatively conservative individual.

 

Oops....can't even claim that 'n' and 'r' are close on the keyboard

 

Agree with your views on the car and Mr Nader though.

 

I guess if the septics weren't so conservative though, we would never have got the Rover V8 so every cloud.......

[Alec Pringle]

Hi Ragtag,

 

failure of the Buick/Olds 215 engine wasn't so much conservatism amongst buyers as the sheer cost of the engine - USA light alloy casting techniques of the time weren't up to the job, so the failure/wastage rate was horrendous.

 

That, by the way, was one reason for the TR4S 'Sabrina' being constructed as a 'sandwich' block - Triumph bypassed the problems that GM foundries encountered in attempting to cast one-piece alloy blocks.

 

Rover's great coup was in achieving adequate casting techniques without anyone else realising the fact. Hence they bought the rights for a (relative) song, and made the concept work.

 

Cheers,

 

Alec

[TR 2100]

TR4S 'Sabrina'

 

Sorry, but I really hate even the occasional reference to the "TR4S" and to

have it perpetuated by common usage would be even worse.

 

It may be that the factory designations of the Sabrina cars are not definitive

but surely they have been referred to as the TR3S and TRS for a long time

and are easily recognised by those designations.

 

AlanR

[vivdownunder]

As I understand the make up of the five stack Sabrina engines in the TR3S and TRS Le Mans cars, they comprised.... 1. alloy rocker cover, 2. alloy head, 3. cast iron block, 4. alloy lower crankcase and 5. alloy sump. The boobs bolted to the bulky alloy timing cover which housed the drives for the distributor, manual fuel pump, and provision for a dry sump oil pump. An alloy clutch housing bolted to the rear of the engine which took the starter motor, as well as the clutch slave cylinder, which swapped sides to make way for the exhaust from the cross flow head.

 

With all those multitude of gaskets, it's a wonder the LM scrutineers didn't mandate a built in drip tray, and a mighty big one at that. Or maybe the French didn't know of the TR's little bad habit.

 

Er and where were we, yes, sorting a sagged rear spring !.

 

Viv.

[Alec Pringle]

Hi Alan,

 

Yes we have all referred to them for many years as the TRS, and certainly all of Graham Robson's earlier books that I have refer to them as TRS.

 

However, the cars were entered at Le Mans, and homologated, as the TR4S - entirely logical, given the FIA Appendix J regulations of the time, and the SSRs of the A.C.de L'Ouest governing the 24 Hrs du Mans 1960 and 1961.

 

If the 'Conrero GT' car had been entered in 1962, it would in all probability have been entered in a different category to its predecessor, the TR4S.

 

In 1980 when I looked at the paperwork which Rod Leach had passed on to Roger Williams, and that which Roger had acquired elsewhere, the contemporary references were to the TR4S and not to the TRS. The registration document also referred to TR4S.

 

You may recall that I demonstrated Roger's car on a number of occasions in 1979-81, and gave him the original (long)gearknob which I'd been given as a souvenir when I rode as a young passenger in the car in 1960 or 61. As a youngster I knew the cars as TR4S (and the preceding TR3S) and latterly was surprised to learn that they had become known as the TRS.

 

I doubt it makes much difference how we refer to them, TRS or TR4S, we know what we mean ! However, the correct designation in my book (and that of the FIA, no doubt) is TR4S . . .

 

Incidentally, I've been taken to task by several people for referring to the Revington 'TR4S' in inverted commas - although not by anyone actually connected with this excellent machine. My reasoning is quite simple and straightforward, it is a 'replicar' and not an original - and that implies no slight on either Neil Revington as constructor or Paul Gerring as owner.

 

Cheers,

 

Alec

[Alec Pringle]

A further comment on my post above, after several emails from interested Forum readers . . .

 

I referred to FIA Appendix J, in fact at the time the CSI made the rules to be strictly accurate - that's Federation Internationale Automobile and Commission Sportive Internationale.

 

The TR3S and TR4S ran in the Sports category 1601-2000cc, which for all practical purposes implied sports prototype based on a production car, hence the requirement of the cars being numerically designated - and this category ran at Le Mans I think 1958-1961. Along with a GT category.

 

Writing in 1967, not so many years after the events, JLS Maclay referred to the Le Mans cars as TR4 prototypes - and he was about as authoritative as it got at the time.

 

1962 saw yet another of the regular changes in Le Mans categorisation, the new categories being Experimentale and Grand Tourisme (again GT protoype in effect). The Conrero was a special-bodied GT, derived from the TR4S, and could have been entered in either E or GT categories, depending on detail specification. Logically Triumph would have sought to enter the car in GT, the 2-litre class being less hotly-contested than many classes, and it would I think have had to be entered as a TR4GT (or even TR5GT) - in the event the car was not entered, and there were ironically no finishers in the 2-litre GT class.

 

A great pity, one might say, we could have had the Conrero instead of the Dove - no contest.

 

Cheers,

 

Alec

Edited July 24, 2008 by Alec Pringle

[BrianC]

A great pity, one might say, we could have had the Conrero instead of the Dove - no contest.

That's a rare piece of understatement from you, Alec - it's a bl dy tragedy. The Conrero was the best looking 'Triumph' prototype ever, although I doubt it would ever have had a drop-head version and would in either case have probably been mega expensive (but then the Dove was both over-priced and over-weight).

Edited July 25, 2008 by BrianC

[daveargie]

Dave it could be spring settled more one side or could be the body is higher one side or could be the front rear spring bracket to outrigger area giving up. With the car on a flat surface have a look at the clearance each side between the chassis rail and the axle tube as that will tell you if the axle is sitting straight relative to the chassis. As it is a US import it may have a extra packing piece on one spring which was the norm for them to correct one person occupancy. May be that they have been fitted the wrong side as they normally sit driver (Left side for US market) side higher. The repro springs available for them dont have the extra packing and are therefore universal. I fitted a pair to mine and found that they need the extra piece in both to get them to sit above the chassis and not jammed down on top of it!

Stuart.

 

Stuart

I think I will try the extra packing piece. What did you use for this and can it be done without disassembly?

thanks

Dave

[stuart]

Stuart

I think I will try the extra packing piece. What did you use for this and can it be done without disassembly?

thanks

Dave

Dave I usually use either a piece of an old spring or depending how much it needs to be raised a piece of 3/4/5mm steel plate. It needs a hole drilling in the middle to accomodate the centre bolt and its about 4" long. you will need to undo the "U" clamps and place it between the spring and the axle tube (or if you have the "Deep Dish" springs, between the aluminium block and the axle tube) on the OPPOSITE side to the low side. This is because the axle sits on top of the spring and you are effectively lowering the higher side to match.

Stuart.

[daveargie]

Dave I usually use either a piece of an old spring or depending how much it needs to be raised a piece of 3/4/5mm steel plate. It needs a hole drilling in the middle to accomodate the centre bolt and its about 4" long. you will need to undo the "U" clamps and place it between the spring and the axle tube (or if you have the "Deep Dish" springs, between the aluminium block and the axle tube) on the OPPOSITE side to the low side. This is because the axle sits on top of the spring and you are effectively lowering the higher side to match.

Stuart.

 

Stuart

I understand and I'm glad I asked. I would like to think I would have figured this out but I could also easily see myself looking at my work effort after the fact and thinking...."why did it just get worse?"

thanks again.

Dave