Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Great story on how you got Katie back home. Quite a lot of good fortune on the problem being the water pump pulley and your mate having just purchased some! 

The car looks like its sitting a lot better already, but I know you'll tweak it some more, is it worth putting the bumpers and anything else back on that's not installed and seeing how it sits with a little extra weight? 


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 796
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Pete - DON'T give up with owning a TR - there are other cars out there - just put the word out on here and elsewhere and I'm sure something will come up Chin up  Cheers Rich

Or these people? http://www.leacyclassics.com/parts/classicmini/engine-components/2k7440.html Roger

. Carrying on from TR4 -v- Tr4A engine, and my purchasing a 'spare'  < here >  ..so that I might get on and have an engine ready by the time the Chance is actually bought and shipped,  we h

Posted Images

+1 Always a pleasure to read your updates. I am glad they're long. Beautifully expressed! I'm already waiting for the next one.


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ here you go..   


. . . Good Evening all ..are you sitting comfortably ?

The other day I made a list of the jobs I've been doing since I got Katie  back last Wednesday evening, but I reckon two-dozen items would make for pretty boring reading, so I'll just mention one topic at a time.  And as the current issue is fuel peeing out like its a Belgium fountain, I guess I'll start off with that. . .

  P1390493s.JPG.1db8252d748cf78e6d745987d1ed776e.JPG     P1390489s.JPG.5857d9d965391ec7c534132a14ab158a.JPG

^ This was in the float bowl of the front carb, and then rather similar in the rear one. The glass bowl of the petrol pump was worse and had larger flakes, perhaps black paint ?

However I should add that I'd not checked them before now and so this sediment might be 20 years old, and the issues I've had may be from my trying to temporarily fix leaky joints.  In brief from forcing old rubber pipe over sharp edged metal tube, whereby the inside of the rubber pipe is scraped and tiny rubber slivers then find their way under the float chamber's needle.  I guess I'll never know for sure.  

Anyway, it isn't worth mucking around with ..for the sake of £10 for a meter of 1/4" rubber pipe (ethanol stable) and £1 each for new and neat little stainless clips.  These I bought from the TSSC club shop at Duxford - Thank you to those unsung heroes who provide a great service, not only throughout the year by post, but also in providing advice and the convenience of being able to collect parts from an event ..on a Sunday. 

Katie's  fuel pipe run was like this  (..tidied up a little but otherwise pretty much as bought) . . .


^ Rubber pipe from the pump ( Rear LHS of the engine) with 1/4" connection, going to a chromed-copper-tube (approx 5/16" OD) which sort-of / just about / almost swept around to a support bracket under the thermostat. From that end - plastic / hard rubber pipe again to an in-line fuel filter, and then to the front carb ( Front RHS of the engine ) with its 1/4" pipe connection on the float bowls.  From there thin plastic pipe (5/16" fitted onto a 1/4" connection) went to the cross-over-tube (5/16") leading to a similar thin plastic pipe to the rear carb.  You'll note there were no pipe clips on the cross-over-tube.

The unsupported length from the bracket on the front LHS  of the thermostat - sagged uncomfortably close to the fan-belt pulley.  Naturally this was not helped by the span, nor by the weight of fuel in the filter.   You might say that I paid good money for these leaky issues, with there being no gasket for the forward float bowl, and its pipe connections dribbling. But, this is what I changed things to . . .


P1390500s.JPG.1c1008c88a0bf513677b2f248d7520f4.JPG    P1390499s.thumb.JPG.262d22864e8f8ea0f962e5542408e867.JPG

^ The chromed-copper-tube from the pump to the thermostat was reshaped to follow the contour around the front of the rocker cover and to tuck inbetween it and thermostat.  The rubber pipe from there to the filter was swapped out (now 8mm), and the filter moved close to the carb, where it was better supported and further from the exhaust manifold. The rubber pipe from there to the forward carb was also changed for new (also 8mm) and a sleeve inserted into its end ..to take its bore down to the 1/4" connection of the float bowl.  The pipes to the cross-over-tube remained as they were, because by this point I'd had enough of leaky joints and was about to buy 1/4" fuel hose of the latest ethanol spec.


Despite cleaning out the pump's glass bowl and the sediment in the float chambers, I then faced repeated needle jets sticking  . . .


^ the float bowl's needle is by any other name a shut-valve, actuated by the float floating on the petrol being pumped into the float chamber. When that needle doesn't close that valve (because a speck of debris is holding it out of its seat) the fuel continues to be pumped into the float bowl. In short time it overflows and petrol squirts out of the breather hole, situated just under the pipe connection.  On the rear carb, this hole points towards the bulkhead and so a squirt of fuel shoots out and splashes everywhere and vaporises in the vicinity of exhaust manifolds .. not quite the ideal !   The front carb's vent points towards the inner wheel arch ..so again when that overflows - petrol similarly splashes off that surface, before running down the engine-bay's bodywork ..to then dribble directly onto the main chassis rail.  I guess its just tough luck if any of the paint isn't petrol resistant. Fortunately Katie's  was.

Having bought the 6mm / 1/4" rubber fuel pipe at Duxford on Sunday.., today I swapped it all out.  This is what I now have . . .


^ all the rubber fuel pipes have now been replaced, and while at it - I re-routed the tube to go around the back of the engine to feed the rear carb first.  I'm biased but I think it now looks to have been designed ..to be this way, as it echos the heater pipe.

To do this, I reshaped the chromed-copper-tube, yet again, so that it sits parallel to and close to the battery (..now well clear of HT leads, the hot water / heater return pipe, and the fan pulley.  I've used a velcro strap to loosely tie it, and the rev-counter cable, to the earth lead. 

On the far side ; the chromed-copper-tube bends upwards, and from there a new piece of rubber fuel pipe goes directly to that rear carb.  The new rubber fuel pipe is 1/4" and so I soaked its end in hot water to soften it enough to stretch over the 5/16" copper pipe.  

The distributor's auto-advance vacuum pipe I've left where I'd previously moved it to, behind the thermostat (..away from the fan belt) and I've removed that horrid little sharp-cornered, pain-in-the-arse-to-remove fuel-pipe support-bracket, which was clamped there by the thermostat cover's bolt.  I'll have to get one of those 90-deg elbows for the vacuum pipe to tidy its run a little more.


^ despite the impression given by the perspective in this photo.. the new fuel pipe's route is well clear of the exhaust manifold.   I've discarded the cross-over-tube  ..and now simply run the new rubber fuel pipe from one carb to the other ..that gets rid of two potential leaky joints, and the steps in size.   The speedo cable goes down passed the steering column, before sweeping back to the gearbox (..you can see it cable-wrapped to the loom at the bottom of this photo).  And the fuel pipe loops smoothly around, from one carb to the other, on the outside of that cable ..so it cannot stray anywhere near the exhaust down pipes, nor the steering column.

Job done, and another tick on the "replace every item of perished rubber" list.

I haven't refitted the inline fuel filter, not least because it's both big and ugly.  I hope with everything now clean.. the gauze mesh in the fuel pump's glass bowl will do the job.

We'll see.! 



Edited by Bfg
Link to post
Share on other sites

The new arrangement looks very tidy and... simpler. Like a good idea. A good one can be explained simply. This looks to me like a good idea.

I was also thinking: why have two fuel filters? What's the point? And moving fuel lines away from the heat of the engine? Surely safer.


Edited by DavidBee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks good to me, better to know it's all renewed with suitable rubber for modern fuel. I agree on losing the additional fuel filter. 

Can't believe how dirty the float chambers were! Might need to keep an eye on that to see if anymore works it's way through. 

Good work, looking forward to the next update. 


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pete, sorry me.

What you identify as the "overflow hole" of the carbs in my opinion the urgently needed breather hole of the float chamber.

This is original overed by a bended piece of aluminum for any reason (opend at my mcs), please see my photo.

Never any petrol flows out there and splashes anywhere, the overflow goes the main jet, about 20 mm lower than the breater hole.


Please have a second look with this information and you will realize. 

Sorry, I see no reason to change anything of the original setup.

What you found on Kati was not original and worth to change back to original (not individual).

Ciao, Marco

Edited by Z320
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete I run my 3a with the same fuel pipe routing as you (admittedly with a little hucco elec pump on the bulk head)

it’s less than half the pipe run distance and a much cooler route too. My filter is probably twice the size but same inline version on the feed side to the pump. Thought I may as well protect the pump from debris.

the pipes are intentionally left long enough that I can still use them if I refit the dave Davies mechanical pump.

I have a simple Y piece to joint up the overflow to a pipes to below chassis level. 

All this was done ( inc fitting elec pump) after chasing a few nightmare misfires at sprints it turned out to be debris from a 5” bit of old rubber pipe joining 2 rigid pipes from the tank to a chassis rigid pipe just by rear wheel breaking up internally that I didn’t know was there !!

great to see you with the car back and it’s just “tinkering” jobs - that is classic car ownership !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all,

Marco I do say  "in short time it overflows and petrol squirts out of the breather hole"  I do not mean to identify it as an "overflow hole".

Thank you for the photo of the shield, which prevents the petrol from squirting all over the place. ;)  I can easily make and fit a pair of those  At the moment I have folded pieces of clean kitchen tissue poked in there, to prevent such a squirt but equally to very quickly show if the needle does again stick and the petrol overflows. 

I think Marco that you are incorrect about overflowing into the carburettor. That would be very poor practice, as a flood of petrol into the combustion chamber would not only wash lubrication off of the cylinder walls, but any backfire of would be dramatic.  Although the breather hole is above the level of the main jet, it is of a large size, whereas the gap passed the main jet is at most very tiny ..especially at tick-over. Although the low pressure air flow through the venturi would tend to suck fuel up, that with the spring holding the main jet closed would be minimal.

The early (TR3 and TR4) SU carbs had overflow pipes fitted from their float bowls. As Hamish has done.. this was often led to below the chassis, so any dribbles or the petrol vapours are not close to any source or spark ..such as the electrical brushes within the dynamo or starter motor.

You are right what was on Katie  was not original.  I was discussing this and why the pipe runs around the front of the engine on the TSSC forum.  This is what I thought . . .


" I'm pretty certain the original routing of the fuel pipe was like this . . .

67TR4A0022.thumb.jpg.13be3597d851d501a0f3a6e57b2324b6.jpg     67TR4A0027.thumb.jpg.04b401fd52a502afe84bb506e4d88243.jpg

^ From the fuel pump, a metal tube (no rubber connector needed) ran forward and around the thermostat and most the way across to the forward carb.  This continuous tube was a 1/4" and so even the last rubber pipe had no step in size.  Their fit was matched and I don't believe any pipe clips were originally fitted on the connections.  


^ The fuel pipe support bracket from the underside of the thermostat was like this, and had a specially formed rubber holder, which similarly supported the auto-advance vacuum pipe.

Various design of cross-over-tubes (from the forward carb to the rear) according to whether early SU's (TR4) or Stomberg (TR4A ..for a while), or later SU's (later TR4A's) were used. But again in each case the metal tube was 1/4" ..so the rubber connector pieces didn't have to deal with any step in connection size. 


^ This is a TR4 with SU's and the earlier type air filter.  The in-line filter is of course not standard, but the point here is how simple the cross-over-tube between carburetors is. Again the metal tube size is the same diameter as the connections on the float chamber caps.  These earlier SU's had a different cap on their float bowls, and the pipe connections were inline rather than diagonal. 

When the later TR4A swapped back to using SU's and the air filter was changed to the oval paper-element type, that you see on Katie.  These were through-bolted, and two P-brackets were used to support that cross-over-tube . . .


^ it's surprisingly rare to find a car with these air filters and the cross-over-pipe still on it.  The clips on the rubber pipe were not originally specified. 

As you might gather Katie's  was a hash up of bits n' pieces of different sizes.  Going back to original would have elevated most of the issues I had with getting pipes to fit over different sized tubes, but in my opinion those fuel pipes spanning across from the front of the engine and the cross-over-tube between carbs is rather ugly.

- - -

Why did the pipe go around the front ?  Well I think the answer to that is two fold. The first being that traditionally engines fitted out to be run on a test bed, so things like the coil were bolted onto the engine as was the fuel system from the pump onwards.   Not necessarily Triumph's but many pre-war chassis cars were assembled to be started and driven as a rolling chassis, even before a body shell was fitted. This was useful where there was a split in the production line, and cars had to be moved from one part of the assembly plant to another.  

The second half of the answer probably lies with these things being carried over from the TR3 where the nose of the car / the bonnet enclosure came all the way back to cover the radiator,  and of course 'Why not ?' . . .  


^ why not ?  in 1950's maintenance was more important than everything being neat.  The car's heater return pipe runs back along that side of engine, as does the conduit for the oil pressure gauge. The HT leads are rarely tidy nor the wiring to the coil and distributor. The rev counter cable is down there too.  There's not a whole lot of space around the back of the engine, and so when the engine with gearbox is lifted out or refitted.. it's quite common for the back of the block to clout the bulkhead.  Any pipe back there would be vulnerable.  You'll also note that the carb's float chambers are forward of their venturi.  The car's heater valve and pipe and the pedal assembly with master cylinder, a bundle of wiring loom and the solenoid nearby the starter motor, and of course the close proximity of the bulkhead ..leave very little room for them to be on the rear side of the carbs. 

So I think the simple answer, in technical jargon..  is that it was just "easier" to run the fuel pipe around the front, along with the auto-advance vacuum pipe.



Edited by Bfg
Link to post
Share on other sites

Marco, three times now you have posted that there is no problem with the original set-up.


Did I say there was a problem with the standard fuel pipe set up ?  -  Nope

I said , , ,

6 hours ago, Bfg said:

Katie's  was a hash up of bits n' pieces of different sizes.


Did I have the correct pipes, or the olive to put it back to standard ? - Nope, and they were not readily available.  However the car was unsafe to use, insomuch as it squirted petrol around the hot engine bay, and so was off the road  ..and unable drive across to the TSSC event at Duxford.

Could I buy, on a Sunday, the rubber pipe and clips to make Katie  safe and roadworthy again ? - yes

Does what I have done work ?  - yes.

Are there merits in routing a metal fuel pipe away from the coil, distributor and HT  leads, and/or a spinning fan belt ? - in my opinion yes.

Am I aware of any disadvantages in going this route ? - non  that I presently see. 

Is the route around the back of the engine neater than running around the front of the engine ?  - in my opinion (subjectively) yes.

Am I concerned that Katie  was not 'original' when I bought her, and/or is not 'original' now ? - nope.

          ...That's all.  Marco there's no conflict of interest here.  I'm not telling, nor even recommending others to change things on their car.   I'm just reporting on what I happen to have done on mine  ..which includes replacing old plastic and rubber fuel (and brake, and water ) pipes.  If I make a mistake I'll step forward and say so.  And if I make a mistake and it might be dangerous - then I'd be very glad for someone to let me know.  ;)


Returning the ball to your side of the court..  In my opinion, there was not a problem to solve with the original handbrake (Katie's  certainly works much better than that on my Chrysler) ..even though it is probably not in good order !  However, I am very glad that you looked at it, and improved its effectiveness even more, by means of a spacer under its cable..  Thank you  :) 



Link to post
Share on other sites

I've now done quite a few little jobs on Katie since I got her back, but right now I really need to address the ride height before anything else. The car's handling is what I'd regard as uneasy and unpredictable, and because of that is verging on the dangerous. 

When I bought her - she was a little low on the back and sitting lop sided, but when I over-did through a corner she settled into a very controllable slow-motion-like 4-wheel-drift and looked after me.  Presently, she's just about OK down a dual-carriageway, but coming off a curving slip-road, or driving down a straight country road with undulations, or twisting through even modest corners ..the positive camber on the rear wheels wind up to make the car feel as if it is on the brink of twisting over and breaking away.  My old Mk.2 Spitfire had wind-up rear suspension ..but it had such a low centre-of-gravity that it was great fun to drive.  But not Katie  as she presently is. 

Russell, in our local Triumph Sports Six Club invited me, in Katie, to join him in coming across to Duxford. He and a friend drove across in his navy-blue Stag. I asked if he was going around the A14 or across country, he didn't mind. As it happens fuel leaks prevented me coming in Katie,  but after sorting the fuel pipes out I test drove the car and realised that a cross country jaunt with this suspension geometry would have been a horrid drive and possibly inviting an unscheduled expedition into hedgerow brambles.! 


Like many IRS cars, the TR's ride height directly effects the camber, which I gather should be around neutral when unladen and an increasing degree of negative camber (spread the footprints wider apart) the more it is loaded ..when cornering.  Negative camber helps the tyre's footprint stay flat to the ground during cornering, even as its side walls are deflecting. 

When the springs are harder and longer than they should be (I'm suspecting TR6 springs have been fitted).., the ride height is very high and, because of the geometry of these trailing arms, the wheels (as you can see above) adopt a noticeable amount of positive camber.

When cornering ; an excess of positive camber tends to tuck the wheel under its suspension, rather than the car squatting.  Less roll might seem to be a good thing but not when the car's higher-than-correct centre-of-gravity rolls the body over the axle ..which just makes things worse.  When cornering enthusiastically, the tyre's footprint (contact-patch to the road) moves to the outside of the tread.  With still harder driving, the effective contact-patch might be reduced to perhaps just a quarter of the tyre's tread, and then all it takes is a road irregularity to loose traction.  The narrow width of these cars, and therefore its narrow track, amplify this scenario.  As of course does the nature of a driver's sportscar ..which encourages an 'enthusiastic style'. 

Positive camber on the front make the car's steering a little twitchy and tends to induce over-steer ..so not only is the suspension winding itself up, but so is the steering.  This car's suspension caster has similarly not been checked.. it was just bolted together. 

Brand new tyres with very soft walls and those being 165/80 section, rather than low profile, would also contribute to the tyre tucking under.  Again fitting those tyres to narrower wheels (4" rather than the wire wheels at 4-1/2") works against us.  And then, it's also very probable that a predetermined (..well accepted anyway !) amount of chassis flex contributes to negative camber, and my chassis stiffening mods have altered that, whereby I'll need to adjust for a little more negative than standard. We'll see.

NB. I read that the TR6 springs were up-rated by the factory, due to that car's excessive squatting under accelerating power which caused their steering to go light and their twin exhausts to drag. The TR6 also has an anti-roll bar and wider profile tyres as standard to help keep its grip. 

The front axle's tracking was checked and presumably adjusted by a tyre centre before I collected the car.  Of course i do not know what figure they used for their adjustment.  I haven't checked with a taught string yet but a careful visual check suggests little toe-out of the RHS rear wheels ..perhaps, according to a quick geometric calculation it's about -1/2 of a degree from being in line  My calc takes into account the TR4A's front-axle track being 1/2" wider than the rear.  Although not perfect I cannot see that as a significant issue.

I'm advised by my friend Rich, that Katie is not (noticeably) crabbing. . .

I investigated rear springs this afternoon, well the rear RHS one anyway.


^ I'd not done this before ..but the process is simple albeit laborious, insomuch as the half-shaft coupling needs to be undone from the diff.  With other wheels chocked, the handbrake needs to be off to turn the half-shaft around to undo all four bolts.  Sockets do not fit and so it's a two 9/16" ring or open-ended-spanner job.  Awkward when your working on the floor under a low car, even one on axle stands.  Otherwise, with the chassis supported., a trolley-jack under the trailing-arm takes the spring tension as the damper's tie-rod (one nut on the underside of the trailing arm) is undone.  Once that nut was removed - the trolley jack is gently lowered while the half-shaft is supported - to prevent it's gaiter from being damaged by it dropping down on the corner of the chassis rail.  That's all, the spring sort-of pulls out, but there's not quite enough room for the rubber or poly-bush) collar ..so that falls off.   

Comparing the new and old springs, sort of surprised me. . . .


^ Replacement spring left, old spring right.  Although first impressions suggest they're different, they are the same length (11-1/2") 

And when weighed, they both come out at 3kg (bathroom scales are not that accurate but close enough for this). This suggests they have a very similar amount of steel in them. 

And then when tested under arbitrary load, of 24kg (three night storage heat bricks) . . . 


^ they each compressed by the same amount ..just 1/4".   For all intent and purpose then.. they appear to be the same specification of spring.


The type of spring collars were shown to me when I visited M&T and those were black poly-bush types of 7mm thick. 


^ New 7mm thk polybush collar left, old 5mm thk rubber collar right. 

According to those in the know, because of the suspension's geometry ..the difference in spacer (or collar thickness) equates to just a little under double its thickness in road height. So the difference in thickness here is 7 - 5mm = 2mm + 1 for the rubber being squashed a little more = 3mm, so that'll make 6mm difference in ride height.   

I put the replacement spring back in, sitting on a poly-bush collar at the bottom, in the trailing arm, but with the old rubber collar fitted at the top. Took the car around the block (which here in Ipswich is like a lap around the pavé track at Millbrook vehicle test facility) ..and low and behold that side is now 5- 6mm lower.  Exactly as predicted but never-the-less worth checking for peace of mind. 

Very oddly, the positive camber now appears much better.??  That changing was not something I had anticipated, nor something I can presently explain. I'll check it again tomorrow.

So, if the springs are the same, and the collars make such little difference - I'm still a little baffled as to why the car is sitting 40mm too high. 


^ The spring saddle looks to be standard, aside from the couple of extra corner-triangulation gusset plates and its colour of paint. 

I did however note that the body used to rest on the old chassis' spring hanger, and in fact the inner-wheel-arch bottom flange was chafing through the top of the cup on the RHS.  Whereas the body, sitting on the replacement chassis, is notably higher. The gap between the top of this spring hanger cup and the flange is now possibly 12mm (higher). I've just checked the RHS and that has something like 8mm clearance now.


^ looking down into the spring cup of the trailing arm.  No spacer in there just the 7mm poly-bush spring-collar smeared in silicon grease. 

So where does any of this take us ? ..but around the block and back again ?

Well, my present conjecture is that the old rubber spring collar I fitted - was the best of the three removed from this car, and one was missing. Swapping back to this (best condition) one made 5-6mm difference in ride height.  Double that, and add a bit more for the even more squashed rubber of the spring's bottom collar ..and we'll have 12-15mm additional ride height, which together with the body now sitting 8-10mm higher on the chassis.. totals 20-25mm extra ride height.  Quite possibly the old springs are a little tied and so when loaded under the 450+kg weight of the back of the car ..that might account for the other 15mm or so difference in static ride height we now see.

Tomorrow I'll swap both rear springs for the original ones, just to try it and see. B)



p.s.  when fit recently repainted or powder-coated wheels, take a minute to run around the bolt holes with a blade to clean out the paint before fitting.  Possibly I should have done this before I gave the steel wheels to M&T to be fitted  ..but their mechanic should have known better and very quickly done it as a matter of course.  It's really bad practice to fasten structural parts or anything that's safety orientated onto a thickness of paint rather than metal to metal.  The paint will crack and flake, which may happen a few miles down the road ..and then the wheel nut will be loose.  Aside from that.. seeing cracked paint really pisses the customer off.




Link to post
Share on other sites

Which way up are the brackets that hold the trailing arm to the chassis.  

Notches on top or bottom.  

How many notches in the outer bracket and the inner bracket.?

Good starting point is 3 notch inner and 1 notch outer.  You are not running original springs by the look of the photos.

Those who do this for a living will be along soon.


Peter W





Edited by BlueTR3A-5EKT
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you use the thinner spring insulators all round that will drop the suspension by a fair bit in comparison with the thicker ones,https://www.superflex.co.uk/proddetail.php?prod=SF378-2327K also you dont normally need to disconnect the drive shaft to drop the spring out, with standard length springs you usually just have to disconnect the shock drop link and the trailing arm will drop far enough to get the spring straight out, so that tells me your springs arent standard


Edited by stuart
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2021 at 12:36 PM, Bfg said:



I have read and digested the articles written on Buckeye Triumph  and other advise given in the various threads on this forum.  And so I checked the photos of this chassis's assembly (above)  ..and the trailing arm brackets appear to be fitted correctly for a 4A ..with single notch inboard and a double notch outboard. All notches are facing upwards, and I'm told that two shims have been fitted behind each.

This corresponds to the drawing in the workshop manual and in the parts book. . .


The Moss catalogue confirms " Bracket, inner (1 notch) and Bracket, outer (2 notch)."

However, the description at the bottom of page 4-120 says otherwise  "check the grooves in the edges of the mounting brackets are uppermost. The bracket having four grooves is the outside pivot and the bracket with only two groves is the inside pivot."



P1390548s.JPG.19b209d72a48c9bd52f581d5d709931e.JPG    P1390551as.JPG.15bf631a0732e820fb20206f24555ebc.JPG

^ " Bracket, inner - 1 notch.                                                                   ^^ Bracket, outer - 2 notch.  (..and no comment on the welding of the inner sill to the end cap)


Edited by Bfg
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BlueTR3A-5EKT said:

How many notches in the outer bracket and the inner bracket.?

Good starting point is 3 notch inner and 1 notch outer.  

i understand the TR6 may have the notches this way around but for whatever reason the 4A is the other way around.


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, stuart said:

If you use the thinner spring insulators all round that will drop the suspension by a fair bit in comparison with the thicker ones,https://www.superflex.co.uk/proddetail.php?prod=SF378-2327K also you dont normally need to disconnect the drive shaft to drop the spring out, with standard length springs you usually just have to disconnect the shock drop link and the trailing arm will drop far enough to get the spring straight out, so that tells me your springs arent standard


rear springs come out easy normally.  If you remove both insulators and re fit, then the height is still to much then it is your springs.

The Buckeye list details are spot on. They guide you on notches as well.

Measure your spring height as i have several sets and you can try a different length. The front is a bigger pain but the rears should guide you.


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bfg said:

i understand the TR6 may have the notches this way around but for whatever reason the 4A is the other way around.


The 3 notch bracket was introduced when the rear coil spring changed strength/fitted length.   TR6 started life with the same bracket notch qty/positioning as TR4A and changed when the springs got firmer.

As Stuart has noted change the insulator thickness.   Fit the springs without any insulators  to get an idea of what the current ones are doing to the ride height/camber.

You could go down the adjustable trailing arm bracket route.




Link to post
Share on other sites


Rain today, light at first progressively wetter..  as I'm not exactly keen on laying down and crawling under the car in the wet ..progress was slow.  Before I swapped the road springs back to what was previously fitted, I thought it prudent to first check that the trailing-arm's poly-bushes were not binding up.  When we collected the car, my friend Rich suggested loosening the bolts through the trailing-arm bushes, just in case they had been tightened up with the car jacked up, and were too tight to settle. With a host of other tasks and then fuel leaks I've only just got around to doing it.  

Rich had suggested I loosen them and then drive the car around the block, but I opted to do it a little different, not least because they would have needed to be re-tightened, and for that to happen I would have needed to jack the car up again ..for me to crawl under it.   So I first lifted the rear wheels onto blocks.  At the same time I loosened the bolts through the four trailing-arm brackets / poly-bushes (5/8" spanner & a 5/8" socket).


..you can see the sort of wheel arch gap I'm trying to sort out. 

with the front wheels loosely chocked and the handbrake off, so the wheels were free to turn as they settle, I loaded the boot. . .


^ I estimate that's about 95kg sitting on a 6x2" timber, which together with my own weight (105kg) bouncing up n' down on the rear wings and rocking the car from side to side, ought to turn the poly-bushes in their brackets / on their bolts for this loaded condition.

And then still loaded, and without  jacking the car up, I crawled under and retightened those bolts.  Once done, and unloaded the bricks out of the boot and popped around to the local shops in the car, so the wheels were then sitting normally level to the ground.  The result of my efforts was to make things 5mm worse (ie.., raised) on both sides !  ??

Btw the LHS has a bigger gap than the RHS rear arch ..hub centre to the arch, by about 12mm, despite it having a thinner collar fitted above its spring.

It's still wet so I'll change the road springs back to the old ones tomorrow.



Edited by Bfg
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone advise if the 4A half shafts are handed ? or whether it's good or bad practice to put them on the other side.?    One of mine has a seriously worn and clonking spline and so while I have the spring out, it makes sense to swap out the shaft  ..if in fact the used ones I bought are actually off a 4A rather than TR6.  I don't know yet if there is any difference but I would have thought the latter's were more robust to take that car's 150bhp. 

Thanks, Pete

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bfg said:

Can anyone advise if the 4A half shafts are handed ? or whether it's good or bad practice to put them on the other side.?    One of mine has a seriously worn and clonking spline and so while I have the spring out, it makes sense to swap out the shaft  ..if in fact the used ones I bought are actually off a 4A rather than TR6.  I don't know yet if there is any difference but I would have thought the latter's were more robust to take that car's 150bhp. 

Thanks, Pete

Shafts arent handed and are the same through the range with some slight differences in where they join.


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bfg said:

Thanks Stuart, 

"in where they join" ?? do you mean the stud pattern of where they bolt onto the diff ?

No where the two halves slide together.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah the position or size of the splines. Brilliant. I'm hoping to swap out the whole half-shaft so that ought not be an issue.   

I do, very much, appreciate your prompt reply as I've just raised the car on stands and am just about to tackle it.


Edited by Bfg
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...

Important Information

Please familiarise yourself with our Terms and Conditions. By using this site, you agree to the following: Terms of Use.