My '72 always had synchro probs, other peeps had rear end probs, but always something in back of the engine. That's what happens when you take a TR4 and drop a more potent 6 in without any redesign of the drive train: the weak link always breaks. But when it was running right it ran like a scalded ape.
@paul austin maybe so, but then any 46 year old car that doesn't have some corrosion would be a miracle don't you think ? certainly not without some kind of serious work being carried out during it's lifetime.
Also, when comparing TR6 and 4...the hp was about the same (in the US)...it was the torque which jumped up! About the "weak link" comment...the "fuse" in the driveline is the universal joints. And they were good for 80,000 miles or more with no problem. If you had problems such as you describe, I'd look to the previous owner for the source.
I can't really agree about that (based on owning 2 TR6's and 50 years of British roadsters overall). The TR6 drivetrain's were especially stout (remember the same gear was handling 50% more hp in the UK!). The tranny's were exceptionally strong and could handle a couple hundred thousand miles easily without synchro issues. The rear's were only weak at the mounting studs, not the rear itself Same with the lower control arms in the rear, only issues were potential rust at the mounts.
Авто/Мото
beautiful car - looks like you had a little typical triumph shifting trouble though
Never had any dealing with a Triumph.
My '72 always had synchro probs, other peeps had rear end probs, but always something in back of the engine. That's what happens when you take a TR4 and drop a more potent 6 in without any redesign of the drive train: the weak link always breaks.
But when it was running right it ran like a scalded ape.
Tappets (cam followers) well out of adjustment. Should've used a SPQR.
Yeah, so loudddd
@paul austin maybe so, but then any 46 year old car that doesn't have some corrosion would be a miracle don't you think ? certainly not without some kind of serious work being carried out during it's lifetime.
Also, when comparing TR6 and 4...the hp was about the same (in the US)...it was the torque which jumped up! About the "weak link" comment...the "fuse" in the driveline is the universal joints. And they were good for 80,000 miles or more with no problem. If you had problems such as you describe, I'd look to the previous owner for the source.
I can't really agree about that (based on owning 2 TR6's and 50 years of British roadsters overall). The TR6 drivetrain's were especially stout (remember the same gear was handling 50% more hp in the UK!). The tranny's were exceptionally strong and could handle a couple hundred thousand miles easily without synchro issues. The rear's were only weak at the mounting studs, not the rear itself Same with the lower control arms in the rear, only issues were potential rust at the mounts.
Lol, uk cars had 20 more hp at best
All TR6 engines rattle like that
Really? I remember it being noisy. I've driven & filmed several TR6s & 7s over the years. Thanks for checking it out Simon.
Another example of how p*ss poorly the Brits are when it comes to build quality.
"In action" would have been on a race track, not tooling around in suburbia.
Oh yeah that sounds so exciting too.