-
Hey there Guest!
If you enjoy BCF and find our forum a useful resource, if you appreciate not having ads pop up all over the place and you want to ensure we can stay online - Please consider supporting with an "optional" low-cost annual subscription.**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Subscribers don't see this UGLY banner)
Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
Wheel cylinder identifier
- Thread starter tr4_v8
- Start date
Share this page
Alan_Myers
Luke Skywalker
Offline
Hi Bob,
Your picture didn't show up...
But assuming you are looking at the rear brake slave cylinders, I believe they're available from all the usual LBC vendors, such as www.the-roadster-factory.com or at https://www.zeni.net/trf/TR6-250GC/107.php?s_wt=1024&s_ht=768. If you are replacing them completely (Which, IMHO is usually a good idea... Rebuilds seem to work out 50% of the time, but leak the other 50%.), they are $22.50 apiece there right now. You'll also need the separate cylinder fitting kit, also $22.50.
BTW, as rusty as the shoes are in the other photo you posted elsewhere, you might need the return springs and shoe hold-downs, too.
The adjusters often clean up surprisingly well, no matter what condition they're found in, so long as the small square head hasn't been damaged by using the wrong wrench on them.
The same internal rear brake parts were used from late TR3 trhough TR6, so are pretty widely available. (Note: The drums and backing plates changed slightly with TR4A and later, but are actually fairly interchangeable with some slight modification... But that's not what we're looking at here).
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cheers.gif
Your picture didn't show up...
But assuming you are looking at the rear brake slave cylinders, I believe they're available from all the usual LBC vendors, such as www.the-roadster-factory.com or at https://www.zeni.net/trf/TR6-250GC/107.php?s_wt=1024&s_ht=768. If you are replacing them completely (Which, IMHO is usually a good idea... Rebuilds seem to work out 50% of the time, but leak the other 50%.), they are $22.50 apiece there right now. You'll also need the separate cylinder fitting kit, also $22.50.
BTW, as rusty as the shoes are in the other photo you posted elsewhere, you might need the return springs and shoe hold-downs, too.
The adjusters often clean up surprisingly well, no matter what condition they're found in, so long as the small square head hasn't been damaged by using the wrong wrench on them.
The same internal rear brake parts were used from late TR3 trhough TR6, so are pretty widely available. (Note: The drums and backing plates changed slightly with TR4A and later, but are actually fairly interchangeable with some slight modification... But that's not what we're looking at here).
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cheers.gif
Offline
As with my previous reply about your brake shoes, your picture shows a Lockheed wheel cylinder. All of this is starting to make me wonder just what your rear brake setup really is from, since it's certainly not "normal" TR4!
It doesn't seem likely, but is there a possibility that some previous owner swapped rear ends in this car, perhaps from a TR2 or early TR3 or ??? What diameter are the brake drums, BTW?
It doesn't seem likely, but is there a possibility that some previous owner swapped rear ends in this car, perhaps from a TR2 or early TR3 or ??? What diameter are the brake drums, BTW?
jsneddon
Jedi Knight
Offline
Something is definately fishy. I agree with Andy.
I'd have thought by this time those orignal rear-ends would have all mercifully self-destructed by this time but stranger things have happened.
Measuring the drums will give us the answer on what's going on and we can move forward from there. This IS a solid axle early 4 right? Not the IRS?
Since you have V8 in your user name am I to assume that you're putting a V8 in this TR4??? If so and you have the old 10 inch rear end you are really going to need to consider getting the newer one. Those old rear ends eat half-shafts with the standard 4... it's not a matter of if the half-shaft will break but WHEN. Throw a v8 into the mix and it is definately not going to hold up.
You're not going to get any grief around here about a v8 swap.... I just want you to be aware that the old Lockheed axles are NOT going to hold up to stock horsepower let alone any additional horses.
Let us know what you find and we'll get you going in the right direction.
oh... and welcome to the Forum!!!!!!
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
I'd have thought by this time those orignal rear-ends would have all mercifully self-destructed by this time but stranger things have happened.
Measuring the drums will give us the answer on what's going on and we can move forward from there. This IS a solid axle early 4 right? Not the IRS?
Since you have V8 in your user name am I to assume that you're putting a V8 in this TR4??? If so and you have the old 10 inch rear end you are really going to need to consider getting the newer one. Those old rear ends eat half-shafts with the standard 4... it's not a matter of if the half-shaft will break but WHEN. Throw a v8 into the mix and it is definately not going to hold up.
You're not going to get any grief around here about a v8 swap.... I just want you to be aware that the old Lockheed axles are NOT going to hold up to stock horsepower let alone any additional horses.
Let us know what you find and we'll get you going in the right direction.
oh... and welcome to the Forum!!!!!!
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Alan_Myers
Luke Skywalker
Offline
It's got to be a solid (live) axle TR4, and an early one at that. The CT prefix tells us that. Also the 4090 commission number indicates it's and early car, built in 1961 (the model first rolled off the production line in August). TR4 model ended in Jan. 1965 with CT 40304. All following cars begining in Jan. '65 were TR4A, although some were live axle fitted to the IRS frame (an estimated 25% of production, but no one really knows for sure). TR4A chassis numbers began with 50001. The live axle TR4A that were part the 50001 & up series continued to use the CT prefix, while the IRS 4As being built alongside used a different prefix: CTC. Although the two prefixes wereintermingled, the numbers beginning with 50001 were still kept consecutive.
Actaully, in terms of the rear brakes, this is all somewhat moot. The innards of the 9" rear brakes are the same and interchangeable for all TR4, TR4A, TR250/5 and TR6. Many TR3 and TR3A (including the so-called TR3"B") also used the same rear brake parts (but, I think there was some intermingling of 10" rear brakes still used on TR3 and TR3A).
Perhaps this particular car has had some swapping done, or has some strange aftermarket parts used on it. Yes, measuring to see if those are 10" or 9" drums will tell part of the story. Seems to me the "Lockheed" TR2/early TR3 rear axle shouldn't even fit under a TR4 (which has a wider track than the TR3s), but I'm not certain of this (it's not something I'd ever have reason to try). If memory serves, the brake backing plate mounting end on the "Lockheed" axle has a squared end and 4 bolts per side. The later "Girling" axle has a round end and 6 bolts per side.
Bob, Can you post a picture of the brake backing plate and the rear axle of the car, so we can see if they look like TR4... Or something else?
Weren't there also differences in how the brake shoes are held in place?
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cheers.gif
Actaully, in terms of the rear brakes, this is all somewhat moot. The innards of the 9" rear brakes are the same and interchangeable for all TR4, TR4A, TR250/5 and TR6. Many TR3 and TR3A (including the so-called TR3"B") also used the same rear brake parts (but, I think there was some intermingling of 10" rear brakes still used on TR3 and TR3A).
Perhaps this particular car has had some swapping done, or has some strange aftermarket parts used on it. Yes, measuring to see if those are 10" or 9" drums will tell part of the story. Seems to me the "Lockheed" TR2/early TR3 rear axle shouldn't even fit under a TR4 (which has a wider track than the TR3s), but I'm not certain of this (it's not something I'd ever have reason to try). If memory serves, the brake backing plate mounting end on the "Lockheed" axle has a squared end and 4 bolts per side. The later "Girling" axle has a round end and 6 bolts per side.
Bob, Can you post a picture of the brake backing plate and the rear axle of the car, so we can see if they look like TR4... Or something else?
Weren't there also differences in how the brake shoes are held in place?
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cheers.gif
Offline
[ QUOTE ]
Seems to me the "Lockheed" TR2/early TR3 rear axle shouldn't even fit under a TR4 (which has a wider track than the TR3s), but I'm not certain of this (it's not something I'd ever have reason to try).
[/ QUOTE ]Actually, I'm pretty sure the two axles can be swapped back and forth, as the extra width of the rear axles all occurs outside the spring mounts welded onto the axle tube. The REAR of the TR4 chassis didn't change from the 2/3/3A; it was only the front of the chassis that was modified ("widened" with outboard box sections welded onto the main rails...and R&P steering added, of course). I can't think of any reason other than desperation to use a TR3 axle under a TR4, but I know folks have swapped the wider TR4 axles into TR3s. (Undoubtedly it could cause some problems with clearance on the rear fenders, but that's what hammers and "Porta-Power" tools are for! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hammer.gif)
Seems to me the "Lockheed" TR2/early TR3 rear axle shouldn't even fit under a TR4 (which has a wider track than the TR3s), but I'm not certain of this (it's not something I'd ever have reason to try).
[/ QUOTE ]Actually, I'm pretty sure the two axles can be swapped back and forth, as the extra width of the rear axles all occurs outside the spring mounts welded onto the axle tube. The REAR of the TR4 chassis didn't change from the 2/3/3A; it was only the front of the chassis that was modified ("widened" with outboard box sections welded onto the main rails...and R&P steering added, of course). I can't think of any reason other than desperation to use a TR3 axle under a TR4, but I know folks have swapped the wider TR4 axles into TR3s. (Undoubtedly it could cause some problems with clearance on the rear fenders, but that's what hammers and "Porta-Power" tools are for! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hammer.gif)
jsneddon
Jedi Knight
Offline
Did you find anything Bob?
A picture of the back plate might be helpful at this point. The bolts and mounting points should point us in the right direction.
Do you have the paper Moss catalog? If so look at the rear-end section and there are good illustrations of all the different rear-ends.
A picture of the back plate might be helpful at this point. The bolts and mounting points should point us in the right direction.
Do you have the paper Moss catalog? If so look at the rear-end section and there are good illustrations of all the different rear-ends.
Greg_Blake
Jedi Hopeful
Offline
I just decided to put the 4 frame along with the wider axle under my 3. I have not finished yet, but I can certainly verify that the rear of the frames, as far as axle/spring mounts, are identical between the two cars.
The fender clearance should be fun.
Greg
The fender clearance should be fun.
Greg
Offline
[ QUOTE ]
I just decided to put the 4 frame along with the wider axle under my 3....The fender clearance should be fun.
[/ QUOTE ]In other words, you're essentially building a replica "TR3 Beta"! Triumph built at least two of these as prototypes. Basically all they did to the fenders was to add about 1" in width, pretty much all in the area where the fenders bolt to the body. Of course, the front fenders would have to taper down from that 1" in front to almost 0 extra width where the rear of the fender meets the door, but the rear fenders could take the extra width all around the inner edge.
I just decided to put the 4 frame along with the wider axle under my 3....The fender clearance should be fun.
[/ QUOTE ]In other words, you're essentially building a replica "TR3 Beta"! Triumph built at least two of these as prototypes. Basically all they did to the fenders was to add about 1" in width, pretty much all in the area where the fenders bolt to the body. Of course, the front fenders would have to taper down from that 1" in front to almost 0 extra width where the rear of the fender meets the door, but the rear fenders could take the extra width all around the inner edge.
Andrew I have the Moss catalog for the TR4, but not the TR7/8 and looking at the picture online I feel this is what is in the car. Right now the car is on jackstands because I am rebuilding the front suspension and a brake upgrade. I hope to get some pictures of the backing plate this weekend. I bought the car with a chevy 350 in it and the person that did the conversion might of put in the heavier duty rearend. Are there production numbers on the rear end that I can look up to make sure of what is in the car?
Bob
Bob
Similar threads
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
G
-
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A friendly reminder - be careful what links you click on here. If a link is posted by someone you don't know, or the URL looks fishy, DON'T CLICK. Spammers sometimes post links that lead to sites that can infect your computer, so be mindful what you click.