PDA

View Full Version : TR6 Anyone need a TR6 frame all ready to go???



Brosky
05-15-2006, 06:53 PM
Check this out:

https://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayIS...DME:B:BCB:MT:41 (https://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8065794089&ssPageName= ADME:B:BCB:MT:41)

RomanH
05-15-2006, 10:43 PM
That is a nice looking frame. I even like the non standard color scheme. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

kennypinkerton
05-15-2006, 11:29 PM
Wow! first time I've ever seen a TR frame... doesn't using a full frame kind of overrule the weight savings of having fully independant suspension?

jsneddon
05-16-2006, 09:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Wow! first time I've ever seen a TR frame... doesn't using a full frame kind of overrule the weight savings of having fully independant suspension?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a can of worms Kenny...

I think it was more of an idea to stuff (a quasi)independent suspension under the existing body tooling to get better handling without spending much money. Essentially it's the same frame and body from the TR4a ~ TR6. The previous frame (TR2~TR4 solid axle) had the solid axle on TOP of the frame which leads to some interesting characteristics when you push it to its limits. (ask old timers how many TR3's they've seen belly up - including mine at one point before I got it)

It was a design compromise that I think they made to just stay profitable and not have to retool the entire product line to get a better model out.

I say quasi-independent because it's really a trailing-arm rear suspension not a true "fully independent" suspension like what you'd find on Lotii or whatnot from that period.

Now I've completely pried the lid off this can of worms and someone else will disagree. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

But dang... non-factory color scheme or not that is a pretty frame.

Rusticus
05-16-2006, 09:49 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Wow! first time I've ever seen a TR frame... doesn't using a full frame kind of overrule the weight savings of having fully independant suspension?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the point of the IRS was weight savings. It was to improve the ride and handling qualities. The IRS cars were always a little heavier, I think.

The separate chassis frame, while old fashioned, is actually a great advantage when it comes to restoring or repairing the car. Some folks would say that it's basically impossible to restore a unibody to it's original structural integrity once it's been damaged by impact or corrosion. On a TR2-6, it's all replaceable with new or good used metal.

Rusticus
05-16-2006, 10:12 AM
"I say quasi-independent because it's really a trailing-arm rear suspension not a true "fully independent" suspension like what you'd find on Lotii or whatnot from that period."

Yeah, I would totally disagree with that. It's fully independent, nothing "quasi" about it. It may not be "unequal length wishbones," like a race car, but properly designed trailing, or in this case semi-trailing arms, work great.

I love how the folks who love "live" axles all seem to think Harry Webster "got it all wrong" when he designed the IRS...
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cheers.gif

"It was a design compromise that I think they made to just stay profitable and not have to retool the entire product line to get a better model out."

Perhaps you're talking about the 6 cylinder TR engine? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/devilgrin.gif

4aKen
05-20-2006, 11:47 PM
I'm in total agreement with Rusticus. These fully independent rearends are predictable, they improved roadability, drivability, enhanced comfort. They proved reliable. All the parts are easily replaced in sections and readily available at reasonable cost. Watch your universals and fix those frames and enjoy the ride. The IRS never lived down to its' press. It moved the TR range forward.

05-21-2006, 09:23 AM
Wow, thats purty. If that was under my car I'd be afraid to drive it and get it dirty.

tomshobby
05-21-2006, 09:56 AM
I had both a TR4 and GT6 when they were new vehicles. Both handled very well and were completely competetive cornering with any car on the road during those days. But, they were also very different to drive. I liked both. I felt the TR4 was more stiff and a little more forgiving of a slightly less attentative driving. The GT6 was not as harsh but required close attention when pushing the limits. That said, I felt the GT6 could outperform the TR4 in hard cornering. It might also be noted that the TR4 was a very poor performer at airial manuvering! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/nonod.gif
The jury is out on my TR6. It is thirty years old with an old set of red lines and the suspension shows its age. Until it is rebuilt and the tires replaced I would not want to push any limits with it.

4aKen
05-21-2006, 05:13 PM
"It might also be noted that the TR4 was a very poor performer at airial manuvering!"

No way!

Brosky
05-21-2006, 06:05 PM
I wish I had a second garage. That frame went for $2,250.00.
All of the new parts cost about half of that without the powder coating, etc.
Sigh..............

Alan_Myers
05-21-2006, 07:53 PM
Hi all,

Actually, I agree with most of what's been written about the live axle of TR4 vs. the IRS setup beginning with TR4A. I don't think the different opinions are really at odds with each other.

IMHO, the live axle is easier and cheaper to set up and dial in for increased performance or racing. The IRS, while harder to tune and requiring more fiddling and expense, ultimately might have a little more handling performance potential.

The TR4 and earlier ladder chassis is pretty solid and stiff to begin with. But, leaf springs have inherent limitations and the car is more inclined to bump steer and to lift a wheel in hard cornering.

The IRS chassis itself requires more preparation - to strengthen and eliminate frame flex, plus reinforce front suspension, differential and trailing arm mounts - before the real work can begin establishing ride height and front to rear balance, setting up the shocks, sway bars, spring rates, etc.

The live axle version of TR4A - supposedly done to appease nervous dealers - is another animal entirely. It mixes the live axle with the flexier frame, so if improvement is wanted it will require a mixed bag of efforts.

I don't think any of the designs are particularly inclined to rollover, but the live axle will give less warning to a the driver (and it would be exacerbated on the narrower track TR2s & 3s).

Someone *did* get a great deal on that eBay auction! I just looked at it for the first tim eand didn't realize it was essentially a complete chassis, just awaiting engine, gearbox and a body.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cheers.gif

tomshobby
05-22-2006, 07:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
No way!

[/ QUOTE ]
Way!
It performed several airial manuvers much like a bouncing ball and finally a rock. In the end it had landed on nearly every side. Even though the body was toast the only thing keeping the car from being driven was a broken tie-rod. The suspension had nothing to do with the event except that the springs may have given extra lift to the "flight".
I do not remember exactly but it was about 1966 when it happened and I was not injured. How I escaped without injury is in itself a story.
As far as frames go, the TR4 frame was not damaged and did not need straightening. Other than the body the only damage was a bent air cleaner. I will write about it one of these days.