• Hi Guest!
    If you appreciate British Car Forum and our 25 years of supporting British car enthusiasts with technical and anicdotal information, collected from our thousands of great members, please support us with a low-cost subscription. You can become a supporting member for less than the dues of most car clubs.
    There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Tips
Tips

Looking for a TR4a

Share this page

Rut

Rut

Obi Wan
Country flag
Offline
Howdy, I'm beginning to start looking for a TR4a in decent shape, good frame and minimal rust, a driver would be good and OD would be nice. I'm open to unfinished projects as well and I'm much better at mechanics than body work. Please keep an eye out for me if you have or know of a good candidate!
Thanks, Rut
FOUND!
 
Last edited:
Rut
Are you just looking for a 4A (independent) or would just a 4 (straight axle) work?
BillM
 
Bill,
A 4a with either irs or solid axle...the 67 I had was a solid axle OD car. I prefer the 4a over the 4 for the marginal increase in width.
Rut
 
Curious, where was the width increased and is there really any advantage in a TR4 of the IRS over the solid axle? Didn't they have a wear problem with the IRS?

Kurt.
 
Kurt,
i don't know what the width difference is, but I understand it's from the frame up. The solid axle was an option only in NA if I remember correctly and the irs was considered 'bouncy' and not that popular. I had rear end problems with my TR6, the diff would break its supports and the CV joints wore pretty quick...it was my least favorite Triumph. I traded my 62 VW convertible for the 67 TR4a while I was in college in late 68...an even swap! I could have traded for a beautiful red 66 E type convertible for an additional $200, but that was a lot of money at the time!
Rut
 
Rut, I just looked through my reference books and I couldn't find any mention of the TR4a being wider in the body. The frame is wider, which meant that the frame outriggers were not necessary anymore, but no mention of the body begin different other than in some trim. Would be worth verifying with the Triumph folks as it would expand your available options.
 
Drew,
Thanks, I got the wider info from one of the TR forums and I'm looking for a 66 or 67 4a to relive my youth or what's left of it! I also find it interesting that the TR has less interior width than my Bugeye...I don't remember haveing to squeeze into my TR in 68-71, but I was about 80 lbs lighter (6'1", 200 now).
Rut
 
Rut said:
Drew,
Thanks, I got the wider info from one of the TR forums and I'm looking for a 66 or 67 4a to relive my youth or what's left of it! I also find it interesting that the TR has less interior width than my Bugeye...I don't remember haveing to squeeze into my TR in 68-71, but I was about 80 lbs lighter (6'1", 200 now).
Rut
Click to expand...

We're similar size, Rut. I briefly had a TR4 before my first Bugeye, and I was surprised that the Bugeye felt a bit roomier to me. Definitely not as cramped side-to-side in the Bugeye. Not palatial, but there feels like more room at least for me. I've driven a TR3 (my favorite Triumph) and it had infinte elbow room with the side curtains off.
 
Mickey,
Thanks for the link and I did look at that car...something doesn't seem quite right to me, but it could just be me. Please keep an eye out for me!
Thanks, Rut
 
Back
Top