Someone wrote:
I spoke with TRF's tech line and they said that Triumph (you'll love this
one) put the entire run of TR-6 ring gears on with the bevel that helps the
starter gear engage with the ring gear facing the rear of the car.
This just has to be another of those quaint little myths that are now believed
by so many to be the gospel truth. It's not unlike the widely-held belief (in
the US) that the Jaguar plant had earth floors or that all the roadtesters at
MG were able to take home the car of their choice for the night "to ensure it
had been properly made."
We'll never know who gave birth to this ring gear anecdote but whoever it is,
perhaps they might like to consider the following:
- All six cylinder Standard-Triumph engines were made on the same line. Ergo,
US TR6 engines were built on the same line as all other engines for GT6,
Vitesse, TR injection, 2000, 2.5PI and 2500 for all markets. Consequently US
spec engines were in a minority in terms of total engine build count. Did
anyone from TRF Technical ever see those engines being built? Probably not.
- All were visually inspected many times during the course of assembly and a
wrongly fitted ring gear would have stuck out like a sore thumb
- All engines were run on two dynos at different times with exposed flywheels
and slave starter motors. Today, such an initiative would give the Health and
Safety people something akin to heart failure!
- For a number of years - and as someone else pointed out, the David Eley six
cylinder design was fitted with starters where the pinion moved forwards to
engage - and not backwards.
- From an after sales perspective, flywheel ring gear slippage was certainly a
major problem and there was ample evidence that many dealers did refit the
ring gears incorrectly - i.e. fitters forgot the pinion moved forwards to
engage rather than backwards.
But top marks to whoever in TRF for thinking up such a charming piece of 'olde
Englishe' nonsense.
Jonmac
|