Allan;
Thanks for the info (and I know you meant "width"), and I will add it to
my archive. I didn't know about the subtle differences in arch and the
1/2 in. difference in length on series III, IV, and V. Perhaps some
Tiger owners can confirm or refute Marc's opinion.
Ron Tebo
Allan Ballard wrote:
>Ron,
>
>Ithink the SII springs are 1/2 inch different in length based upon
>this
>>From SAOCA:
>Allan
>
>Rear Suspension
>
>Series I
>
> * Length - 44
> * Width - 1.75
> * Debth - 1.547
> * Number of blades - 8
>
>Series II
>
> * Length - 44
> * Width - 2.25
> * Debth - 1.172
> * Number of blades - 6
>
>Series 3
>
> * Length - 43.5
> * Width - 2.25
> * Debth - 1.172
> * Number of blades - 6
>
>Series IV
>
> * Length - 43.5
> * Width - 2.25
> * Debth - .984
> * Number of blades - 5
>
>Series V
>
> * Length -
> * Width - 2.25
> * Debth -
> * Number of blades
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ron Tebo [mailto:mrtebo@shaw.ca]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 6:00 PM
>To: Allan Ballard
>Cc: alpines
>Subject: Re: [Alpines] Sunbeam Alpine Series II Rear Springs
>
>Allan:
>
>I believe they were actually the same spring with an extra leaf added,
>but Tiger owners may know better! Here is something out of my archive
>that supports my belief.
>
>Ron Tebo
>
>Subject:
>Re: [Alpines] [Tigers] Speaking of Panhard Bars...
>From:
>Marc James Small <marcsmall@comcast.net>
>Date:
>Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:54:56 -0400
>To:
>drmayf@mayfco.com, "tigers@autox.team.net" <tigers@autox.team.net>,
>Alpines <alpines@autox.team.net>
>
>At 04:09 PM 7/5/2008, drmayf wrote:
> >Are there any other cars that use leaf springs like our cars and a
>
>
>>panhard bar? The use of a panhard bar in our case is just counter
>>intuitive to me. The leaf springs keep the rear end located and that
>>would seem to make the panhard bar redundant. Yeah, I know about
>>
>>
>wheel >hop, but a panhard bar or any other kind of lateral location
>linkage is >to keep the rear centered. If I put coil overs on the
>rear of my car, >then, yeah, a locating bar would be needed, as well
>as some trailing >linkage for fore and aft movement.
> >
> >So why did they install it? Did the Alpine have one? .
>
>
>The much more civilized Alpine did not need a Panhard Rod to produce
>manueverability which, all else being equal, routinely leaves Tigers
>in the dust on any sort of decent back road.
>
>The original Tigers were produced by mushing up Alpine bodies and the
>only suspension modifications were those necessary to fit that
>ungainly Ford mill into a decently sized engine compartment. Hence,
>the rear suspension remained the same -- a torn rotator cuff (damn!
>there goes my career pitching for the Atlanta Braves, and I really WAS
>looking forward to a perfect World Series game against the detestable
>Yankees or the even more detestable Boston Dead Sox) makes it hard for
>me to dig out my parts manuals. I suspect without checking these that
>the Alpine IIIa/IV rear springs were identical to those on the Alpine
>260 if not for those on the Alpine V and Tiger II.
>
>If you upgrade your rear springs to something more in line with that
>unGodly amount of power that barbaric engine provides, a Panhard Rod
>becomes unnecessary.
>
>(The above is all written in good fun save for the cmments about the
>Yankees and the Boston Morons, and, yes, I grin as I write these
>words. You guys all live on the Left Coast and therefore have no
>knowledge of REAL baseball.)
>
>Marc
>
>
>
>Allan Ballard wrote:
>
>
>
>>Are Tiger leaf springs and Alpine SII leafs the same length .. ??
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
Alpines@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/alpines
http://www.team.net/archive
|