On April 5, Justin Wagner wrote
>Honestly, I would just let this ride... but when I think of some
>percentage of the newsgroup falling for some misplaced theory about the
>dangers of jacking a car by the differential... I feel a need to say
>something...
This isn't a flame but I've got to say one last thing on the "misplaced
theory
about the dangers of jacking a car by the differential" as this relates to
rear independently sprung Triumphs. Then I'll shut up. If the vehicle
manufacturer itself insisted that its directly employed service staff
jacked Triumph cars using load spreaders to the chassis extensions there
was a supremely sound reason for it. I used exactly the same argument to my
foreman that the bushings were strong enough to take the temporary
additional local load.
It elicited the response, quote "don't bl***y argue! The bushings are for
DIFF load - NOT for jacking! If you jack the car, you use a *#%! spreader"
unquote.
I was then shown a grubby page from an Engineering Procedures Manual.
While I can't remember the verbatim transcript, it was to the effect that
"no car is to be lifted using a jack directly imposed on the differential
housing of vehicles fitted with independent rear suspension. Such
initiatives impose unnecessary loads on the differential housing and their
related mounting accessories."
I suppose I should have remembered the exact wording because apart from
losing my bonus for the week, I had to write it out 100 times - in true
schoolboy fashion.
>When it's an issue of how to pronounce tomato or potato, feel free to
>leave it alone. But when it's an issue such as "using gasoline as a
>cleaner", or in this case, the safe-lifting of a Triumph, please join in
>with a voice of reason.
Is this an adequate voice of reason?
John Macartney
Now in the same museum as the cars he sold when they were new
|