To: | Bob Labuz <yellowtr@adelphia.net> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [TR] Non-synchro gearbox |
From: | John Macartney <flywheelcoventry1@yahoo.co.uk> |
Date: | Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:56:54 +0000 (GMT) |
Cc: | "triumphs@autox.team.net" <triumphs@autox.team.net> |
Delivered-to: | mharc@autox.team.net |
Delivered-to: | triumphs@autox.team.net |
References: | <018f01cdf433$69572280$3c056780$@uprichard.net> <50F72722.4080203@adelphia.net> |
Bob Labuz wrote: <I sort of wish all Triumphs retained this setup.> I also sort of wish Triumphs retained many other features that were abandoned on purely cost grounds - like: being able to drain rear axles instead of assuring the customer "the oil was good for life." Removing flitch panels in critical places that accelerated rust Fitting smaller radiators Fitting inadequate sized front brakes on FWD saloons, then fitting a booster to improve braking Using inferior quality alloys on the Slant 4 and Stag engines - until reliability issues forced the upgrade as specified by Engineering the list is a long one. I wish I could remember some of the rest of it :) Jonmac ** triumphs@autox.team.net ** Archive: http://www.team.net/archive |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [TR] Non-synchro gearbox, KingsCreekTrees |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [TR] Non-synchro gearbox, Wbeech |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [TR] Non-synchro gearbox, KingsCreekTrees |
Next by Thread: | Re: [TR] Non-synchro gearbox, Wbeech |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |