Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Spits\]\s+rear\s+brake\s+hoses\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. [Spits] rear brake hoses (score: 1)
Author: "Stuart Greenwood" <sagreenwood@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:49:18 -0700
When I was removing the outer drive shafts from my 1971 MkIV spit I noticed that the flex brake hose ( I have the Aeroquipe type) are only just long enough when the car is jacked up and the rear susp
/html/spitfires/2008-09/msg00038.html (7,595 bytes)

2. Re: [Spits] rear brake hoses (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Curry" <spitlist@cox.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:57:59 -0700
There are two derivations of hoses for the MkIV. The earlier cars have shorter axles and therefore would most likely have the same sort of hoses as the earlier cars (Mk1 through Mk3). The later cars
/html/spitfires/2008-09/msg00039.html (8,415 bytes)

3. Re: [Spits] rear brake hoses (score: 1)
Author: Doug Braun <doug@dougbraun.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
1972 cars definitely do NOT have the short section of pipe. I have a factory MK IV parts book, and it does not show the pipe. Doug Braun '72 Spit -- Stuart Greenwood <sagreenwood@earthlink.net> wrote
/html/spitfires/2008-09/msg00054.html (8,700 bytes)

4. Re: [Spits] rear brake hoses (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Curry" <spitlist@cox.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:03:32 -0700
Perhaps when the axles were lengthened, Triumph just lengthened the hoses to accommodate. Afterwards, they obviously added the solid piping. Maybe due to the longer hoses having a possibility of rubb
/html/spitfires/2008-09/msg00055.html (9,324 bytes)

5. Re: [Spits] rear brake hoses (score: 1)
Author: "Bill Davies" <bill@rarebits4classics.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:13:33 +0100
The hoses were lengthened and short rigid pipes introduced together with the long driveshafts in late 1972. The hoses have different end fittings to mate with the pipe flare, rather than sealed with
/html/spitfires/2008-09/msg00056.html (8,019 bytes)

6. Re: [Spits] rear brake hoses (score: 1)
Author: "v6spitfireguy@cox.net" <v6spitfireguy@cox.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:41:37 -0400
Actually, the rear axles (the "driveshafts" that I believe you are alluding to) were not lengthened until the 1973 model year - 71 and 72 got the swing spring and square tail, but the same length old
/html/spitfires/2008-09/msg00057.html (9,689 bytes)

7. Re: [Spits] rear brake hoses (score: 1)
Author: Ted Schumacher <tedtsimx@bright.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:04:11 -0400
You are both correct.Overseas, the cars were a year ahead of us. So, our '73 Spit was in the UK as a '72. We make steelbraid brake hose sets and this is always one of the issues that creates potentia
/html/spitfires/2008-09/msg00058.html (11,536 bytes)

8. Re: [Spits] rear brake hoses (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Curry" <spitlist@cox.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:51:56 -0700
Right! According to the Thomason book, the change happened at serial number 50,000. That was the first of the 1973 models that began production in October of 1972. Joe --Original Message-- From: spit
/html/spitfires/2008-09/msg00059.html (8,611 bytes)

9. Re: [Spits] rear brake hoses (score: 1)
Author: "Bill Davies" <bill@rarebits4classics.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 22:09:12 +0100
Yes, that's right. Date of registration is irrelevant, the long shaft models weren't marketed in the UK until (I think) March 1973, but were built from October 1972, Cheers, Bill Davies. Rarebits4cl
/html/spitfires/2008-09/msg00060.html (8,117 bytes)

10. Re: [Spits] rear brake hoses (score: 1)
Author: ZoboHerald@aol.com
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:26:57 EDT
Yes, that's right. Date of registration is irrelevant, the long shaft models weren't marketed in the UK until (I think) March 1973, but were built from October 1972, Presumably that also applies to F
/html/spitfires/2008-09/msg00061.html (9,088 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu