Subject: Re: [TR] WTB a TR-3

From: "Jonas Payne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 12:58:23 -0800

According to My "illustrated Triumph Buyers Guide"

TR2 was rated at 90 BHP

TR3 was rated at 95 BHP until somewhere shortly after TS13046

TR3 was rated at 100 BHP

TR3B/TR4 was rated at 100 BHP or 105 BHP depending on the source.  The
aforementioned book says 100 BHP.  (apparently TR4 was available as a 2.0L
or 2.2L?)

I have some period advertisements here that advertise a TR3 at 110 BHP.

Didn't mean to start WWIII, it was just my observation that I couldn't tell
the difference in power between a TR3 and a TR3 B.

Apparently it is because there isn't one.

Jonas Payne
PBR Consulting Services, LLC
702.882.6711

-----Original Message-----
From: Triumphs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Randall
Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 12:37 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [TR] WTB a TR-3

> Could be, Randall, but this is the first time I've ever heard about 
> this. Any sources you can cite?

Well, of course there is Practical Hints 6th edition, which actually lists
the 86mm engine as standard.  But I can't find a reference to actual
production numbers at the moment, except for Richard Newton's book, which
describes 86mm as being "a major option worth looking for". Piggott notes
only that 86mm "became standard" with the TR3B.  So perhaps it wasn't as
common as I think; and all the late TR3A engines I've found with old 86mm
liners were just modified after being built.

But my original point stands, there was no 10% bump in rated power between
the later 83mm engine and the early TR4 with 86mm engine.

Randall

** [email-masked] **

Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/triumphs/[email-masked]

** [email-masked] **

Archive: http://www.team.net/archive

---

From: Michael Porter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 14:31:55 -0700

> aforementioned book says 100 BHP.  (apparently TR4 was available as a 2.0L
I think all the TR4s were listed as 2138cc.  IIRC, the factory manuals 
listed TR4s as 100 bhp, while the TR4As were listed as 104 bhp, which 
was attributed to a minor cam profile tweak and the change in exhaust 
manifolding.

Cheers.

-- 

Michael Porter
Roswell, NM

Never let anyone drive you crazy when you know it's within walking distance....

---

From: Don Hiscock <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 16:45:36 -0600

--===============6849420306618545849==

--001a114242a457e01e0528ee767f

Easily coulda been an option for markets where under/over 2L made a big
differences in taxes, like Italy.

On Saturday, January 9, 2016, Randall <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> > I think all the TR4s were listed as 2138cc.
>
> The owner's manual, workshop manual, and spare parts catalogue all mention
> the 83mm (1991cc) option for TR4.  I assume that was only
> to homologate them for strict under 2 liter racing classes, but surely
> they had to deliver at least a few of them.  There are even
> "83mm" cylinder heads listed, which I'm guessing had the smaller
> combustion chamber (to maintain a 9:1 C/R).
>
> Randall
>
>
> ** [email-masked] <javascript:;> **
>
> Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
> Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
> Unsubscribe/Manage:
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/triumphs/[email-masked]
>

--001a114242a457e01e0528ee767f
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Easily coulda been an option for markets where under/over 2L made a big dif=
ferences in taxes, like Italy.=C2=A0<br><br>On Saturday, January 9, 2016, R=
andall &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a>&g=
t; wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;b=
order-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
&gt; I think all the TR4s were listed as 2138cc.<br>
<br>
The owner&#39;s manual, workshop manual, and spare parts catalogue all ment=
ion the 83mm (1991cc) option for TR4.=C2=A0 I assume that was only<br>
to homologate them for strict under 2 liter racing classes, but surely they=
 had to deliver at least a few of them.=C2=A0 There are even<br>
&quot;83mm&quot; cylinder heads listed, which I&#39;m guessing had the smal=
ler combustion chamber (to maintain a 9:1 C/R).<br>
<br>
Randall<br>
<br>
<br>
** <a href=3D"javascript:;" onclick=3D"_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;trium=
[email-masked]&#39;)">[email-masked]</a> **<br>
<br>
//www.team.net/donate.html</a><br>
Archive: <a href=3D"http://www.team.net/archive" target=3D"_blank">http://w=
ww.team.net/archive</a><br>
Forums: <a href=3D"http://www.team.net/forums" target=3D"_blank">http://www=
.team.net/forums</a><br>
hs/[email-masked]" target=3D"_blank">http://autox.team.net/mailman/o=
ptions/triumphs/[email-masked]</a><br>
</blockquote>

--001a114242a457e01e0528ee767f--

--===============6849420306618545849==
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

--===============6849420306618545849==--

---

From: "TeriAnn J. Wakeman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 16:33:21 -0700

> was attributed to a minor cam profile tweak and the change in exhaust
The 4A heads had slightly different porting which improved the flow a 
little as well.

TeriAnn