Re: Front Springs positioning.

["Brian A.Tink" <batink@domain.elided>]

John

Thank you for that, it sounds very much like what one of my manuals say.

As for the differences, maybe the earlier 2000, mark 1, pre 73 possibly had
a bush in the radius rod, but certainly noy in my '74 2000 or '74 stag.

there is certainly differences be4tween models and and years, for instance
the '74 2000 does not have and inbuilt wiper delay in the switch but the
'74 stag does.

The 2000 and the stag have a "magic' box in the boot which reduces the
brightness of the tail lights at night when the head lights are on, yet the
'78 2500s does not have this.   I have ripped this feature out of the stag
and must do so on the 2000 one day.

Back to the spring, I will follw the suggestion.

keep staggering  brian




At 11:43 PM 18/08/98 +0100, you wrote:
>The Haynes manual says the following in
>Chapter 11, Section 4, Paragraph 13 for
>refitting the FRONT road springs.
>
>"Refit the roadwheel and when positioned
>in the straight ahead position, grasp the road
>spring and rotate it so as to bring its lower
>extremity direct inboard. The reason for this
>is to ensure that the spring bows out slightly
>when loaded so preventing fouling on the 
>wheel arch."
>
>The instructions for refitting the REAR
>road spring don't include anything about 
>positioning.
>
>However, don't believe everything you see/read
>in the Haynes manual. On the page opposite
>the above (p.177) there is a drawing of the 
>front suspension clearly showing a bush 
>where the drag strut joins the lower suspension
>arm!  I understand the Triumph 2000 has this,
>but the Stag certainly doesn't. (Perhaps it would
>have been better if it did) Indeed the caption for
>this item mentions a Commission number of
>MB 8252. That's not a Stag number.
>
>Then on page 138 (Chapter 10, Section 40, Para 4)
>in the description of the night dimming relay the words 
>"the resistor of the unselected flasher circuit" in lines 
>6 and 7 should not be there; at least not if the drawing 
>is correct.
>
>Also, on the next page (139) the drawing of the fusebox
>is laterally reversed. Photo 45.1 proves it.
>
>There may be other errors, and some may have been
>corrected in recent editions. Both my manuals (one for
>the garage and one for indoors) are quite old. 
>
>John Clayton
>
>----------
>> From: Brian A.Tink <batink@domain.elided>
>> To: Wood,Andrew <alw@domain.elided>
>> Cc: stag@domain.elided
>> Subject: Re: Front Springs positioning.
>> Date: 18 August 1998 09:55
>> 
>> Andrew
>> 
>> Thank you for that, I would be interested to know what the Haynes manual
>says.
>> 
>> regards  brian
>> 
>> 
>> At 09:28 AM 17/08/98 +0000, you wrote:
>> >
>> >I'm in the process of carrying out a similar exercise on my Stag with
>the 
>> >help of the Haynes workshop manual rather than the official one. I'm
>pretty 
>> >sure that the Haynes manual  makes reference to positioning the springs 
>> >although I have not quite got to that stage yet.
>> >
>> >Andrew Wood.
>> > ----------
>> >From: Brian A.Tink
>> >To: ALW; Mike Wattam
>> >Cc: 'STAG@SMTP <stag@domain.elided>'
>> >Subject: Re: Front Springs positioning.
>> >Date:  16 August 1998 15:10
>> >
>> >Mike
>> >
>> >Further to my spring position comment I notice that the TR7 manual makes
>a
>> >similar issue to the rear springs, they have to be face forward.
>> >
>> >as for the Stag, seeming that the 2000 and the stag are all similar, I
>see
>> >no reason not to apply the suggestion.
>> >
>> >keep staggering   brian
>> >
>> >
>> >At 07:19 PM 15/08/98 -0400, you wrote:
>> >>Hi Brian
>> >>
>> >>I hope you are well.  What you describe is standard practice, so that
>the
>> >>springs do not 'bind' on the spring turrets.  Looking in my Stag
>manuals I
>> >>cannot see any reference to this either.
>> >>
>> >>However, the 1300 and Dolomite manuals all make a big deal of this, and
>> >>there are even many factory service bulletins on the subject.
>> >>
>> >>Mike Wattam
>> >>Triumph Stag Register
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>