woodster
|
| posted on 24/10/12 at 09:19 PM |
|
|
Mx5 herald
NTDWM and could be a re post but I'll share any way 
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Triumph-Herald-fitted-with-supercharged-mx5-engine-/261116895421?pt=Automobiles_UK&hash=item3ccbc7a0bd
|
|
|
|
|
snapper
|
| posted on 24/10/12 at 09:51 PM |
|
|
Now if that was in a Spitfire
I would change the back end, the traverse spring even the later ones are no where as good as the front end double wishbones
I eat to survive
I drink to forget
I breath to pi55 my ex wife off (and now my ex partner)
|
|
|
mookaloid
|
| posted on 24/10/12 at 10:43 PM |
|
|
Now that is a cool car 
"That thing you're thinking - it wont be that."
|
|
|
cliftyhanger
|
| posted on 25/10/12 at 07:23 AM |
|
|
Yep, drop a scooby LSD in (actually not quite as easy as it sounds, as I am finding out) and some cv jointed rear shafts/ lower wishbones and it could
be a hoot of a car. (not a lot wrong with the transverse spring TBH, think of it as an upper wishbone and a clever spring all in one) Good looking too
|
|
|
pewe
|
| posted on 25/10/12 at 08:17 AM |
|
|
Alternatively graft an MX5 back end on c/w Torsen slippy diff and you have a winner.
Better not let SWMBO know I've put it on my watch list!
Cheers, Pewe10
|
|
|
dhutch
|
| posted on 25/10/12 at 10:24 AM |
|
|
Nice.
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 25/10/12 at 12:41 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cliftyhanger
(not a lot wrong with the transverse spring TBH, think of it as an upper wishbone and a clever spring all in one) Good looking too
It is fundamentally different to a double wishbone system since with a swing axle there is only an inboard UJ, and the wheel has to adopt the same
angle as the driveshaft. The "upright" is coupled to the spring via a shackle arrangement, specifically so that the spring can not
influence the angle of the wheel (which would otherwise cause the entire suspension to bind up). In all, it's an absolutely horrific design.
The later "swing spring" arrangement was the cheapest possible workaround to the rear suspension deficiencies which simply reduced the
rear roll stiffness, which lessened the propensity for the wheels to tuck under (though it was quite ingenious).
The later Rotoflex design as used on the GT6 etc, was much more like a conventional double wishbone system.
|
|
|
