Board logo

Mx5 herald
woodster - 24/10/12 at 09:19 PM

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 - 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

mookaloid - 24/10/12 at 10:43 PM

Now that is a cool car

cliftyhanger - 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 - 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 - 25/10/12 at 10:24 AM

Nice.

MikeRJ - 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.