Query on seatbelts
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: F Murtz on 15 Jun 2010 08:01 John_H wrote: > F Murtz wrote: >> D Walford wrote: >>> On 15/06/2010 8:18 AM, John_H wrote: >>>> >>>> One of the cars I owned back in the days of my impoverished youth was >>>> a 1956 Vanguard with factory fitted lap/sash belts front and rear >>>> (possibly optional rather than the standard fitment). >>> >>> Is that the model with the rounded rear, same Grandfather had one of >>> those, a green one and it also had seat belts. >> >> Commonly called humpty backs, had the same wet sleeve engine as triumph >> TR sports car and some tractors. > > No they didn't. > > All they shared was the basic design, which included the use of wet > sleeves. Almost no significant components were interchangeble between > any of the three, including engine blocks and cylinder heads, with > TR's having the least in common with the other two. > > The Fergie had the same displacement as Vanguards (2.088 litre) but > the pistons were different. TR's didn't even share the same > displacement... early models were 1.991 litre, TR4 was 2.138 litre. > They may have made various changes for each different vehicle. Does not alter the fact that the engine was used as the basis for the morgan and triumph and vanguard and tractors http://www.trregistry.com/start/registry/html/TR2/index.htm http://www.mister-cars.com/Articles.asp?Action=Article&intArticleID=649 http://www.autoclassic.com/features/classic_car_history/standard_vanguard.html
From: John_H on 15 Jun 2010 20:25 F Murtz wrote: >John_H wrote: >> F Murtz wrote: >>> D Walford wrote: >>>> On 15/06/2010 8:18 AM, John_H wrote: >>>>> >>>>> One of the cars I owned back in the days of my impoverished youth was >>>>> a 1956 Vanguard with factory fitted lap/sash belts front and rear >>>>> (possibly optional rather than the standard fitment). >>>> >>>> Is that the model with the rounded rear, same Grandfather had one of >>>> those, a green one and it also had seat belts. >>> >>> Commonly called humpty backs, had the same wet sleeve engine as triumph >>> TR sports car and some tractors. >> >> No they didn't. >> >> All they shared was the basic design, which included the use of wet >> sleeves. Almost no significant components were interchangeble between >> any of the three, including engine blocks and cylinder heads, with >> TR's having the least in common with the other two. >> >> The Fergie had the same displacement as Vanguards (2.088 litre) but >> the pistons were different. TR's didn't even share the same >> displacement... early models were 1.991 litre, TR4 was 2.138 litre. >> >They may have made various changes for each different vehicle. >Does not alter the fact that the engine was used as the basis for the >morgan and triumph and vanguard and tractors Which is pretty much what I said, except the "various changes" you now refer to (previously you claimed it was the same engine) involved completely re-engineered componentry for each variant. In fact they've got about as much in common as a VW Beetle and an air cooled Porsche (which some even used to claim were the same engine). All the links you've provided do is repeat the furphy that it was the same engine. They provide no technical details whatsoever and one even claims a displacement of 1670 cc, which wasn't used in any of the variants you've mentioned. Nor was it the basis for any Morgan engine. Morgan used various engines including Triumph... the Plus 4's engine was taken directly from the TR with no alteration. Morgan Plus Four Plus used the TR4 engine (unaltered). > >http://www.trregistry.com/start/registry/html/TR2/index.htm > >http://www.mister-cars.com/Articles.asp?Action=Article&intArticleID=649 > >http://www.autoclassic.com/features/classic_car_history/standard_vanguard.html -- John H
From: Toby on 15 Jun 2010 20:43 On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:25:06 +1000, John_H wrote: > Nor was it the basis for any Morgan engine. Morgan used various > engines including Triumph... the Plus 4's engine was taken directly > from the TR with no alteration. Morgan Plus Four Plus used the TR4 > engine (unaltered). Surely they baffled the sump to prevent problems due the POS's jumping their front-ends in to the air on any major bumps? -- Toby The solution could not possibly be more obvious. We can no longer afford the rich. T. Hussein Mississippifarian - July 2008
From: John_H on 15 Jun 2010 22:04 Toby wrote: >On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:25:06 +1000, John_H wrote: > >> Nor was it the basis for any Morgan engine. Morgan used various >> engines including Triumph... the Plus 4's engine was taken directly >> from the TR with no alteration. Morgan Plus Four Plus used the TR4 >> engine (unaltered). > >Surely they baffled the sump to prevent problems due the POS's jumping >their front-ends in to the air on any major bumps? I've worked on both, albeit a long time ago, and don't recall any such mod... which isn't to say it might not have been desirable. (I've also ridden in both). :) -- John H
From: F Murtz on 16 Jun 2010 01:56
John_H wrote: > F Murtz wrote: >> John_H wrote: >>> F Murtz wrote: >>>> D Walford wrote: >>>>> On 15/06/2010 8:18 AM, John_H wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> One of the cars I owned back in the days of my impoverished youth was >>>>>> a 1956 Vanguard with factory fitted lap/sash belts front and rear >>>>>> (possibly optional rather than the standard fitment). >>>>> >>>>> Is that the model with the rounded rear, same Grandfather had one of >>>>> those, a green one and it also had seat belts. >>>> >>>> Commonly called humpty backs, had the same wet sleeve engine as triumph >>>> TR sports car and some tractors. >>> >>> No they didn't. >>> >>> All they shared was the basic design, which included the use of wet >>> sleeves. Almost no significant components were interchangeble between >>> any of the three, including engine blocks and cylinder heads, with >>> TR's having the least in common with the other two. >>> >>> The Fergie had the same displacement as Vanguards (2.088 litre) but >>> the pistons were different. TR's didn't even share the same >>> displacement... early models were 1.991 litre, TR4 was 2.138 litre. >>> >> They may have made various changes for each different vehicle. >> Does not alter the fact that the engine was used as the basis for the >> morgan and triumph and vanguard and tractors > > Which is pretty much what I said, except the "various changes" you now > refer to (previously you claimed it was the same engine) involved > completely re-engineered componentry for each variant. Which is why vanguards were popular with farmers as some engine parts were interchangeable with their tractors. In fact > they've got about as much in common as a VW Beetle and an air cooled > Porsche (which some even used to claim were the same engine). > > All the links you've provided do is repeat the furphy that it was the > same engine. They provide no technical details whatsoever and one > even claims a displacement of 1670 cc, which wasn't used in any of the > variants you've mentioned. > > Nor was it the basis for any Morgan engine. Morgan used various > engines including Triumph... the Plus 4's engine was taken directly > from the TR with no alteration. Morgan Plus Four Plus used the TR4 > engine (unaltered). > >> >> http://www.trregistry.com/start/registry/html/TR2/index.htm >> >> http://www.mister-cars.com/Articles.asp?Action=Article&intArticleID=649 >> >> http://www.autoclassic.com/features/classic_car_history/standard_vanguard.html > > |