MG MGB and MGB GT Tech Talk
Hi Folks,
I saw a very good-looking Triumph convertible the other day and could not help but notice the rear wheels and how they look like they needed some major toe-in. I’ve seen this before and now I am wonder why these cars always look like they are carrying about a 1,000lbs of gear in the boot? When these cars are resting, with no one in them they look fine. What’s up?
G
It's a quirk of the Spitfire's swing axle rear suspension design, especially when it's worn out. Beetles, and Corvairs are also somewhat prone to it.
Gern,
It's the look of a tired suspension. My Spitfire looks like that; it needs a new rear leaf spring.
"good-looking Triumph convertible" Isn't that an oxymoron?
My first car was a 64 Spit. I think they're good looking cars, better shape than the TR6.
triumphs with bad suspension also have four u jopints supporting the transaxels....so they look really wierd with the wheel slanted at 1 and seven and 11 and 5 from the rear....
// \\ of course the occupants could be a bit hefty as well as aging suspension.
I had the pleasure over the weekend of seeing a yellow GT6 being followed by a yellow Stag... I never see either of those models -- much less together! I sometimes see TR6s, but they've never done much for me...
Jerry, most, if not all Spits have a transverse leaf spring that actually carries the differential. There is no true transaxle on a Spit.
Canted wheels are common on ALL swing-axle designs (and to a lesser extent, some semi-trailing arms... see some older BMWs), but it's exacerbated by wear and age.
I think the factory gave the later Spits more negative camber so the inside rear tire would be less prone to tucking under during hard cornering. Seems to me the earlier cars didn't look quite as knock knee'd.
Joe, you may very well be right. If they didn't, they should have.
I've had wheels tuck under on a GT6, a Spit, and a couple of VWs. It's SCARY when it happens.
I hate 'em. Lucky I didn't kill myself in a GT6. Treacherous, they are.
