Welcome to our resource for MG Car Information.
Triumph TR6 - Frame Condition
|I own a rust free, accident free TR6 and have a question about the condition of my frame.When kneeling down about 10 feet from the rear of the car you can see about 1/4 inch of the rear frame rails below the rear valance perfectly symetrically on both sides. According to the Roger Williams restoration manual (page 26)a TR6 that shows it's chassis ends beneath the rear valance is classified as "hogged" due to accident, rust or poor chassis repair. There is a picture 2-33 that actually depicts this problem as well. Of course the chassis end in the photo is almost 2 inches below the valance and looks a bit dented as well.I have seen several very nice TRs's with the chassis legs peaking out below the rear valance a bit (some more than others. So my question is how far below the rear valance (if at all ) is acceptable and when is it time for a new frame or majore repair?|
I do not think I would consider this as the means to determine if a frame repair is in order. Mine are showing also and my frame is in 100% top condition. I think mine show about 1.5". Just going by memory here sooooo...
Where the trailing arms mount is the most critical area to observe along with the diff mounts but this is just in early years as it was addressed after 1972.
Thanks for the feedback. I would still like to get a bit more clarity as to why some TR's show the rear legs and some don't and why some TR's show them barely and some show as much as 2 inches. Could it simply have to do with how the body is shimmed to the frame?
|DWS- If your really concerned , bring your car ,or take it, to a frame shop. Or, better yet, to a respected TR establishment and talk over your concerns. Maybe they'll talk you into a Ratco frame.|
Yes some things are better left to the experts. I would have to snap a couple of photos and email them to either a TR specialist as my driveline is sitting on a stand in my garage. I am really hoping to get some feedback from an honest experienced enthusiast that isn't going to try and sell me something I don't need. Honestly A Ratco frame would be nice but dropping another 5k into my TR is the last thing I want to do at this point.
Here is a photo of what I have been describing.
I wouldn't normally concern myself with this but the Roger Williams manual information as mentioned earlier has me looking into it. I've seen many very nice TRs with the rear legs peeking out and some seem to do it more than others. I'm trying to get feedback from as many TR owners as possible on this. On the count of three everyone run out in the garage, bend down and check out your frames!!!! Just kidding...
But I would appreciate as much input on this as I can get.
|What do your door gaps look like? Might be the body is shimmed up incorrectly? Remember that these cars were not perfect coming off the assembly line...and 35 years and a buncha miles later, it might just be different....drive it and don't sweat the small stuff. Find a good reputable alignment shop and have them do a 4-wheel alignmeent. That might alleviate your fears....or reinforce them?|
My 69 TR6 has maybe a bit of a glimpse of the frame at the position of your picture. Not as much as your picture shows. Even when I drop down further, I never really see down the tube but just see the bottom flange of the beam.
But I did a frame up restoration which included welding in new panels and the frame and I worked on making sure such aesthetics were addressed. I'd take a picture but it is -4 celcius (24 degrees F) today
It is general opinion (and fact) that the quality control during manufacturing was so poor, there was a lot of variation right off the assembly line. So the frame may be OK or may need attention.
If you are unhappy with the appearance, you can try re-shimming the frame to the trunk area but as Rod points out it may affect other things like door gaps.
I had a lot of frame repair on mine. I post before and after pics of my frame. This is typical Canadian deterioration of these frames. Look at your frame and assess.
|2nd shot before
Just to clarify
when I said
"It is general opinion (and fact) that the quality control during manufacturing was so poor, there was a lot of variation right off the assembly line. So the frame may be OK or may need attention."
I meant to say that the variation could show a little or a lot of the frame tube at the time of manufacture. But also repairs , body work, frame deterioration since may be causing your appearance so you may need to do frame repairs you may not.
The bottom line is with body work you can probably make it look the way you want and are happy with. In my opinion, the original design was supposed to conceal the frame from the position of your picture. But is doesn't sound like it was that way 100% off the line.
The restoration work you did on your frame is very impressive. You have a point about factory fitment. My brother owned a TR6 new in the mid seventies and the gaps in the doors were horrible from the date of purchase as I remember. However, with the top down and the rumble of the pace setter exhaust all minor details were forgotten...
|DW... for what it's worth my 76 Six is exactly the same as yours in terms of visible frame below that valance. It too is an accident free, rust free, all original matching numbers car from BC and in having it serviced a few times in true LBC shops I have every reason to believe the car is correct.|
PS. They never bothered me before... now I'll see them all the time! ;) Cheers!
I never noticed it until I read page 26 of the Roger Williams restoration manual. I have the recent issue yet in the older issue of the manual he states if the rear frame "cross-member" is exposed not the rails (the tubular piece that ties the rear frame rails together under the trunk) is exposed the frame is "hogged". So I think there is also some so-so data out there. I also spoke with an owner of 4 TR6's that mentioned the models he owns with the bumper over riders (74-76)show a little of the frame yet his earlier models don't. His theory was that the body on these models was shimmed a bit more to allow for the bracket mounting for the overriders. Again just another TR guys thoughts...
|That could be DW. I have not gone under to look at my shim set but my sense is that it's not overly so. |
If I were in AZ right now I'd open up the garage door, roll the car outside, and give it a good review on this subject but, alas, I'm here in cold and snowy Ontario and thinking only of keeping warm until I snowbird south. What city/town are you in or near? My wife and I spent many winters RV'ing in AZ and So. Cal and I have buddies near Casa Grande and Mesa telling me now to "Come On Down".
Have you considered trailering the TR behind the caravan?
|Absolutely Rick... in fact last winter when I had the F350 I wanted to buy an enclosed trailer and take the 6 with us... behind the truck. However, my bride of 42 years said she did not want to be stuck driving the big honkin' truck around for 3 months and I wasn't about to try and teach the '4-speed and clutch' lesson again so she could drive the TR. We almost unengaged over that one 43-44 years ago with my 62 Volvo 122S. |
Have since sold off the truck and fifth wheel and put the money into the house. The FL/TR dream is gone... for now. I never close doors.
|I hope to do what Rick suggests. Get an RV and trailer the TR and travel North America. And visit everyone on the BBS (can you say free load). Its one of the reasons I did the car. Luckily my wife is on board with the plan. |
But I am still 10 years off from retirement at least so it remains a dream.
|Michael, the Jag folks did just that a couple of times in the last decade - the Jaguar Owners North American Tour (JONAT). Nobody did the entire trip but a furry cat mascot did. Who's up for a TRONAT? I'll host the Saskatchewan leg!|
|A. J. Koschinsky|
This thread was discussed between 03/12/2010 and 13/12/2010
Triumph TR6 index