And the benefit of course was that its rear axle didn’t hop and skip over uneven surfaces, especially during cornering, precisely the vice that independent rear suspensions like swing axles were designed to eliminate.
#ROAD TEST OF TRIUMPH TR3A DRIVER#
But breakaway was deemed to be smooth, resulting in a bit of oversteer that “ can be enjoyed and utilized by a moderately skilled driver while never crossing up an unskilled one”. “For ordinary to brisk driving, the car steer neutrally and simply goes where it’s steered with great apparent stability” Of course the tail of the Gt6 could be brought out at will either with the throttle or by tweaking the steering wheel. There were many front engine RWD cars built in Germany and other countries in the 1930s, 1940s and later that did not exhibit the issues that cars like the Tatra V8 and such did. Swing axles intrinsically became more problematic as the percentage of any given car’s weight increased over them. Why was it less tricky than the Spitfire? Because the larger engine placed more of the car’s weight in the front, to 56%, “which is probably a good thing with swing axles”.
Regarding its handling Road and Track wisely said “we approach any car with conventional swing axles with a little apprehension, but we found the GT6 could not be faulted in its handling”. But the torquey little six made it effortless to drive briskly, and it certainly was in a class or two above the basic Spitfire in that regard. Performance was decent, but hardly outstanding, with a 12.3 second 0-60 and the quarter mile taking 18.8 mph. With the OD, the final drive ration was lowered (increased numerically) from 3.27:1 to 3.89:1, which almost negated the need for its first gear. In the tested car, its nicely-shifting four speed transmission was teamed with the optional Laycock-De Normanville overdrive unit, which in this application was deemed to be somewhat superfluous, as top speed gearing in the non-OD version was already fairly leisurely. The 95 hp 1998 cc ohv six had already developed a reputation as being a sweet-running unit, with a wide torque band yet willing to rev to 6000 rpm if need be. On the other hand, it wasn’t all that new, as Triumph had already implanted the same basic six, in 1.6L form, into the Herald, resulting in the Vitesse. The GT6’s formula was a bit unusual, at least for a European manufacturer. There was a good reason for that, and the answer is under the hood-and in the article. The Spitfire’s rear swing axles-which had cultivated a bit of a rep for being tricky at the limit-were kept, and somewhat surprisingly (or not) the handling with them on the GT6 was noticeably improved. It got a bigger boost in the engine compartment, thanks to the two liter inline six from the Triumph 2000 sedan instead of the little 1.3L four in the Spitfire. But they both benefited from improved performance and better handling, the GT6 relatively even more so.
Both started out as roadsters, and the addition of a fastback hard roof was something of a mixed bag, stylistically. The GT6 reminds me a bit of the Porsche Cayman.
0 kommentar(er)
