The Triumph 2000/2500/2.5 Register Forum

It's been suggested to me that this parts manual may well be incorrect and that fork on the rear cable should be the same as the fork on the front cable.

So fitting 152251 to the rear cable is incorrect and that actually it should be 154225, the same as on the front cable.

Any thoughts anyone? Perhaps even given how much adjustment there is on the cables it makes no difference anyway.

The rear handbrake cable that runs between both rear wheels has different 'fork' ends on each side. One is fixed (no adjustment) whilst the other side has the square nut in the fork onto the threaded end of the cable for adjustment. The fork on the fixed end is a shorter fork than the adjustable end. Fortunately, my 1973 PI is over my pit so having checked the hand brake cables, the shorter non adjustable fork is 5cm whilst the other side with the adjustment is 7cm long.
The attachment of the front cable from the handbrake lever to the centre guide is different depending on the age of the car. My 72 and 73 PI's have a bar about 10cm long with a right angle end - the threaded cable connects to the right angle end with a locknut for the adjustment, and the other end of the bar connects to the guide with a clevis pin. However on my 76 S, the front cable from the lever connects to the guide with the adjustment in a fork which is also 7cm long. The latter serms the more logical set up, which is popossibly why it changed on later cars.
Hope that makes some degree of sense!

Yes, that all makes sense and seems to support what's shown in the parts book

johnnydog wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:44 pm

The attachment of the front cable from the handbrake lever to the centre guide is different depending on the age of the car. My 72 and 73 PI's have a bar about 10cm long with a right angle end - the threaded cable connects to the right angle end with a locknut for the adjustment, and the other end of the bar connects to the guide with a clevis pin. However on my 76 S, the front cable from the lever connects to the guide with the adjustment in a fork which is also 7cm long. The latter serms the more logical set up, which is popossibly why it changed on later cars.

If I remember correctly, the right-angled bar was specified for automatic transmission cars, and the forked connector on manual transmission vehicles, at least in the early- to mid-'seventies.

Parts book theory, however, may not necessarily always have been reflected in what was actually fitted!

Jonathan Lewis wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 18, 2021 1:02 pm

the right-angled bar was specified for automatic transmission cars

Y'know, that's how I remember it too. So either we're right - or both of us are wrong (as well as the parts book)!

Cheers,
Mike.

Mike Stevens wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:33 pm

Jonathan Lewis wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 18, 2021 1:02 pm

the right-angled bar was specified for automatic transmission cars

Y'know, that's how I remember it too. So either we're right - or both of us are wrong (as well as the parts book)!

Cheers,
Mike.

Having a manual & an auto, I can safely say the auto has the right angled bar 158970 and the manual has the forked clevis 154225.
I assume it is to do with avoiding contact with the propshaft at the gearbox end,

This all makes sense as it seems autos did have the bar whilst manuals had the fork, although my white manual PI did have the bar setup; maybe for clearance - at the diff end rather than the gearbox end. Having said that, I don't really see that it should make a great deal of difference as the welded cable guide on the transmission tunnel dictates the cables position to clear the propshaft / UJ, and the rear cable has the guides through the subframe box sections. The upturn of the bar is only marginally deeper than a fork, so.....