PDA

View Full Version : Should the Triumph name make a comeback?



JBsC5
05-13-2001, 04:30 PM
Should the Triumph name make a comeback and if so...what type of engine....chassis..price range should it be in?

What performance statistics would be required to meet the expectations of Triumph owners..?

I remember the TR6 as the big guns in late 69!

Tiger
05-15-2001, 07:54 AM
I don't even remember who owns the Triumph name this week, so I'm not sure what chassis & engines might be available to the mfg'r.

Discounting all of the various neat Triumphs that never made it to the US -- or only in small numbers -- we're left with the TR series. A wee bit more $$$ than an MG, and known for their bulldog toughness & simplicity. How about a bobbed compact pickup chassis, a thumpin' big 4-banger and a homely-but loveable body (see top of page) on top? Sort of like the Rodster kit car, only done _right_.

Jagdreamer
05-15-2001, 11:15 PM
When did Triumph stop selling cars in the US? Early 80s?

JD

Tiger
05-16-2001, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by Jagdreamer:
When did Triumph stop selling cars in the US? Early 80s?


A TR buff would know better than I, but IIRC the TR8 was the last, offered in model years 1980-1981, and the last Spitfires were, what, 1979 or 1980?

BritishCarMan
06-06-2001, 03:35 AM
The last Spitfire was made in 1980. But the 1979 was the last intended for US import. The 1980 I belive was imported to Canada. There are 1980's running around the US but they were brought down by people who bought them and brought them here. I do however miss my 1979 Spitfire, my mom won't sell it back to me. https://www.britishcarforum.com/ubb/images/icons/smile.gif

To answer the original question, If the Triumph kept it's style handled as good if not better than the old ones then yes I would like to see them produced again. I would like to see the Spitfire come back with a 2.8 multi-port fuel injected engine possibly on the original chassis with the same independent suspension it used to have. Maybe with all the power options, power convertable top, CD player and some mag wheels. I'm not asking for much. https://www.britishcarforum.com/ubb/images/icons/grin.gif

------------------
Jamie
1962 Austin Healey Sprite MK II
1979 Trans Am W/403 Olds BB

[This message has been edited by BritishCarMan (edited 06-06-2001).]

Basil
06-06-2001, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by BritishCarMan:
The last Spitfire was made in 1980. But the 1979 was the last intended for US import. The 1980 I belive was imported to Canada. There are 1980's running around the US but they were brought down by people who bought them and brought them here. I do however miss my 1979 Spitfire, my mom won't sell it back to me. https://www.britishcarforum.com/ubb/images/icons/smile.gif

To answer the original question, If the Triumph kept it's style handled as good if not better than the old ones then yes I would like to see them produced again. I would like to see the Spitfire come back with a 2.8 multi-port fuel injected engine possibly on the original chassis with the same independent suspension it used to have. Maybe with all the power options, power convertable top, CD player and some mag wheels. I'm not asking for much. https://www.britishcarforum.com/ubb/images/icons/grin.gif



I have a 78 Spitfire with a 79 engine/trans and overdrive. Its a great little car. I put dual Webber 40's and headers and a hotter cam in it. Also have the Ansa exhaust. The oonly problem is I have to wear ear plugs to drive it!

Basil

BritishCarMan
06-07-2001, 03:50 AM
Sounds nice Basil. You got a picture of your 78 Spitfire? I wish I still had mine.

------------------
Jamie
1962 Austin Healey Sprite MK II
1979 Trans Am W/403 Olds BB

Matt B
07-28-2001, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by JBsC5:
Should the Triumph name make a comeback and if so...

Is Triumph still making mototcycles? Seems like I saw a new looking crotch rocket type thing recently with the Triumph badge...or maybe I'm thinking about something else...

-Matt B

StagByTriumph
03-16-2007, 04:35 PM
I don't even remember who owns the Triumph name this week, so I'm not sure what chassis & engines might be available to the mfg'r.

Well according to BMW, they still own the Triumph name and all the model names.

Any new "Triumph" automobile would simply be a "badge engineered" cookie cutter of some other marque. BMW pulled off a retro version of the Mini, but I don't think they could do a retro Triumph. Sort of like you can still buy a "brand new" old style Mini that is made is a few spots around the globe.

Face it, everything we love about the Triumph marque is contained in those autos made by Standard/Triumph/BL up to 1981, along with the nostalgia, simplicity and that old British Car fragrance!

There is no substitute for the original. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/yesnod.gif

StagByTriumph
03-16-2007, 04:56 PM
Is Triumph still making mototcycles? Seems like I saw a new looking crotch rocket type thing recently with the Triumph badge...or maybe I'm thinking about something else...<P>-Matt B<P>

Triumph Motorcycle has been in business and was split off from the motorcar company long ago. It has a rough spot in the 80's, but is now a world class company again. In fact, the Daytona 675 was 2006 Motorcycle of the Year.

Last year I rode the Rocket III, all 2300cc's of it's inline three cylinders, what a dream.

And you can still get a "new" Bonneville from Triumph's "Modern Classic" line of brand new bikes.

jackag91
03-16-2007, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JBsC5:<BR><B>Should the Triumph name make a comeback and if so... </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Is Triumph still making mototcycles? Seems like I saw a new looking crotch rocket type thing recently with the Triumph badge...or maybe I'm thinking about something else...<P>-Matt B<P>


The triumph name got bought by John Bloor. He is a real estate developer in England. So it is a new company that has the same name and a lot of stylist ties to the past. But at the same time is also known as putting out some of the best new bikes out there.

The Daytona 675 was received as the best bike in class last year by almost everyone. The Rocket III is the largest displacement production bike on the market (that is usable) and is a great surprise to ride. Fast and very agile for it's size.

The Modern Classic line (Bonneville, T100, Thruxton, Scramble) are all based off the bikes of old. The speedmaster and america are based off the same engine as the modern classics but are more inline with the cruiser style.

Bonneville
https://www.caltriumph.com/images/bikes/bonneville_t100.jpg

THruxton
https://www.webbikeworld.com/triumph-motorcycles/thruxton-cup/triumph-thruxton.jpg

Daytona
https://www.motoplanete.com/triumph/daytona-675-2006.jpg

Brosky
03-16-2007, 06:23 PM
Brando, McQueen and Dean are looking down at the classics and lovin' it. Newman's gotta be happy too!

Kirk_Fisher
03-16-2007, 06:59 PM
IMO, BMW should have made a new Triumph instead of the Z3. I would like for it to look like a TR4/6 but with a modern touch. A 3.0 BMW straight 6 with more sound would be nice.

Harry_Ward
03-16-2007, 07:36 PM
I read (somewhere on this forum) that the BMW dealerships did not want a Triumph sitting in their showrooms next to there highly regarded BMW automobiles.

That Bonneville sure looks like the original does it leak from the the same places too?

/bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/jester.gif

Tullamore
03-16-2007, 07:46 PM
I saw in magazine I think it was Classic Motorsports they had a drawing of a concept Triumph that BMW was working on, it was a longer version of the Mini that was styled like a TR4 in front and a Herald in the rear and was convertible of course.

Brosky
03-16-2007, 08:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]Should the Triumph name make a comeback and if so...what type of engine....chassis..price range should it be in? [/QUOTE]

Yes, if it's built in a closed Ford or GM plant here in the states, supervised by members of this forum, of course!

Use engines, transmissions rear axles from either of these companies and make it look like an evolved modern TR6 with suspension and brakes built to today's standards. Ratco already has a nice one up going for the frame, with the proper engineering applied to the suspension, this car would be a killer.

Also, designed with front and rear body panels that are bumpers built in to satisfy those who like the "TR6 bumper off look" and not those hideous overriders.

03-17-2007, 03:36 AM
I think that the <span style="color: #003300">Triumph </span> badge will resurface as a <span style="color: #FF0000">Chinese </span> company. Why not, they already make most of the parts for our cars now.

That said, witness the wildly successful Miata (ouch, it hurts to say that) and the equally desireable new MINI.
The Miata (again, that word) apparently was designed in a California studio for a Japanese company to revive that feel we all wanted, a lively RWD car with punch, driveability and quality (that's innovative) that sells like hotcakes. It still does. The new MINI perfectly captured the old British flair (witness the number of MINIs with the Union Jack flag on their roofs) and made a modern car that currently has the best resale, bar none, on the market today. (Parked my TR6, at a coffee shop of course, next to a new MINI whence the little chick owner had to blurt out how she "just loved her little British car." Tain't exactly British, dear. She didn't understand. Heck, my car was older than her, anyway.)

Will they revive the Triumph name in the shadow of it's legacy. Doubt it. How many of you have had someone come up to your car and said, "Hey Mister, that shurr is a n-ice MG." I, of course retort that it is not an MG. "Then whut is it?" Ferrari, a.h.

Kirk_Fisher
03-17-2007, 08:12 AM
BMW totally blew it with the Rover Group. Rather than taking the fabulous marques and heritage that they owned the rights to and developing cars that would create niches and followings of their own, they made cars to compete with BMW (Rover cars vs. 3 Series etc. and Land Rovers vs. X5). The only thing they got right was the Mini. A Triumph and MG instead of a Z3, a DOT legal Defender for the US, a new Big Healey instead of the Z8 . . .

kindofblue
03-17-2007, 03:20 PM
I think it is better as it is, defunct. New cars never have the "classic" feel. Because of strict regulations, any triumph will need air bags, side impact protection, electronic engine controls, and (gulp) stability assistance (required in the near future). All of these things dilute the essence of the classic sports car that a TR is. We wouldn't want, or be able to work on it, it wouldn't feel light, and it would be saddled with options to satisify the American market.
With Ratco frames, Revington TR suspension kits, Moss superchargers, and the like we can build our classic however our budget allows, without the government looking over our shoulder. I feel any new Triumph would compromise the what we love most about the little cars.

swift6
03-17-2007, 06:59 PM
I think 'kindofblue' summed up my thoughts/feelings on it exactly.

BMW does still hold the rights to the Triumph (automobile) brand name. I read an article some time ago about BMW wanting to build a new 'retro themed roadster' car on the MINI platform but badge it as a Triumph. The dealers were having none of it though. According to BMW's Franchise rules, dealers that wanted to sell BMW's MINI's and Triumph's, would have to have three separate showrooms. This is because BMW doesn't consider MINI's to be BMW, but an entirely different brand and the same was proposed for the 'new' Triumph, and BMW won't let you sell any other car from the same showroom.

Any front engine, rear drive sports car with an in-line six cylinder engine would be direct competition with BMW's Z4 so you can pretty much count that option out. They don't really have much desire to tool up a whole new brand again either (most of the new MINI design work was finished before BMW bought Rover but BMW did gets its hands dirty on it too). So it seems that BMW is still looking to try and use the Triumph name on a new mini based roadster. I don't think they really care about continuing the TRiumph legacy. Below is a link to an artist rendering of some supposed current thinking within BMW. It is a link to a page (in PDF form) from MC2 magazine the link is to their site). In the upper part of the page is a box with '26' in it and the rendering is on that page.

MC2 PDF (https://www.mc2magazine.com/files/mc2No7_TOC.pdf)

Another link to a full sized image from the article...
MINITR6 (https://img201.imageshack.us/img201/5767/minitr6zp5.jpg)

Tullamore
03-17-2007, 07:26 PM
I think the car in that rendering looks great.

RobT
03-17-2007, 07:42 PM
I agree with kindofblue and swift6. It's the querky-ness and character of these old Triumphs that makes them so fun to own. Nothing smells or sounds the same as an old pommy banger.

A modern car is fine as a means of transport. Some can even be fun. In fact in many respects if getting from "A" to "B" is your primary purpose, then an old Triumph makes no sense at all. But then neither does a horse, but there are plenty of folks out there who are very devoted horse owners.

Triumphs should remain an artifact of a bygone age of motoring, and any modern interpretation is sure to disappoint. Lets hope they don't put a Triumph badge on a BMW Miata.

Twosheds
03-17-2007, 08:06 PM
Another link to a full sized image from the article...
MINITR6 (https://img201.imageshack.us/img201/5767/minitr6zp5.jpg)

Yuk.

Bugeye58
03-17-2007, 08:18 PM
Looks like one too many Caddy stylists got in the mix.
Jeff

TR6oldtimer
03-18-2007, 09:38 AM
Yuk? From our perspective of collecting and driving period cars probably so.

Was the TR4 a better body design then the 3? Some say no, it certainly was a radical departure from the 3A. However, it was needed if Triumph wanted to stay competitive. Then there was the TR6, talk about a radical change from the 4. I did not like them at first, now I have had mine since 76. Then there were the more sleek spits and GT6. All to little to late as the 240 Datsuns and Porche took the market for all cars in this price and performance range.

Would a Mini TR6 sell. Probably would if properly powered and priced.

Tullamore
03-18-2007, 11:59 AM
The thing I would be worried about is having it be properly powered. I would hate for them to bring it back and then have it be a joke.

kodanja
03-18-2007, 12:45 PM
https://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k270/KODANJA7/minitr6zp5.jpg

swift6
03-18-2007, 01:11 PM
The thing I would be worried about is having it be properly powered. I would hate for them to bring it back and then have it be a joke.

Based on the idea of using the MINI platform, they are also talking of using the same FWD layout and MINI engine. Not that Triumph never made FWD cars, they did, but it just doesn't seem to fit the TR6 design idea. At least the original Mini was already a FWD and tranverse four cylinder engine.

TR6oldtimer
03-18-2007, 02:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]The thing I would be worried about is having it be properly powered. I would hate for them to bring it back and then have it be a joke. [/QUOTE]

Does properly powered mean anything over 110HP?

roofman
03-18-2007, 02:57 PM
You really have to use your imagination to see the TR6 in that design. But as a comparison, the last MG's sold still had a bit of the evolutionary design in them and were recognizable as an MG. Over 30 years of design evolution would probably bring you to the Mini TR6 or close should it have still been built. But not front drive !!!!!

TR674
03-18-2007, 11:09 PM
Harry
my brother just purchased a spanking new Triumph Speed Triple. I told him it can't be a real Triumph as there are no oil leaks and it starts everytime!!!.......lol.
Regards
Craig

Got_All_4
03-18-2007, 11:36 PM
Here is a article that came up a couple of years ago of rumors that BMW was investigating if there was a market in the US for the Triumph motor cars. I remember getting very excited about the prospect. I checked out every link I could find and spent about 4 hours of reading on the Internet. One discussion I recall is what name to market the new Triumph. One was Mini Triumph. Does not have a good ring to that at all and I think more of a turn off to us old Triumph guys. I believe it should be a stand alone Triumph name and if they want to sell them in the Mini dealers, That works for me. You know if BMW made it it would be a great car. I believe they were going to retail it around a respectable $23k. https://motoringfile.com/2006/01/06/more-news-on-the-minitriumph-concept/

Flinkly
03-19-2007, 01:20 PM
would it ever be as good? wouldn't we be dissapointed no matter what?

i'm a huge fan of the classic mini's as well, and i think the new mini is hideous. the interior is horrible even without comparing it to the old mini, and the front end shares no styling cues that i can see with the classic mini. another thing i was dissapointed abuot it the lack of fuel economy even thought the engine is so tame, a vtech mini gets better hp and gas mileage than a new mini.

and like everyone else said, when it was running rouch, you wouldn't be able to fiddle with the distributor or carbs to get it back to a smooth idle, you'd have to take it to joe the mechanic and sell your child to pay for it.

then again, if it would re-awaken the old mark market like it did with the mini, it might be good for us all.

Tomster
03-19-2007, 01:34 PM
Yesterday, when I showed my (esteemed)S.O. the above concept she pronounced:
"Well, it looks cute but it's no Triumph"

My thought :
Bring it on, it makes mine worth just that more!