How do you answer this?

[poolboy]

A 4 or 4A if he could afford a good one; if not, a TR6; the year wouldn't matter to me.

 

[CJD]

As for investment potential, perhaps there is something to be said here. Not long ago, you could purchase a really nice TR3 for around $15,000... Now really nice quality TR3s seem to be going for around $34,000. Is there more upside. Don't know, and frankly don't care. Probably not for a decade or so.

An old friend said it best, "You can never pay too much, you can only buy too soon". They aren't making these cars anymore, so although the prices may fluctuate, they will continue up in the long run!

 

[dougstr6]

The 2 & 3's are solid investments and draw the investment dollars from nostalgia types for that raw design and unique look all their own.

TR6's have the tough look and sound, but aren't rare enough to draw consistently good money ( not counting the CA dealer "Motoring Investments" who seems to keep selling nices ones for over $30K!)

TR4/A's should be the investment car, with a more vintage look than a 6 but more creature comforts than a 3, the market price just doesn't show it.

The 250 seems to be the package that works as the investment car: their somewhat limited production numbers and the addition of the straight 6 that has collectors nudging their prices towards $40K for the nice ones?

I've gotta think it will be the early Spitfires time soon to see a run on their values.

Fot the point of this discussion, I'm not going to the rare stuff eg Italia's...

 

[George_H]

It depends what you mean by "Practical for regular use" I know there is 20 guys about to scream but to me this eliminates sidescreen cars. (unless you live in a very dry place) As far as maintenence IMO TR4 or TR6 are about the same. A good TR8 I think has great potintial for value. A great ride(It doesn't beat you up) But last on ease of maintenence. How about one of each?

 

[MichaelG]

TR 250

 

[vagt6]

Many of us tend to go for the cars from our generation. I know I do. I prefer the late sixties and early seventies LBC sports cars. Guys who are a little "longer in tooth" ofter prefer the TR-3s and 4As, I've noted.

But at the end of the day you need to buy and enjoy the LBC that most tickles your fancy. <span style="text-decoration: underline">All</span> these LBCs are a pure joy to drive, and <span style="font-style: italic">ALL</span> of them elicit ooohs and aahhhs from passers-by. What's more, they offer such a wide range of driving experience, from semi-racers to lovely tourers, all most can be had for relatively low prices.

Having said all that, IMHO there's no car that drives like a TR-2/3. So close to the ground, so much grunt, such beautiful lines. And the technology harkens you back to a much earlier age in motoring.

I'll take any of 'em, tho': Triumph; MG, they're all good for me . . .

 

[rlich8]

A TR4A with reinforced differential mounts. Red. OH WAIT....that's my car

 

[Member 10617]

The saddest words known to me is someone saying: "I used to own one of those cars when I was young... and sold it. Wish I still had it!"

 

[George_H]

I could make you sad for a month.

 

[MikeP]

The problem in dealing with a wannabee is that if they've never experienced anything other than current generation cars even a well sorted example could be more work than they expect. My daily driver is a 4 door Toyota which I basically do nothing to except change the oil 3 times or so a year most years. I might pop the hood a hanful of time to check it's all still there, but in comparision, my 45 year and older British iron could look like constant work to keep on the road. Dispite others attraction to the now unique looks it's just no longer what the majority of the motoring population expects of their rides. And practical, does that mean rain or shine, no leaks, hauling friends and just stuff??

I don't want to discourage potential ownership as we need new faces. But they need to understand it's 50+ year old technology and expectations of what it can require.

 

[TR3driver]

But they need to understand it's 50+ year old technology and expectations of what it can require.

These cars require a LOT of periodic maintenance compared to modern cars. Most of it is spelled out in the owner's manual, but not all of it.

There is also the issue of how you know when a car is actually "well sorted". Overdue maintenance can hide in many places, and still be disguised by new paint and upholstery.

This was caused by lack of maintenance, IMO:

 

[justin_mercier]

In my opinion the best of all worlds is a TR5/250 or TR6. Personally I love the TR2s and small mouth TR3s the best, but, they're not much in the way of creature comforts.

The 250 and 6 have the inline 6 engine that's just a lot peppier and gives it a more sports car feel driving. They're still small and sporty with a 'clasic' look still however. The wedges are nice, and I love my TR7 FHC, but if you want the best of all worlds, pep, drivability, looks, etc, my vote is with either of the two 6 cylinder TR models.

 

[poolboy]

Apparently you've never had your a$$ handed to you racing against one of those 4 cylinder TR3's

 

[DanB]

TR7. Meets all your criteria. 1. Most modern of the TRs. 2. Dirt cheap so has to appreciate, and 3. Still easy to fix.
Add a V-8, and you would have enough power to actually enjoy the car, so I have to agree with the TR8 recommendations.
I do understand the sentiment of the TR7 and TR8 not really being "real TRs" due to the unibody, etc., so your original question makes the TR6 the most modern of the that group, but the argument from the knuckle-draggers that the TR4-6 aren't "real TRs" either because they have roll-up windows, etc.

 

[George_H]

I understand the "Real TR" sentiment also. I was one of those people saying that in 1976 when I owned my first tr6 (a 1969). Now I have 2 tr7s. The big problem back then was the FHC. If they started with a DHC back then we would not be having this debate. Remember they sold more wedges than any other tr. Even as bad as the early ones are. If they offered a V-8 right away they might still be making cars today!(probably not, but maybe)

 

[Lewis_McDorman]

After 26 years with a TR6 I'm a little biased and need some perspective of others when answering this!

Cheers,

After 20 years with my TR6 I'm waiting for the potential investment to become a realized investment.

 

[justin_mercier]

You have to remember when the TR7 was designed, the US was only a couple votes away from banning convertibles. A LOT of cars dumped their convertibles at least for a few years around 76 and 77.

 

[George_H]

So true but it took them till 79 to bring out the DHC. Too little, Way too late.
Still they are the best "value" and they seem to be very easy to modify. lots of different V8 combo's. If thats your thing.

 

[kodanja]

1977 ford pinto.................lol'

 

[DanB]

George, I'm with you. I bought a tr7 because they are so affordable, and now I drive it all the time. i just fixed the AC too. It really does take the mountain curves so much better than the earlier design of my TR4A. The TR7 dives into the curve and just goes around it like it is on rails. Now, if it just had enough power......