TR4/4A kinda nice 66' TR4a

[swift6]

TR5's were the continuation of the TR line, the engine was designed for the PI induction system and as you correctly stated had increased compression and a more radical camshaft, totally different distributor. TR250's on the other hand were a downgraded "copy" of a TR5 to appease pollution and mileage concerns in the north american market.
Thats a clone to me.

Then by that logic you would also have to consider the North American TR6 to be a 'Clone' of the European TR6.

That could start some lively debate. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

The engine design was around long before they even thought of Petrol Injecting it. It started as a 1600cc Sedan engine from the Standard line. It was also used in the Vitesse Sport in that size I believe. The Bore was increased to get it to 2000cc and then it was stroked to make it 2500cc. It was not a new engine designed to be injected.

I see your reasoning but in Automotive circles, clones are usually made FROM downgraded models INTO the rarer and better performing cars by someone other than the factory. With TR5/250's that would mean trying to change a TR250 into a TR5 by adding PI, CR, higher lift camshaft, distributor and all the badges. Trying to make a model with higher production numbers into a mimicry of a model of lower production numbers. 'Downgraded' models are not usually called clones since they are produced that way from the factory. They are not clones, simply downgraded models.

And yes, I will accept that the North American TR6 IS a downgraded model of the European TR6. Which is why my TR6 sports more than 150hp now. Totally different animal. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

 

[Guest]

For the car to be a clone of a 250, it would have to have the IRS. It would be fun to drive, just a little hairy with a live axle. A buddy shoehorned a GT6 engine into his TR3. Not THAT is hairy to drive. It is a challenge for me to keep up with him.

The guy seems upfront with the car. You will be buying something that will never increase in value, though.

 

[kodanja]

I'm so glad to see everyones response!
Nothing like a non-original car to get the controversy going!

 

[heliguy]

" It was not a new engine designed to be injected"

Shawn, i agree with you that the basic engine was around in one form or another for awhile. But the TR5PI was specifically designed around an engine that had a higher lift cam, increased compression ratio, non vacuum distributor. Maybe i should have used the term modified/upgraded but the point being that you can not just bolt a PI system onto a north american spec TR engine and expect to get a great increase in HP with out the cam/head/etc it was "designed" for.
And yes, in automotive circles, clones are usually made from a plain jane version of a car, to make it into one which is rarer ( more valuable?)
My thinking was ( well, still is ) that the 5 came first. TR 250's are a copy( maybe not a clone per say ), albeit made from the factory.

I just think we got ripped off with 250's/6's over here. A well tuned PI car does not pump out clouds of black noxious smoke, but the mileage figures are a bit on the low side as it needs to be kept a bit on the rich side to run right.

cheers,
Mitch

 

[swift6]

" It was not a new engine designed to be injected"

Shawn, i agree with you that the basic engine was around in one form or another for awhile. But the TR5PI was specifically designed around an engine that had a higher lift cam, increased compression ratio, non vacuum distributor.

I just think we got ripped off with 250's/6's over here. A well tuned PI car does not pump out clouds of black noxious smoke, but the mileage figures are a bit on the low side as it needs to be kept a bit on the rich side to run right.

cheers,
Mitch

Absolutely agree with you on those points. The higher lift camshaft was able to be used in production solely becasuse of the PI. The TR5 was the first British series production car to be fitted with Fuel Injection. I feel that the most convincing argument for not fiiting PI to North American models was the cost. They used emissions for more of a 'our hands are tied' response. Especially since they had to keep adding smog equipment and reducing power for the carbed cars to meet requirments.

Totally agree on the feeling of being 'ripped off' by getting a 'lesser' version of the car. Which is why I upgraded my cars performance capabilities. I don't feel as ripped off now. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif When yo know how a TR250/6 responds with the correct amount of torque and horsepower, or more in my case , it becomes a totally different car and really seperates itself from the four cylinder cars.

Though the US getting 'lesser' versions of European cars has been practically a way of life with most European auto producers since the late sixties until very recently. Triumph wasn't the only company that did it.

 

[tdskip]

Though the US getting 'lesser' versions of European cars has been practically a way of life with most European auto producers since the late sixties until very recently.

Indeed, wasn't it Porsche that first product a global engine spec as a standard offering across all markets?

 

[bobh]

TR250's are the US version of the TR5. Like the carburetted TR6 is the US version of the UK TR6.
A TR250 with PI is closer to a clone than a carburetted 250 isn't it?