GT6 Why was the GT6 killed off?

[UmmYeahOk]

I was just wondering why they stopped production in 1973 when they kept making spitfires till 1980, and they stopped only because the factory had to close. I cant imagine sales really being that bad. And emissions, didnt they keep making the TR6 engine till 76? Was it unleaded fuel that hurt the car? Was it because British Leyland know owned too many companies and was flooding the market?

Im just having a little trouble understanding why, despite the weakness of a "triumph" nameplate, the GT6 was one of the models killed off so quickly. Especially since I believe that back in the day, domestic cars of the same price range werent all that thrilling. Then again, my opinion is going to be a little exude because I wasnt alive during that time period. Then again, I also dont understand why anyone of a sound mind would ever be caught dead in a nissan cube, let along actually buy one.

Also dont understand ,of the years they did make them, why so few were built? Was the car much more expensive? price/performance ratio not competitive, therefore lack of interest?

I just dont understand why such a rare beauty is so undervalued.

 

[TR3driver]

Well, the sales figures show that most buyers felt otherwise. By 1973, the Z-car was selling well over 4000 per month, while BL couldn't sell that many GT6 in a whole year. BL was also going bankrupt for a variety of reasons, one of which was trying to make too many different models of car for way too many little niche markets.

The Z-car was about the same price as the GT6, but had something like 50% more horsepower and performance even in US trim. The new emissions laws in 73 also hit the GT6 particularly hard, with some 25% drop in advertised power (part of which was due to new laws regarding power ratings, but real power dropped as well). From what I've heard, the driveline just wasn't up to the extra torque of the 2.5 (it was just barely adequate for the 2.0), so that option was out as well.

And to my eye, there just wasn't that much difference in appearance:

 

[toysrrus]

Hi Folks,

In my "Humble" un-knowledgable opinion; "If the top does`nt go down"; Why own one. The "Rdstrs" kept selling for that simple one reason; "They were Roadsters".

Russ

 

[jsfbond]

Yes all good points...The GT6 is, not the most powerful beast on the roads, although overpowered for its drive line design, had Limited production numbers and options, was not advertised as aggressively as the Jap cars, not easy to get in and out of.......GOD; I love that car!

 

[71MKIV]

From our perspective here in the next century, I think the paradigm changer that was the Datsun 240Z has been lost.

labor issues,lousy management and an extremely poor sense of what would sell outside Britain had conspired to hamstring the British auto industry without the money to update drivelines and design.

Then along comes the Japanese with what should have been the next GT6......

To coin a phrase, the rest is history.

 

[jsfbond]

In my younger years, When I was out and about and a 240Z was present, whomever I was with (excluding the girlfriend, now wife) would say The phrase I came to absolutely hate...Hey; thats just like your car! AAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!! The Brits did it best on sexy, two-seater hardtops.

 

[vagt6]

I distinctly remember winning my class in a GT6 in an autocross about 1970, without other "foreign" cars. Next year or so, a Porsche 914 ate my lunch, so to speak. Plus, a Lotus Europa or two and the Triumphs didn't have a chance.

A GT6 handles pretty well, and is quicker and faster than a 914 1.7, but forget outcornering one. I think a 914 might literally run circles around a GT6. They're that good. Thank goodness I never raced against a 914-6 . . .

It's called "modern technology". Datsun, Porsche introduced modern racing tech in those early '70s vehicles, the Triumphs just didn't have it. And the cars were competitively priced to sell, and they did. British Leyland had no answer. Plus, BL was constantly undercapitalized.

Throughout history that combo, no money and old technology, has been a proven way to kill your business.

And it did, again.

 

[Rhodyspit75]

Hey look at it this way. Do you think in 35 years anyone will say "Why was the Saturn, Plymouth, Pontiac etc, etc, etc killed off." The GT6 is still a car that people will remember.

 

[glemon]

The competition was certainly one reason, I think BL also wanted to run things "as a business" and they realized they had way too many makes and marques to compete because it is just cheaper to do if you make 100,000 or more of a handful of models rather than 5,000-10,000 of dozens of models.

I remember seeing an interview of one of the BL execs a few years back and he said they were trying to get their production numbers up in order to be competitive, but they could never quite get there.

I also agree with the Roadster idea, although kind of a two edged sword, the trend was certainly towards the sporty coupe rather than the sports car in the 70s and 80s, but on the other hand the MGBS and Spitfires and TR6s survided as long as they did in the 70s on their dated technology because they were roadsters.

All that being said I was born in '61, the first new cars I can remember wanting are the '69 Mustang Mach 1 and the new Datsun Z car, when I got to driving age my brother had an Austin Healey Sprite and the British sports car bug bit me too. My first (and 2nd) car was a Sprite, but I lusted after the sexy and relatively fast GT6, of which there were still quite a few nice ones running around in the late 70s and early 80s. But on my college student budget the difference between a decent used Spridget ($500-1200 or so) and a decent used GT6 ($1500-2000) which seems like nothing now, was plenty enough to keep them out of reach for me pricewise back in the day.

 

[TR3driver]

I remember seeing an interview of one of the BL execs a few years back

Speaking of which, there is a new book available about Sir John Black, written by his son Nicholas. According to Jonmac,
<span style="color: #000099">"It is written from an entirely Father and Son perspective and in the pages, we see Sir John as the family man and not one of England's former Captains of Industry. IMHO, this is an absolute "must-have" and "must-read" for any Standard-Triumph enthusiast because no other author could write of this man as Nick has done." </span>

As far as I know, it is only available through the Standard Motor Club in the UK. Again according to Jonmac, shipping to the US is 5GBP, bringing the total price to approx $32.

 

[CinneaghTR]

You guys nailed that on the head. The first sentence for the GT6 chapter in one of the TR buyer's guides simply states "This is the car the 240Z killed..." or something to that effect.

As for that picture of that orange vehicle, I don't see why we have to be subject to such disturbing images in an open forum! :wink:

 

[tomshobby]

When the GT6 was introduced it was a fast car that handled a little different than other cars but after getting used to it was an amazing car in corners. Went into a four wheel drift as nice as anything I have ever driven.
The problem was that it was made from parts volunteered from other cars in the B/L stable. Instead of improving what was a good and fun car to make it a great and fun car the emphasis was put on chrome trim and detuning to make cheap compliance to US pollution standards.
I had a 65 GTO at the same time I had my 67 GT6. The GTO was fun off the line but the GT6 was much more fun in every other area, no contest.
In the end I think Triumph was already more focused on the future TR7 and on to the TR8 than they were on improving the great little car they already had.

 

[tdskip]

See the image below;

Remember that there were all sorts of issues bringing the TR7 to market, but on paper it was bigger, faster, more comfortable and better suited to the American market. We all know that moving from paper to the real world is fraught with risks, but moving to a unibody approach to building cars was frankly overdue. (ducks - but I stand by the statement)

That doesn't make the GT6 any less wonderful of a car mind you...

 

[TR6oldtimer]

I drove a 914 flat six, definitely a Triumph killer as was the 240z my ex bought just to tick me off.

The TR6 and Spites last as long as they did because they were convertibles.

At the time the TR7's (and Jensen Healey) hit, the lack of British car quality was a big issue. By the time Triumph got their act together with the TR8 it was all over.

The Japanese and Germans had taken control.

 

[mikecyc72usa]

The GT6, wonderful as it is, (I've had 4, all 3 versions and a 2nd 1969 because I loved it so) was inherently flawed. Hot, hard to get in and out of, not exactly practical, and old technology. Unibody offers far better rigidity and handling with a softer ride due to that. Also, production numbers of a few thousand a year aren't going to win you any profits. Z cars were just so much better for the money. As for pollution control, the Brits just kept detuning their engines, everyone else kept building new and better ones. The Spitfire kept soldiering on because it was open topped, but it was killed when it couldn't meet CA emisions standards, and that was half of Spitfire sales. Again, a new engine would have continued the model, but BL had no money at all.

 

[billspit]

Well I think that just about covers it. All I can add is the British car industry may have been one of the most mis-managed industries across the board. It's really sad.

 

[hymodyne]

"Hot, hard to get in and out of, not exactly practical, and old technology."

I'm only slightly hijacking this thread, to ask the question of the contributors here that know: If the cars were hot, why did the MK III discontinue the louvers on the sides and top of the bonnet? I ask, as a previous owner of a MK II, who now owns a MK III that I am considering modifying by re-placing the louvers back on my bonnet.

hym

 

[Andrew Mace]

Having owned both a GT6+ and a Mk3 and having never noticed any great differences in heat-related "issues" between the two of them, I'd have to guess it was mostly a styling and/or cost-cutting measure to eliminate the louvers.

 

[mikecyc72usa]

Supposedly they had engineered better cooling. Not sure about that. Most of it was to streamline and modernize the appearance. If your car is running hot, don't cut louvers into it. Get an electric fan with an adjustable thermostat, or even two fans. Flush and make sure your cooling system is perfect, and make sure your fiberboard air guides are there, so they can channel the air in and over the radiator. Keep the fans behind the radiator, too. Also, invest in some heatshield insulation on the firewall in the passenger compartment. I did that in all mine I had living in Indianapolis, and was pretty comfortable even in the summer. They were my only cars I had at the time, so no option of saying it was too hot to take one.

 

[jsfbond]

Electric fans in the 70's? for a company not willing to rework the drive line. I can see a need for more than the factory insulation to block the engine heat that comes through....and the extra louvres just plain look cool on the 1970 GT6+.