Thanks for the info/opinion. Like I said, knowing the huge investment and
such, as well as overhead, required to run an automotive company, you
couldn't do it with those numbers unless you had something else that was
paying for it.
It is too bad. But then the mystique (or insanity?) of having one may be
diluted if they'd made 100s of thousands of them.
Maybe the styling of the Z3 with the quality of the Capri?
Bryan
bdstinocher@sewsus.com
502-782-7397 xt. 2284
68 TR 250 CD 5853 L
----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Johnson [SMTP:jguy@erinet.com]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 1998 8:47 AM
To: Stinocher, Bryan D.
Cc: 'TRIUMPH MAIL'
Subject: Re: Production Runs
Bryan;
Precisely why Triumphs are no longer being made. British Leyland
struggled to be competitive in an increasingly global market selling
hand-fitted cars built in antiquated factories using decades old
technology. Triumphs did not have a 'quality' image for the most
part
when they were being built, however they were expensive to make
given
the amount of labour that went into them.
Makes you wonder- if British Leyland could have made the quantum
leap
into the 'modern age', would we now have a front-wheel-drive,
unibody,
plastic dash, econobox sports car like the Mercury Capri? ( Only
with
racier body styling?) Or would they be more like a BMW Z3- beautiful
but
priced out of reach for the average guy?
Triumph, along with most British industry, had massive labour
problems
and were always undercapitalized. The flight of capital from the UK
in
the early 70's was huge. I believe that Britain at that time still
had
top tax rates of about 90%.
Further still, if you think about what the U.S. regulations did for
the
performance and looks for the cars exported to BL's largest market-
not
exactly conducive to selling more cars.
The foregoing is just my opinion, not something I read in a book.
Jeff Johnson
'76 TR6
bought new in '76
from a dealer who now sells Subarus
"Stinocher, Bryan D." wrote:
>
> I have a question for the list.
>
> I have a TR250. From what I have learned, Triumph only made
roughly 8600 of
> them in a one year period. In looking at the TR6, it looks like
they only
> made 10-15K per year. I'm not sure of the other models, but my
question is
> this: I have worked in automotive for over 10 years, with Honda
for 5.5 of
> those. Typical yearly production numbers are 250--400K, depending
on model
> of Honda. Same for Toyota, except for niche cars, of course. But
even those
> run at roughly 3--9K/month. If Triumph was only making that many
cars a year
> (and North America was supposedly their largest market, if I
remember
> correctly), how could they do it? Given the investment, wages,
materials,
> etc., how did they do it? Or were they running other things
besides the TRs
> at the same time?
>
> Just curious. Obviously they stayed afloat for a long time, but
just
> professional curiousity.
>
> Thanks.
> Bryan
> bdstinocher@sewsus.com
> 502-782-7397 xt. 2284
> 68 TR 250 CD 5853 L
|