Randall wrote:
>
> I think everyone agrees it was stupidity that killed the British auto
> industry (after all, we love the cars, they should have sold well, right
> ? <g>), but agreement on which stupidity is a little harder.
Triumph did a lot of things out of economic necessity, so I don't think
they can be faulted too much for trying. British Leyland, on the other
hand, probably deserves more of the blame for the mismanagement.
> IMO producing the 3B at the same time as the 4 was not necessarily bad,
> just a desperate response to a desperate situation. And, the relative
> lack of visual distinction between the 4/4A/250(5)/6 wasn't nearly as
> big a problem as the lack of performance improvements, at least for cars
> delivered to the US. Why is it everyone else used fuel injection as the
> solution to their emission problems, while Triumph refused to do the
> development ?
Again, likely costs were a factor. Keep in mind that not everyone jumped
on the fuel injection bandwagon--in the late `60s, very few makers used
it, and in `70s, only a few more. Even in 1990, I rented a new Nissan
and it was carbureted. VW was actually rather innovative in the `70s,
using the CIS system on a large volume, economy car.
> I'm not too familiar with the Lucas injection, but surely
> it was no more primitive than the Bosch injection used on VW Rabbit/Golf
> in the early 70's ? VW actually switched _because_ they could not get
> the carbureted version to pass US emission standards.
There's quite a bit of difference between the two. The CIS system was
computer-controlled, albeit in a very simple fashion. The Lucas was a
pure mechanical system of very classic design, as was the SPICA system
used on some Alfas.
> Plus, of course, all the other car makers noticed Triumph and MG's
> earlier successes, and were coming out with competition. The Japanese,
> German, and even US car makers were all making serious competition for
> the low cost sports cars by the late 60's. To my mind, the TR6 was no
> competition at all for the Datsun Z-cars, except for diehard ragtop
> fanatics, and the 76hp (as delivered in California) TR7 was a joke !
> Had the V8 been offered as an option when the TR7 was introduced,
> history might have been different.
All this is quite true, and Triumph, in particular, failed to capitalize
on its innovations. The GT6 and the early 240Z bear many resemblances,
strongly suggesting that Triumph's concept was sound, but it was Datsun
which developed the car, not Triumph. The wedge design originated by
Triumph was copied in some general fashion by every Japanese maker in
the early `80s, but the TR7 had a very limited run. Much of that, as
with the common body parts of TR4s and 6s, can probably be traced back
to lack of money.
It's hard for us to understand, sometimes, that Triumph was never a
force in the marketplace in the same way that GM or Ford are. Triumph
was a small, specialty maker with a very small market share, expected to
compete with much larger manufacturers. In the end, most of Triumph's
problems probably came down to available resources. One of the most
horrific expenses to any small maker is tooling. Big changes are usually
accompanied by major retooling costs, and that often drives the decision
not to undertake progressive development of a design.
Cheers.
|