John Macartney wrote:
>
> I wondered how long it would take for this thread to go out of control - and
>24 hours
> looks like it was enough. I've had a number of posts off list asking "what's
>it going to
> be?" "will it be made at Spartenburg?" "do you know if the spitfire will make
>a
> come-back?"etc etc.
> In case my post of yesterday was not understood, I should repeat the report
>in Autocar
> suggests BMW _might_ adopt the Triumph name instead of continuing with Rover.
>Personally,
> I have the gravest doubts on that one all round.
[much analysis snipped]
I agree on all counts. What might be a more profitable (and
out-of-control <g>) thread would be some consideration of what might a
new Triumph be constituted, were the make to be revived? With a few
givens, and taking, say, the last of the TR6s, 7s and 8s as a starting
point, I suggest the following, with a few annotations:
a) 4-wheel independent suspension. Despite the lapse into the past with
live axle on 7s and 8s, fully-independent suspension would have been a
trend to continue, but with the addition of double-jointed CV joints on
the rear halfshafts, to avoid that terrible sticking of the splined
shafts.
b) 4-wheel disc brakes. This by now is quite common, and the prices on
disc brake parts have come down considerably since the old days.
c) abandonment of overdrives for a solid, beefy 5-speed, for the
purposes of improving reliability, and conforming to general practice
today. A development of the TR8/Rover gearbox would be a good starting
point.
d) maintaining rear-wheel drive, for the driving feel of yesteryear.
e) engine... now here's a point of considerable divergence of opinion, I
suspect. While we all have become accustomed to inline fours and sixes,
it would make more economic sense, and provide a bit more legroom, to
install a DOHC V-6 in the 2.8-3.0 liter range, with an electronic fuel
injection system comparable to that generally available from BMW
sources, such as the Bosch Motronic, or new variants of that system.
Engine development is quite quick these days (Ford typically only
requires 120 days from design inception to assembly of prototype), so
the largest part of the cost would be in new tooling. That would be my
vote. One could easily have a very reliable engine, with better gas
mileage than with previous carbureted engines, with a peak horsepower of
around 180-190 bhp, and maximum torque in the 160-170 lb. ft. range.
f) Overall weight--If, by clever design, one could keep the total weight
to 2500 lbs., the handling and acceleration would be superior to
anything previously built by Triumph, including the TR8. A lightweight
engine casting done by contemporary methods and aluminum heads would go
a long way towards making up for items necessary to meet current US
safety standards, such as intrusion bars in the doors and 5 mph bumpers.
At that weight, and with the projected engine performance, Miata owners
would be trading their cars in for Triumphs.
g) Overall dimensions--gain a little in the engine compartment by a
shorter engine, and only add 3-4" to the overall length of the TR6, and
one would likely have more legroom and room for a contemporary
air-conditioning system (sounds silly for a roadster, but it's
practically a standard these days in the US, and there would be
virtually no sales in the south and west US without it). Add 6" to the
overall width of the TR6, to accommodate deeper doors (necessary for
intrusion bars) and to allow for slightly wider seats with modest wings
on them, to help keep one in place. This would also allow for a somewhat
wider track, which the Triumph always seemed to need (that was
recognized in the transition from the TR3 to TR4). Keep the wheelbase as
close as possible to that of the TR6, within an inch or two.
h) Styling considerations--here, there might be the greatest range of
opinions. But, consider that styling did evolve at Triumph, as
elsewhere. Thank god there were no fins on late-`50s TR3s. <g> But, the
trend with the TR6 was clearly squarer (sheet metal stamping costs were
less with such a design), and this was amplified in the TR7 and TR8.
Nevertheless, the two dominant trends today are the wedge and the
jellybean, and most recently, there has been a trend toward retro
styling (the new VW bug and the Prowler, among upcoming others). The
styling ought to reflect old designs without copying them, but an
exercise, such as tarting up the old Mustang, ought to be avoided.
Jaguar did pretty well in capturing the look and visual sense of the old
XKE in the XK8, with perhaps a single flaw (the gigantic rear end). The
TR4 was, to my mind, all grille. That and the power bulge in the hood
suggested an aggressive car. The compound curves of the fenders on the
TR3 suggest the classic British sports car. Some combination of those
elements would immediately suggest that the car were indeed a Triumph,
in and under the skin.
i) General design considerations--here, safety concerns are of
importance, if only to meet crash standards of today. While virtually
all Triumphs of yesteryear, with the exception of the TR7 and TR8, were
frame/body cars, today, that's probably unnecessary and unduly
expensive. A properly designed unit-body car would be every much as
sporting as one of its frame-based predecessors. And, would likely be
more rattle-free. An integral roll bar ought to be incorporated into the
windshield surround. The car should still have a low overall height,
both to lower the center of gravity and to give that "butt dragging the
ground" driving sensation. Proper unit-body design would also enable
energy-absorbing deformable structures to be incorporated for crash
protection.
j) Options--here is where I think Triumph genuinely missed the boat
throughout much of its later history. They opted for many variants of
cars in the `70s (witness, in about ten years, the Spitfire, the GT6,
the TR250, the TR6, the Stag, the TR7, the TR8, and in Britain, also the
saloon cars). Triumph overextended themselves in the model range, hoping
for differing models to accommodate different tastes and levels of
luxury. In the US, however, options accommodated differing tastes. That
wide range of models cost Triumph dearly in tooling costs. To keep the
model range within reason, the new Triumph could offer perhaps three...
the version generally described above... hefty enough to feel like a
real sportscar, a smaller version sharing many parts with the former,
but styled more like the earlier Spitfire and equipped with a smaller
engine, such as DOHC inline 4-cylinder, and a light, fast saloon car
based on the larger 6-cylinder car, also sharing many parts, but not
necessarily a re-badged Rover (although many parts could be shared from
that current car). On that latter consideration, and upsized and uprated
four-passenger GT6 would be an interesting concept. And, to make the
price range and level of luxury capable of capturing a fair market
share, offer more options than previously available. For the real
performance nuts, not fancy wheel covers and pinstriping, but a turbo
engine package bundled with adjustable shocks and heavier sway bars.
Electric windows and door locks for the people who would have otherwise
bought a Buick. but wanted a mid-life image change. A 6-speed trans. Two
or three different rear end ratios. Three or four different wheel and
tire combinations. A couple of different gauge packages. A towing
package, so the smart Triumph owner could haul his Jet-Ski to the
beach.... What American manufacturers understood early on was that
options were profitable, and they greatly extended the price/value range
for a single vehicle. With a solid, basic car without options, the
vehicle was affordable by many. And, still, the car could be designed to
be something entirely different for different segments of the market,
without changing the basic tooling or general layout and configuration.
Witness the outgrowth of the muscle car from then mid-size models by
many manufacturers--the 442 and W30 from the Cutlass platform, the GTO
from the mid-size Pontiac, the GT models of the Torino and Mustang and
early Cougar, the innumerable variants of Chevelle and Nova, and the
SuperBird and Super Bee from Chrysler.
The bigger roadster could be sold profitably, as a good solid design,
with a base price around $25-28K today. The smaller car for about the
same price as a current Miata, $22-24K, the uprated saloon car for about
the same price as the larger roadster. With a variety of options, the
price range for all could be extended by as much as $12-15K. A turbo
version of the larger roadster would sell for a little less than the BMW
Z3, and eat that car's shorts.
Damn, I've just about convinced myself... now how do I get the rights to
the Triumph name and the $100 million seed money? <g>
Cheer, John, and all.
--
Michael D. Porter
Roswell, NM
mailto: mporter@zianet.com
`70 GT6+ (being refurbished, slowly)
`71 GT6 Mk. III (organ donor)
`72 GT6 Mk. III (daily driver)
`64 TR4 (awaiting intensive care)
|