> My machinist said, "you'll proably be driving the Triumph less than
> 10,000
> miles a year, won't ya?" Also, I've seen eBay listings, "car
> just sat in the garage, so I'm selling it." I've never driven a
> Triumph and only rode in one once (thanks Ken), but 'what's
> the deal?'
I don't know about others but I've found my TR3 to be reliable and fun
to drive. But not so fun in the rain.
However it is one of two cars I own so my driving gets divided between
the 1961 TR3A and my 1960 Land Rover. I have three primary decision
points in choosing which car to take someplace: If dog is coming then
take Land Rover. If raining then take Land Rover. If I need to
transport a lot of bulk then take Land Rover. Other than that it just
depends upon my mood at the time and if one is low on gas before payday.
Of course if I'm going off pavement and/or on long camping trips the
Land Rover is the vehicle of choice. If the roads are windy or if it
is just a lovely day the Triumph is always the vehicle of choice.
Many times it boils down to exorcising the one that has been sitting
the longest. I personally think Triumphs were designed to be driven
and not to be garage queens.
T.J. Wakeman
Never let anyone drive you crazy when you know it's within walking
distance.
T. J. Wakeman
Santa Cruz, California
http://www.cruzers.com/~twakeman
A member of the internet community since 1985.
Check out the new British Cars Forum:
http://www.team.net/the-local/tiki-view_forum.php?forumId=8
|