[TR] Triumphs Digest, Vol 7, Issue 198

[John & Pat Donnelly]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to start an argument regarding what an owners
thinks is better, original or modified. Rather, I got ticked off that some
people only think that one way (truest) is the right way, and I spouted out.
Let me explain.

When I bought my '67 TR4A in 1970 my parents pleaded with me not to buy a
British car. They were born and raised in Scotland (as was I) and it was
common knowledge that anything BMC was built cheaply and needed a "lot of"
attention. They were right. Triumph was a poor man's Jaguar, but I wanted
one. 

First, the tranny broke. Syncho's failed and tore up 1st and 2nd. Then the
door mirror fell off. Then the leather seats dried out and cracked leaving
gaping holes The cardboard glove box fell apart. The windshield wipers were
slow. Hood release broke. Electrics were intermittent or didn't work.
Battery always ran dead. Starter was slooooow. Rear window in the top
yellowed in less than a year. Rattles everywhere. Top leaked. Window
regulator broke. The rear end got noisy then spewed all over the road. Some
may think all of this is as "charm", I don't. 

I hear stories about having to carry all these spare parts when taking a
trip. Are you kidding me? I carry a set of points/condensor in case the
Pertronix fails, and that's it. With the upgrades, the car doesn't break any
more and I have room for my golf clubs!

Again, I'm sorry as all of the above is my opinion of owning a daily driver
for the last 44 years.

Johnnie









 


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com