Carryfast:
dazcapri:
How can you compare the Acclaim to a 3 series BMW it was to replace the Dolomite/Maxi/Marina range.You’re own link en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_Acclaim
clearly states that it was the least warrantied BL car and was the 7/8th best selling car of 1982/83,from a business point of view that’s a good result The tie-in with Honda was years ahead of it’s time,look at car companies now they all share platforms i.e. Fiat 500/Ford KA and Toyota Yaris/Citroen C1/Peugeot 107The Rover engine was turned down by Triumph who said it wouldn’t fit so if that’s the reason Triumph failed it was there own fault en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_Stag both state this so you can argue all you like it’s there in print,
As for Edwards hating Triumph so much that’s just rubbish his own personal car was a Triumph estate,besides it was Stokes who announced the Death knell for large Triumph salons (in 1973) lancasterinsurance.co.uk/ne … 2500-mkii/
again it’s in print 1973 Stokes clearly saying Triumph would no longer compete directly with Rover. Even if he hadn’t do you seriously think a car designed and launched in the early 60’s with an engine designed in the late 50’s and launched in 1960 would take the company into the future,what’s next the T45 should have been steam powered.How do you compare a front wheel drive Jap zb box with a rear wheel drive 1.8-2.0 litre small saloon range.At the time directed head on against the 2002 series.Wich was replaced by the 3 series which then also shoehorned even larger saloon 6 cylinder motors into them in the form of 323 and 325 to very profitable effect.
That was the point Triumph were a premium brand in the premium JRT division not a BMC wanabee.
So tell us why did BMW avoid/not want your front wheel drive Jap tie up deal if it was supposedly so good for us.Of course Stokes didn’t want Triumph to compete with Rover.He wanted them to co-operate you know like putting the Rover V8 in the Stag and by implication the 2.5.A Triumph sale was as good to the Group as a Rover sale.If the V8 was supposedly turned down by Triumph why did Spen King need to come up with the bs supply excuse to Stokes.Supply would obviously have been moot.
Edwardes drove a Triumph estate.Yeah right he liked it so much he signed the deal which turned Triumph into a maker of the Acclaim and turned Spen King’s SD1 abortion into the full ■■■■■■ front wheel drive Honda based 820.That ended well for both firms.
As I said BMW were laughing all the way to the bank.Your articles are obviously told from the side of the pro Edwardes faction.
Edwardes wrecked Leyland not Stokes.
Firstly Carryfast I’m going to (sort of) agree the Acclaim wasn’t a suitable replacement for the Dolomite, it should never have carried the Triumph badge Austin or Morris would’ve been more suitable.
If you read the links Stokes is QUOTED as saying Triumph would never compete with Rover and would specialise in smaller sporting saloons.
Ewardes had a Triumph estate he turned up in it on his first day at BL and was ridiculed by the press for turning up in a car which had gone out of production. When he left he was gifted a Jaguar XJS which he liked so much he had it shipped back to South Africa in 1988…
Edwardes never stopped Triumph from putting the V8 in a 2000 saloon because when he arrived at BL Triumph had already ceased making the 2000.Now remind me who was in charge before Edwardes would that be Stokes.So the 2000 saloon was scrapped by STOKES BEFORE Edwardes arrived.
As for Edwardes not allowing Triumph to use the Rover V8,he was at BL from Nov 1977 to 1982 during this time Triumph produced a car called the TR8 which had those Rover V8 engines that you say he wouldn’t let them use.
Spen King is Quoted as saying Triumph told him the Rover engine wouldn’t fit the Stag he said " I believed them maybe I shouldn’t have Believed them but I did"