Carryfast:
dazcapri:
Carryfast:
The fact is there’s no evidence that Stokes ever said, let alone implemented, closure of AEC and to not maintain Triumph as a producer of performance saloon cars rivalling the BMW 5 series based on the 2.5.Stokes was at the meeting in 1971 when the Rover SD1 was chosen as the successor to the P6 and Triumph 2000 it was decided that the Triumph design(a 3 box saloon) was too conservative. The Rover design was judged to be superior by the BL board which included Stokes. It’s in the link in plain English.
aronline.co.uk/cars/rover/s … ent-story/
Here’s another link that states the SD1 was built to REPLACE both the P6 and 2000 range
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover_SD1 … 0is%20both,)%2C%20under%20the%20Rover%20marque.
Here is the Oxford Dictionary definition of what replacement means since you seem to be having trouble understanding it.
oxfordlearnersdictionaries. … ar%20parts
The next link is a 1973 interview with Stokes where he says the P6 and Triumph 2000 are very complimentary models and then says " I think it makes sense NOT to perpetuate that in the future-two similar cars of similar capacity"
aronline.co.uk/people/peopl … interview/
He is QUOTED as saying Rover and Triumph will no longer compete with each other name another Triumph car other than the 2000 which competed with the Rover range of Cars.
The Triumph 2000 could not have been fitted with a V8 in the late70’s/early 80’s to take on the 5 series because it was replaced by the SD1The Triumph 2000 wasn’t the same thing as the Triumph 2.5 PI especially a 2.5 PI with a Rover V8 in it.
Stokes didn’t say Rover does both the plutocrats barges and the performance saloons.
The fact that the 2.5 PI not just the 2000 was replaced by the SD1 let alone the Acclaim is the point.
Nowehere did Stokes or the Ryder report ever say do that.Like AEC still being alive and kicking Triumph was still producing the 2.5 range when Stokes left the job.What happened next was all about Edwardes and BMW, in the form of the 528 and 535i, was the obvious beneficiary.3 box IRS saloon too Conservative bs.
Yeah that’s right the 2000 and 2.5pi were COMPLETELY different they just shared the same bodyshell and engine. Triumph dropped the 2.5pi in 1975 because of reliability problems, replacing it with the 2500S model.
Stokes said Rover and Triumph would no longer compete with each other. Had Triumph, as originally planned, replaced the 2000/2500 range with the Puma they would have been selling cars fitted with the same 2.3/2.6 and if you had your way V8 engine as the SD1, not to mention the same front suspension any sensible person can see they would be rivals. Rover and Triumph had been merged at this point so the same company making two very similar cars would have been stupid and pointless.
You don’t just stop making a car they always say it will be PHASED Out and that is why it was still produced(and the P6) until 77.
The only person who mentions BMW is you the main rival for the 2000/2500 range was the P6 and the main rivals for BL was the likes of Ford/Vauxhall and the Japanese.
3 box saloon too conservative is BS IT’S IN THE LINK IN PLAIN ENGLISH STOKES AND THE BL TEAM CHOOSE THE HATCHBACK ROVER OVER THE TOO CONSERVATIVE TRIUMPH 3 BOX SALOON.
In the mid 70’s/early 80’s it wasn’t just BL who were making hatchbacks, Vw Golf/Polo, Ford mk2 Capri,mk3 ■■■■■■ and Sierra among others.