Carryfast:
dazcapri:
Carryfast:
The 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.In the mid 70’s and even the 80’s on the three box saloon was the default premium car choice.Even Ford and Opel’s Premium saloons.
How do you put Rover and Triumph into the VW Golf ■■■■■■ and Sierra market sector.
The clue is Leylands premium brands.
In what way was the 2.5 PI let alone Rover V8 the same engine as the 2000.
Just like BMW 518 v 528-535i.
Same bodyshell and similar suspension but totally different cars and market sectors.
Or for that matter 728-735 exec barges.
It’s obvious that the SD1 in no way fitted the bill of Rover just do the exec barges let alone the Acclaim fitted Triumph do the performance cars.
In fact the SD1 Vittesse not only nicked the Triumph performance brand name it also turned the whole plan upside down with an ugly hatchback retrograde product to add insult to injury.
It was a corrupted interpretation of the whole plan which derailed the whole JRT premium group.
As I said Triumph 2.5 saloon based 2.3, 2.6 PI and V8 Vittesse.That’s the 5 series covered.
BMC C series and V8 powered Rover P5 replacement using the Westminster name.That’s the 7 series sector covered.
BMC do the Acclaim why Triumph.Since when was Triumph meant to be in the BMC market sector.That fitted the stated plan and kept the right products in their correct intended market sectors.
What we actually saw was sabotage of the most profitable premium brands of the car division after Stokes had gone.
Just like the TL12 powered T45 did with the truck division.Jaguar luckily escaped.Only to end up screwed by Ford ( effectively Ford Germany ).
Effectively making sure there’d be no more V12 powered competition for BMW and Merc from there.
The 2.5 pi was DROPPED by Triumph in 1975 because it was unreliable so HOW could it have been a BMW beater.
The 2.5 engine was the same Block as the 2000 just larger capacity (same as the 1.6/2.0 pinto e.g.)
I’m not saying the Golf etc are in the same class I’m just pointing out that a lot of manufacturers thought hatchbacks were the way forward. Ford even did it with the Granada.
I actually agree with you that they should have offered a saloon(and estate) version of the Rover there were prototypes but they weren’t developed.
This Rover SD1 was given the go ahead in 1971 by STOKES so by your own arguments its STOKES who ruined BL by not allowing Triumph to build the 3 box saloon Puma that they wanted to.
Since when was Triumph in the BMC sector?
From 1959 when they introduced the Herald to compete against the Mini/A35/40 range of vehicles.
This continued with the 1300 Toledo range.
They even had a FWD version which, if you read the Harry Webster interview I posted, was thought to be the way forward.
Unfortunately they were making too many versions of the same body shell, the FWD, RWD short boot Toledo and the long boot Dolomite. So according to Webster for COST reasons they scrapped it. Eventually the whole range would come under the Dolomite banner.
If they had replaced the P5 surely that would have clashed with the Jaguar range.
You can waffle on all you like but it was STOKES who started the decline of Triumph as a large car manufacturer he wanted Jaguar as the premium range. Then Rover for the middle management type (like Stokes is quoted as saying You’ve arrived in a Rover). Which left Triumph making the sports car range and the smaller Dolomite (later to have been the SD2 range) sporting cars. You are the only one that mentions the 2.0/2.5 range as sports saloons they were marketed as an executive saloon, as was the P6. I’m not denying they were sporty car they even released an S version (as did Rover with the P6) and it was the 2.5 S which replaced the unreliable 2.5PI. Stokes described the large Triumph as “Rubbish when we first got them” saying “we couldn’t give them away” these are direct quotes from Stokes who obviously wasn’t as big a fan of the Triumph as you are.
You yourself have mentioned the JRT range, why would the JRT group build vehicles that were going to compete with each other