dazcapri:
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
How does a ‘group’ supposedly ‘compete’ with each other.The clue is in the word group.Rover sells a car that revenue all goes in the same collective pot as a Triumph sale.The idea of competition within a group is an oxymoron.
Mercedes and BMW were competitors not Rover and Triumph.
Strange how gingerfold’s correct idea of brand loyalty matters between AEC and Leyland but not Rover and Triumph.
Good luck with fitting a 2.5 crankshaft in a 2000 block who told you they were the same engines other than interchangeable heads.You couldn’t even use the auto version’s crankshaft with a manual box let alone drop the long stroke 2.5 crank into the 2000 block.It was the bores and bore spacing which was kept the same just like a 154 mm stroke 690 would have done.That’s another advantage of stroked engines.
Yeah right Stokes hated the Triumph so much he said let’s go for the 2.5 development.
How does the 3.5 Litre P5 compete with the 4.2 Jaguar.Jaguar and Rover were never in competition and even if they were all the profits are being ploughed back into the group so what’s your problem between customers choosing a Rover or a Triumph or a Jag.A sale for the group is a sale at the end of the day and even if there was some duplication that just means more customer choice not a lost sale for the group.
We’re obviously not talking about a Lucas injected or even the old 2.5 engine for the new 2.6 and 4.0 PI in 1977.
The 2.5 wasn’t an executive saloon it was Leyland’s only sports saloon 5 series competitor.
Yes lots of manufacturers went for the ugly silly hatchback designs and equally lots of their customers then switched to BMW and Mercedes continuing three box saloon designs.Executives don’t like travelling with their luggage and only boy racers who can’t sort out the difference between a shopping car v a proper performance saloon like hatchbacks.That’s why the 3,5 and 7 series are still there but the SD1 isn’t.
Let alone then going full ■■■■■■ Jap crap front wheel drive.
Yes Triumph did mess around with front wheel drive heaps remind me what was the 1500 U turn all about.
You really think that the Acclaim was better than the Dolomite.
Like the 2.5/SD1/800 saloon debacle it was clearly a sabotage attempt to remove any competition to the BMW 3 series.
The rest is history.But what is certain is that none of it happened on Stokes’ watch or on Stokes’ orders.