Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
This is especially entertaining:Carryfast:
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.…apart from Citroen, Saab, Fiat, Renault, Lancia and anything with an estate back. Oh, and the Rover SD1, which was very popular.
Carryfast:
How do you put Rover and Triumph into the VW Golf ■■■■■■ and Sierra market sector.
The clue is Leylands premium brands.What?
Carryfast:
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.Piffle. The market sectors are governed by the vehicle itself, not the engine or trim options. That’s why they give them similar names, like 5 Series, for customers who can’t see that they are all the same shape. The Triumph 2000 and 2500 shared the same 1963 shell. There was no V8 version- you made that up.
Carryfast:
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.This is absolute balderdash. The SD1 was and is universally acclaimed for its styling, its road manners and the versatility afforded by the rear door. I wonder how many Granada Estate sales it snatched off Ford?
Carryfast:
It was a corrupted interpretation of the whole plan which derailed the whole JRT premium group.Jaguar and Rover were still trading long after the SD1 had been replaced.
Carryfast:
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.The Triumph shell was way past its sell-by date, by 1975. It would have made a joke 5 Series competitor. The SD1, on the other hand, was a viable alternative to many 5 and 7 series variants.
Carryfast:
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.Jaguar is still making cars in GB. Screwed up is the last phrase you would use to describe it. The Land Rover side of it is especially successful, earning silly prices all over the world for its products.
Remind me why Ford ditched Jaguar.
Oh wait.Lost sales of those who rightly thought that a V6 and a V8 has no place in a Jaguar.Jaguars should only have multiples of inline 6 and nothing under 4 litres.
theguardian.com/business/200 … y.motoringYou really think that the ugly live axle hatchback SD1 followed by the even worse front drive 800 were in any way BMW 5 series competitors.Remind me what happened to the SD1 and 800 v 5 series.Since when were Citroen and FIAT etc premium brands.
Why was the Rover 600/75 not a hatchback like the SD1 and 800.Effectively a return to 3 box styling followed by an even more desperate heroic attempt to return to the rear wheel drive V8 configuration by converting the 75 at too much cost unfortunately.
In what way was the 1970 introduced Triumph Mk2 saloon ‘outdated’ by 1975 when the 1972 introduced 5 series was just getting its 6 cylinder options in 1977.It did everything its 5 series competitor could do with more room and superior rack and pinion steering with an estate option.It just needed the Rover V8 option in it together with the updated Triumph designed 2.3 and 2.6 engines.I know there wasn’t a V8 version of the the Triumph 2.5 because Edwardes didn’t want there to be.
You seem to have problems with differentiating an estate from a hatchback design.Here’s a clue the 3 and 5 series tourers were always better premium sellers than any Rover hatchback ever was.But the executive sector rarely likes to travel with its luggage.
You seem to have no class when it comes to your taste in motors or the correct demands of the premium/performance brand clientele.
I can just imagine you moaning because you couldn’t find a mug who’d want to buy your front wheel drive Allegro and Citroen and Triumph Acclaim and Saab.When you thought that each would be an improvement on the previous one.Also no one seemed to be listening when you told them that there was nothing wrong with the TL12 at 38t gross it just needs the intercooler upgrade coming soon it’ll be fine.
The 5 series BMW was updated in 1981 and again in 1988 but the tourer wasn’t introduced until 1990.
The 1963 introduced mk1 was actually updated into the mk2 in 1969 and like the mk3/4/5 Cortina retained the same basic running gear and chassis. The mk2 was basically a face lift of the mk1 triumph with a few mechanical changes.
I thought you previously said it was Spen King who stopped Triumph using the Rover v8 engine, you know Spen King the man who actually designed the first triumph (the gt6 replacement) to be fitted with a Rover V8.
Edwardes didnt want Triumph to use the V8 is this the same Edwardes who let them use it in the TR8.
More to the point how did he stop them when the car was OUT OF PRODUCTION when he started at the company
I don’t know what you don’t understand about the 1971 meeting chaired by STOKES that decided to stop making the big Triumph saloons in favour of the SD1.
In any case what sensible business man would spend money on a 14 year old design after the firm had spent millions of pounds designing and building its replacement.
STOKES ENDED PRODUCTION OF THE TRIUMPH anything else is just bs.