Blogads button

blog advertising is good for you
Longlife Button Banner

Editorials and Commentary

Find Us on Facebook

Sponsor icon
Customize you car with magnetic signs

Admin Login



Auto Parts Nerd

Search Ate Up With Motor

FTC Disclosure Notice


Paid advertising and sponsored links on Ate Up With Motor are identified with the words "Sponsor," "Sponsors," or "Sponsored Links." In the event we receive any other compensation or consideration for any content herein, the nature of that compensation will be disclosed on the final page of the article or content, or otherwise adjacent to it. See the Terms of Use for important additional information regarding Ate Up With Motor's advertising and commercial endorsements.


Designed by
SiteGround web hosting Joomla Templates
Way of the Wedge: The Triumph TR7 and TR8 Print E-mail

Tags: 1960s | British cars | British Leyland | MGB | Midget | Rover | Spitfire | TR7 | TR8 | Triumph

Written by Aaron Severson   
Sunday, 05 February 2012 00:00

The Triumph TR7 emerged from the most tumultuous period in the history of the British auto industry -- the last and most controversial of a long line of Triumph sports cars. In this installment of Ate Up With Motor, we examine the origins of the TR7, its V8-powered sibling, the short-lived TR8, and take a quick look at the history of Triumph itself.

1981 Triumph TR8 convertible blue headrest

FROM BICYCLES TO BRITISH LEYLAND

Although it is most known as a British carmaker and motorcycle manufacturer, Triumph was originally founded by a German immigrant, Nuremberg-born Siegfried Bettmann, as a reseller of imported bicycles and sewing machines. The firm was initially called the S. Bettmann & Co. Import Agency, but in 1886, Bettmann adopted the trade name Triumph, and the company subsequently became the Triumph Cycle Co. Ltd. By the 1890s, Triumph was manufacturing its own bicycles in a factory in Coventry. It offered its first motorcycle in 1902 and its first three-wheeler in 1903, but four-wheeled passenger cars didn't follow until April 1923, about two years after Bettmann bought out the defunct Dawson Car Company works on Clay Lane in Stoke Heath, a northeastern suburb of Coventry.

By the 1930s, the Triumph Motor Co. Ltd. (as it had been registered since 1930) offered a variety of upscale four- and six-cylinder models, even dabbling briefly with an eight-cylinder sports car, the Dolomite, designed by experimental engineer Donald Healey. Despite its proliferation of products, however, Triumph's volume was never large -- total prewar production amounted to fewer than 50,000 units -- and the Depression made slow sellers of expensive cars like the 16 HP Gloria Six, whose price would buy three Ford Model Y saloons. The sale of the cycle business in 1936 provided only limited relief, and by the summer of 1939, Triumph was in receivership. That September, it was purchased by Thomas W. Ward Ltd., a steel-making firm, but the outbreak of war stymied plans to resume production under the management of Donald Healey. Triumph's Gloria Lane factory was sold to the government, while the original Clay Lane works were leased to Armstrong Whitworth for the manufacture of military aircraft. The latter was decimated by the Luftwaffe in November 1940, and there was little left by the time the Standard Motor Company purchased the Triumph name and remaining assets in 1944.

1947 Triumph 1800 Roadster front 3q
The first Standard-built Triumphs were the razor-edged 1800 Town and Country saloon and 1800 Roadster, both launched in early 1946. The Roadster, designed by Standard's Frank Callaby, had a wood-framed aluminum body on a tubular steel chassis, independent front suspension, and a 1,776 cc (108 cu. in.) OHV four, with 63 horsepower (47 kW).

The initial postwar Triumphs, now built at the Standard works in Canley/Fletchamstead, a southwestern suburb of Coventry, were wholly unrelated to their prewar predecessors, using Standard engines and running gear. The early postwar cars were fairly expensive, aimed at the Jaguar 1-1/2 Litre (which used the same engine), but they were supplemented from 1949 by the tiny and much cheaper Mayflower sedan, developed for a vain assault on the American market.

By 1950, Standard managing director Sir John Black was keen to add an MG-style sports car to the line. After a failed attempt to buy Morgan, Standard-Triumph developed its own in-house design, the Triumph TR2. Introduced in Geneva in early 1953, the TR2 was an eccentric-looking but rugged roadster, powered by a well-massaged version of Standard's big four. The TR2 was somewhat more expensive than an MG TF, but a good deal faster, capable of perhaps 103 mph (165 km/h) in stock form. With its muscular performance and a reasonable price, the TR2 and its TR3 and TR3A successors found many fans in the U.K. and abroad.

Nonetheless, by 1960, Standard-Triumph's finances were shaky, overextended by new model development costs and recent expansions, including additional assembly facilities in Canley and a new factory in Speke, in southeastern Liverpool. A suddenly drop in export sales forced massive layoffs and production cuts, and in December, the board agreed to a merger with a better-funded partner, truck and bus manufacturer Leyland Motors. The merger was initially quite cordial, but as Standard-Triumph's losses continued to mount, the new owners began to exert greater control. In August 1961, Leyland dismissed most of Standard-Triumph's directors and sacked hundreds of senior executives, replacing them with Leyland people like Donald Stokes, who would be appointed Standard-Triumph managing director in 1963.

1958 Triumph TR3A front 3q
The facelifted TR3 replaced the TR2 in August 1953, sporting a new grille and other minor changes. This is a TR3A, which superseded the TR3 in the fall of 1957. It can be distinguished from the earlier car by its wider grille and external door handles. Like late TR3s, it had standard Girling front disc brakes and a 1,991 cc (122 cu. in.) four with 100 hp (75 kW).

Under Leyland management, Standard-Triumph abandoned the Standard marque and introduced a range of new Triumph models, including the compact Herald and Vitesse, the Herald-based Spitfire roadster, the 2000 executive saloon, and the front-wheel-drive 1300, all developed by Triumph chief engineer Harry Webster and designed by Turin's Giovanni Michelotti. Leyland further bolstered its passenger car offerings with the acquisition of Rover in 1967. Although the 2000 and Rover P6 were direct rivals, Triumph and Rover each had models and expertise the other did not. Together, they commanded a respectable 10.6% of the British market, and Leyland had ambitious plans to boost Triumph production to as many as 200,000 units per year.

By the autumn of 1967, an additional merger was in the works. The Wilson government was pushing for a consolidation of Leyland and British Motor Holdings, which included BMC (Austin/Morris/MG/Riley/Wolseley) and Jaguar. The merger was completed in the spring of 1968, with Donald Stokes becoming chairman of the new British Leyland Motor Corporation. Triumph managing director George Turnball was reassigned to run the new Volume Car and Light Commercial Division (Austin-Morris), with Harry Webster replacing Alec Issigonis as Austin-Morris chief engineer. Triumph, meanwhile, was grouped with Rover and Jaguar in a new Specialty Division, with Cliff Swindle replacing Turnball as managing director and Rover's Spenser (Spen) King succeeding Harry Webster as technical director.

1968 Triumph Vitesse 2-litre convertible front 3q
Although most American readers will be more familiar with Triumph's sports cars, the company's other models were its bread and butter in the home market. This is a 1968 Vitesse 2-litre Mk 2, a plusher six-cylinder version of the compact Herald, trading the Herald's four-cylinder engine for a 1,998 cc (122 cu. in.) six. Some earlier Vitesse 1600 and Mk 1 2-litres were exported to the U.S. (as the Triumph Sports Six), but not the 1968-1971 Mk 2, which had more power and an improved rear suspension, borrowed from the GT6 Mk 2/GT6+.

BULLET AND LYNX

Among the pressing issues for the new administration was determining the direction of Triumph's new model development. While the saloons did well in the U.K., the company's export business depended heavily on the sports cars, which by the late sixties included the popular four-cylinder Spitfire, the six-cylinder GT6 coupe, and the 'big' TR roadster; the Michelotti-styled, V8-powered Stag was then in development for a 1970 debut. With the exception of the Stag, all were becoming a bit gray at the temples -- even the new TR6, introduced in January 1969, was essentially a Karmann facelift of the TR5/TR250, itself a six-cylinder make-over of the 1961-vintage TR4 -- and their future was further complicated by emerging U.S. regulations.

By the time the TR6 debuted, Triumph was working on two all-new sports car models, codenamed Bullet and Lynx. The Bullet, designed by Triumph styling chief Les Moore, was a roadster, intended to replace the TR6; prototypes were tested with both four- and six-cylinder engines. The Lynx, designed by Les Moore and Michelotti, was a hatchback coupe, with a fastback roofline, and a Kamm tail, looking a bit like a foreshortened Lamborghini Espada. It was intended to succeed the GT6, but it would have been somewhat larger, with 2+2 seating. Both cars were to have considerable structural commonality, and would likely have shared most of their running gear.

1969 Triumph GT6+ front 3q
The Triumph GT6 was essentially a fixed-head version of the Spitfire, powered by the 1,998 cc/122 cu. in. six from the Vitesse 2-litre and 2000 saloons. With a modest 95 gross horsepower (71 kW) in federalized form, it wasn't quite a muscle car, although it was quicker than the Spitfire. Early cars shared the roadster's swing-axle rear suspension, but Mark 2 cars (known as GT6+ in the States) had a revised layout that used the transverse leaf spring as an upper control arm, with additional lower wishbones to avoid the swing axle's radical camber changes and jacking effect. Late Mark 3 cars reverted to the rear suspension layout of the Mark 4 Spitfire, probably for cost reasons.

In the wake of the merger, there was a new possibility to consider: the prospect of rationalizing the separate (and ferociously competitive) sports car offerings of Triumph and MG. In retrospect, that notion seems misguided -- even the use of Triumph engines and gearboxes in the Mk 4 Midget provoked outrage from the MG Faithful -- but from a financial standpoint, an integration of the two lines appeared eminently reasonable. The sports cars represented a small percentage of British Leyland's total production, and the costs of developing all-new models that would meet U.S. safety and emissions standards would undoubtedly be very high.

Leyland management canceled development of the Lynx in 1969, but directed Triumph to continue work on the Bullet as a potential replacement for both the TR6 and the MGB. Around the same time, MG engineers in Abingdon were asked to develop a smaller, mid-engine car, codenamed ADO21, to succeed the MG Midget, Austin-Healey Sprite, and Spitfire. Developed by Harris Mann and Peter Hughes of the Austin-Morris studio in Longbridge, the ADO21 emerged as a low-slung, wedge-shaped coupe with 'flying buttress' sail panels, probably influenced by the Zanda concept car Mann's team had developed for the 1969 London Motor Show. It was designed to accommodate either the 1,275 cc (78 cu. in.) four from the Mini Cooper S or four- and six-cylinder versions of the newer E-series engine.


Comments (5)
  • Marve H

    Another excellent and impeccably researched article. I think you let the unions off the hook a little in the demise of BL. It was the perfect storm of government interference, mismanagement, undercapitalization and militant unionism that destroyed the British auto industry. It’s amazing how history repeats itself as we see today with GM and Chrysler following suit.

  • Jon M

    Thanks for another excellent article! I've owned a TR7 for 30 years & I think you may be understating just how awful the Triumph slant four really was. Head gasket problems seem to be the result of an unconventional head to block attachment. The camshaft ran in plain bearings in the aluminum head without liners. When they wore out, you have to replace the head. The jack shaft (the shaft that drives the water, oil & fuel pumps as well as the distributor) ran in bearings machined in the block, again without replaceable shells. From what I've heard, SAAB lost no time in making extensive modifications on their varient in the 99 resulting in much greater reliability & longevity.
    BTW, I believe the spyder style wheels shown on the green TR7 were not available until the '79 model year. That car appears to be a '75 or '76, before the rear panel was done in body color.

  • Administrator

    You may be right about the wheels, although that is an ambiguous point. From Bill Piggott's research, it appears they weren't optional in the UK until after production moved to Canley, but they may have been fitted some of the pilot production Sprints, and it isn't clear when they became available for North America. Since the green car is a UK model, it's more likely they were a later retrofit. As for the black rear panel, though, the body-colored trim panel was first adopted for Canley-built cars in fall 1978. (The date for the green coupe came from the photographer, who indicated that it was built in September 1977, I assume based on the serial number or build plate.)

    I was debating whether to get into the slant four's peculiar head bolt arrangement, which has some studs angled differently from others. The irony was that the angled studs were apparently intended to be more accessible, although it certainly complicates getting the head off without breaking anything. As for the head gasket, I don't know if the head/block mating may have exacerbated the situation, but the head gaskets of aluminum/iron engines (aluminum head/iron block or vice versa) tend to take a beating anyway, particularly if there's any sort of overheating -- different expansion rates.

    Like the Stag V8, it appears that the slant four had some good features, but a lot of unfortunate compromises, probably made in the name of cost savings. One assumes that replaceable bearing shells for the jackshaft, for instance, would have been more expensive, and so they may have been deemed unnecessary for the intended service life of the engine. (Or they may have been specified in the original design brief and then deleted to cut costs, although without examining the engineering drawings or talking to the designers, I can only speculate.)

    You're right about Saab making extensive changes to the design. They made some when they took production in-house in the early seventies, with more following in the early eighties; the Saab B and H engines are still related to the original slant four, but I believe they differ quite a bit in detail.

  • Jon M

    With the upper side of the head mounted to the block by studs at a 45 deg. angle to the block and the lower side held down by bolts less than half the length & perpendicular to the block I'd estimate the high side of the gasket is clamped with less than 70% of the force that the lower edge is. I'm guessing this was done to allow for the grater thermal expansion (approx. 3X that of iron) of the head. However, I'd also think that made it excessively vunerable to damage due to overheating.

  • Garrett Cole

    Fantastic article as always. I just came across a very nice write-up of the ADO21 here: http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/2011/06/25/sports-car-projects-ado21/

    You can definitely see the inspiration for a number of the design features for the production TR7.

Write comment
Your Contact Details:
Comment:
[b] [i] [u] [url] [quote] [code] [img]   
Security
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.
Please do not post copyrighted content or images you don't own!

User comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Ate Up With Motor, and we accept no responsibility for their content. Publication of a comment does not constitute Ate Up With Motor's endorsement of any opinion, product, or service. Please click here to read our Comment Policy.