The Triumph 2000 was a hit, giving the Rover 2000 a run for its money and demonstrating that there was a lucrative market for affordable premium sedans. The Mk 2 edition, introduced in the fall of 1969, seemed set to continue that success, but with Triumph now part of the British Leyland Motor Corporation, the 2000’s future would soon be in doubt. In part 2 of our story, we look at the later history of the big Triumph 2000, 2.5 PI, and 2500TC/2500S sedans.
THE LEYLAND SHUFFLE
In our first installment, we talked about the protracted development of the car that became the Triumph 2000 and the success the Mk 1 car found in the British marketplace. To understand all of what came next, it’s important to have at least a general understanding of the corporate machinations taking place during the same period. (Regular readers will probably already be familiar with this part of the story, but it bears recapping for those just joining us.)
As previously discussed, back in 1960, Standard-Triumph International had been acquired by Leyland Motors, a successful British truck and bus manufacturer. The new Leyland management, including Donald Stokes, who became Standard-Triumph’s managing director in 1963, brought a needed infusion of cash and financial rigor that soon restored Standard-Triumph to prosperity. In early 1967, Leyland also acquired the Rover Company, with which Standard had flirted on and off for the better part of 15 years, giving Leyland a solid minority share of the British car market. In the bargain, Leyland also picked up Alvis, a smaller maker of prestigious cars and less prestigious but profitable military vehicles that had merged with Rover in 1965.
If that had been the end of Leyland’s merger spree, the future of Triumph (and for that matter Rover) might have been very different. However, there was a further merger in the works: The British government was pushing for a union between Leyland and the massive but ailing British Motor Corporation (BMC) — or, more properly, British Motor Holdings, a holding company created in 1966 by the merger of BMC and Jaguar. BMC (the BMH designation was a legal one and little-used outside formal business documents) encompassed many of the U.K.’s major automotive brands, including Austin, Morris, MG, Riley, and Wolseley, although the latter two were on their way out, having long since succumbed to badge-engineering expedience.
Despite its sizable market share, BMC was beset by serious financial problems and ongoing labor disputes, compounded by an aging product line that was too often flawed, dull, unprofitable, or some combination of the three. The Labour government of Prime Minister Harold Wilson was fearful that BMC would end up in receivership and/or become a satellite of some foreign company. The Rootes Group (encompassing Hillman, Humber, Singer, and Sunbeam-Talbot) was already being absorbed by Chrysler and the Wilson government had no desire to see Britain’s largest automaker end up as another subsidiary of one of the American giants. The government’s solution was to broker a marriage between BMH and Leyland, putting Leyland management in charge in the hopes that they could repeat Standard-Triumph’s revitalization on a much larger scale.
The upshot of all this was the formation in May 1968 of the British Leyland Motor Corporation (BLMC), with Donald Stokes (shortly to become Lord Stokes, a life peer) as its chairman. One of Stokes’ early decisions was to send Triumph’s technical director, Harry Webster, to Austin Morris to replace Alec Issigonis (designer of the Mini) and sort out the mess of BMC’s product plans. To take Webster’s place at Triumph, Spencer King was transferred from Rover, where he’d been involved in the development of Rover’s P6, the Triumph 2000’s arch-rival in the prestige 2-liter market.
Even before the formation of BLMC, Leyland had envisioned a unified, multi-brand lineup with Triumph, Rover, and Alvis. Now, future Triumph and Rover models would have to be weighed against (and compete for corporate attention and funds with) not only one another, but also Jaguar and some of the very same middle-class brands whose lunch money the P6 and Triumph 2000 had been stealing — an awkward situation, to say the least.
STAG AND INNSBRUCK
Months earlier, before the merger, Triumph management had decided that the 2000 was in need of a stylistic freshening up. At that time, Triumph was still busily developing the Stag, a new drophead grand tourer based on the 2000 and also designed by Italian freelance stylist Giovanni Michelotti. Although the structural relationship between the 2000 and the Stag was becoming ever more slender as development proceeded, Triumph decided the 2000 should at least look like the Stag, whose new SOHC V-8 the sedan was intended to one day share. Around mid-1967, Triumph commissioned Michelotti to handle the facelift of the sedan, which was codenamed Innsbruck. Michelotti’s proposal was approved by the board that fall.
Innsbruck’s key feature was a new front end treatment with a broad, horizontally slatted grille and indicator lights similar to those of the Stag. The rear clip was new, too, with a semi-recessed cove for the taillights that also recalled the Stag, albeit not quite as loudly as did the nose. The tail was extended and the rear track widened to the same 52-inch (1,320mm) width as the front, eliminating the Mk 1 car’s “crab-toed” stance. The longer tail allowed the trunk to be enlarged, answering persistent complaints about the sedan’s limited luggage space.
While the body shells for the Mk 1 sedans had been produced by Pressed Steel Ltd. in Swindon, the tooling for Innsbruck was entrusted to the West German company Karmann, which had already impressed Triumph management by turning the TR5 into the new-looking but structurally carryover TR6. The main reason for going to Karmann was time: Triumph wanted Innsbruck done as soon as possible, presumably so that its launch could be as close as possible to the debut of the Stag, which was originally supposed to bow in 1968. Pressed Steel couldn’t accommodate that schedule, but Karmann could. The Stag’s debut ended up being delayed until June 1970, but the Mk 2 sedans bowed at the Geneva Auto Show in March 1969.
As we mentioned in our previous installment, despite the Mk 2’s cosmetic resemblance to the Stag, the chances of the sedan receiving the Stag’s V-8 engine were already disappearing. Spen King ordered the V-8 enlarged from about 2.5 liters (153 cu. in. or near enough) to 2,997 cc (183 cu. in.) in search of more torque, which required upgrading the Stag’s body structure, running gear, brakes, wheels, and tires accordingly. Using the enlarged V-8 in the sedan would mean making similar changes, which threatened to make the project prohibitively expensive.
Beyond that, the rationale for a V-8 sedan was no longer obvious, since its main effect would have been to cut into sales of the Rover 3500 and Jaguar XJ6. That had of course been precisely the idea, but in the wake of the BLMC merger, it represented a level of cannibalization British Leyland couldn’t afford. In the end, the only sedans to receive the V-8 were a half dozen or so development mules and a single finished car used for a time by sales director Linden Mills. Considering the V-8’s subsequent reliability problems, it was probably just as well.
NEW AND (MOSTLY) IMPROVED: TRIUMPH 2000 AND 2.5 PI MK 2
The Mk 2 was largely carryover from a mechanical and structural standpoint: Once again, there was fully independent suspension via MacPherson struts and semi-trailing arms, front disc and rear drum brakes, rack-and-pinion steering, a choice of four-speed manual gearbox (with optional Laycock de Normanville overdrive) or three-speed Borg-Warner 35 automatic, and two available engines: the 1,998 cc (122 cu. in.) OHV six and the 2.5 PI’s long-stroke, 2,498 cc (152 cu. in.) version with Lucas mechanical fuel injection. As before, a 2000 with the manual gearbox needed about 15 seconds to reach 60 mph (97 km/h), but top speed improved a bit, to around 97-98 mph (156-158 km/h), probably due to the better aerodynamics of the longer body. The more powerful 2.5 PI trimmed 0-60 mph (0-97 km/h) times to 10 seconds or less and allowed a top speed of more than 115 mph.
The Mk 2 did incorporate some useful changes. Triumph used the facelift as an opportunity to tidy up the dash and minor controls and upgrade the heating and ventilation system, again based on the system developed for the Stag. The 2.5 PI now had a tachometer, allowing the removal of the previous rev limiter. There were also new and better seats, although the previously standard leather upholstery gave way to vinyl or optional “Bri-Nylon” cloth trim, reflecting a growing corporate preoccupation with cost-cutting. (Leather was still available as an extra-cost option at least for a time.)
A much-appreciated new option was quick-ratio Alford and Alder power steering, a £52 4s 5d ($125) extra. The power assistance was particularly helpful on the 2.5 PI, which with its wide 185HR-13 radial tires (now on 13x5J wheels) could be a struggle to park, but the system didn’t have an abundance of road feel and wasn’t especially precise.
Handling precision had not been among the Mk 1’s leading virtues and the Mk 2 offered no great improvements in that area. The suspension was softer than before — how much of that was due to the increased weight of the revised body and how much was attributable to a change in spring and damping rates is unclear — and body roll was more pronounced than ever. (Triumph had intended to add a front anti-roll bar to all Mk 2 cars, but that item was deleted from the sedans as part of the cost-cutting campaign and fitted only to estates and some police-package sedans.) The wider rear track and higher polar moment of inertia improved stability, but brisk cornering resulted in substantial understeer. If you forced the issue, Mk 2 sedans had good grip, particularly on 2.5 PI models with their fatter tires, but the Mk 2 still wasn’t the sort of car that invited B-road corner-carving.
The Mk 2 was better on the motorway, where an accommodating ride, well-trimmed interior, and (at least on the 2.5 PI) a flexible engine with long-legged gearing encouraged a relaxed but confident pace. In a later era, Triumph would probably have offered a sportier model or sport package, but as it was, even the 2.5 PI was essentially a luxury cruiser, more akin to Rover’s big 3½-Litre (P5) than the Rover P6 or BMW’s similarly priced but smaller 2002.
Despite signs of incidental penny-pinching, the Mk 2 cars were more expensive than the Mk 1: The 2000 now started at £1,080 (£1,412 5s 10d with purchase tax, about $3,400 at the contemporary exchange rate), the 2.5 PI at £1,220 (£1,595 1s 4d, about $3,830), although even the latter was no more expensive than the marginally slower and noticeably peakier Rover 2000TC; both undercut even the cheapest Jaguar XJ6 2.8 by a healthy degree. A Vauxhall Victor VX 4/90 or Ford Corsair 2000E was cheaper still and had marginally better performance than a Triumph 2000, but the Triumph still filled a useful niche for people who wanted a reasonably affordable luxury sedan rather than a dressed-up mass-market car.
PUMA IN THE BELLY OF THE WHALE
Even before the Mk 2 debuted, Triumph was already giving thought to its eventual replacement, codenamed Puma, which was tentatively scheduled to replace the Mk 2 around 1973. Puma, again designed by Michelotti with input from in-house design chief Les Moore, was not a second facelift, but an updated platform that was intended to have significant commonality with other future Triumph cars.
By 1970, however, BLMC management was struggling to come to grips with its sprawling and confusingly overlapping product line, much of which was in need of update or replacement. While Lord Stokes was undoubtedly fond of Triumph, the corporate coffers were not nearly deep enough for everything the individual divisions wanted to do, particularly where those projects directly competed with one another.
Over the next year and a half, Puma went from mostly autonomous Triumph project to styling proposal for a joint Rover-Triumph project to would replace the 2000/2.5 PI and P6. In early 1971, the Puma design, further refined by freelance designer William Towns, lost an internal design competition to the P10, a slick five-door hatchback designed by Rover’s David Bache, and became a dead issue. (The P10 subsequently became the 1976 Rover SD1.)
Even if it had won the contest, the Puma would probably not have been offered as a Triumph. The BLMC board at that point was dominated by former Rover and Triumph executives who by 1971 had reaffirmed their previous conclusion that Triumph should focus on sports cars and smaller sedans, leaving larger luxury models to Rover and Jaguar. (Alvis, sadly, had been lost in the shuffle.) The 2000 and 2.5 PI would continue until the SD1 was ready, but after that, Triumph would be out of the large sedan business.
2500TC AND 2500S
The 2.5 PI continued to sell well in Mk 2 form despite spiraling prices; by 1972, a 2.5 PI sedan ran to £1,995 (about $5,000), while an estate with power steering and overdrive was up to £2,321 (around $5,800). Nonetheless, not everyone was happy with the Lucas injection system, which was expensive, still not trouble-free, and costly to repair. There were also complaints about the injected engine’s rough idle, which prompted a switch in 1973 to a milder cam (shared with late TR6 PIs) that trimmed peak output to 124 PS (91 kW) DIN and 143 lb-ft (193 km/h) of torque. The 2000 was cheaper and less fussy than the injected engine, but the smaller engine was now rated at only 84 PS (62 kW) DIN and thus was rather underpowered for this segment, particularly with automatic.
The obvious solution was to offer a carbureted version of the 2,498 cc (152 cu. in.) engine as an intermediate step between the 2000 and 2.5 PI. Why Triumph didn’t do this from the beginning of Mk 2 production we really don’t know; Triumph had been selling a carbureted 2.5 in North American TRs since 1968 and for 1972 had commonized the block and head of the 2.0 and 2.5 engines. However, it was actually Triumph’s South African subsidiary that first installed the carbureted 2.5-liter six in the sedan, creating the locally assembled Triumph Chicane in 1972. Australian Motor Industries in Port Melbourne, Victoria, which assembled Triumphs for the Australian market, followed suit in 1973 with the 2500TC and a similar model was belatedly introduced in the U.K. in mid-1974.
The engine of the British 2500TC was generally similar to that of the U.S.-spec TR6 minus the add-on emissions controls, although two S.U. HS4s replaced the federalized cars’ Zenith-Stromberg carburetors. This arrangement yielded a lackluster 99 PS (73 kW) DIN, but a useful 133 lb-ft (180 N-m) of torque. Combined with the 2.5 PI’s 3.45 axle, the carbureted engine neatly split the difference between the 2000 and the 2.5 PI in both performance and price, but the 2500TC’s performance was only average by the standards of its increasingly competitive segment.
The 2500TC and 2.5 PI were available concurrently for about a year, but production of the expensive and troublesome injected engine ceased in the early summer of 1975, leading to the deletion of both the TR6 PI and 2.5 PI. The latter was replaced by a new 2500S model, also carbureted, but with revised intake and exhaust manifolds and bigger S.U. HS6 carburetors, giving 106 PS (78 kW) DIN and 139 lb-ft (188 N-m) of torque. The 2500S also had a front anti-roll bar (the only sedan model so equipped except police vehicles) and 175SR-14 tires on 14×5.5 alloy wheels, borrowed from the Stag. Overdrive was standard and the optional power steering was also revised to provide more road feel. The 2500S handled notably better than the 2000 or 2.5 PI, although the ride was less comfortable and the binding of the rear halfshaft splines remained an annoying problem.
The 2500TC remained available, as did the 2000, now renamed 2000TC (although 2000s had always had twin carburetors). The venerable 1,998 cc (122 cu. in.) six now had 91 PS (67 kW) DIN and 111 lb-ft (151 N-m) of torque, finally making the 2000 a 100-mph (160-km/h) car.
Since Triumph engineers were responsible for developing the new OHC six-cylinder engine slated for eventual use in the SD1 and that engine was originally based (albeit very loosely) on the older Triumph six, Rover-Triumph considered installing the new engine in the 2000/2500 body, possibly accompanied by an additional facelift. A few prototypes were built, but the project was abandoned by mid-1973. The new engine was rapidly diverging from its roots and neither redesigning it to make it fit the 2000’s engine bay nor redesigning the sedan’s front end to accommodate a longer engine was an attractive option, particularly with BLMC lurching toward insolvency. Instead, the Mk 2 cars soldiered on with a new grille that looked even more like the Stag’s, minor equipment shuffling, and the aforementioned model changes. A 1975 plan to extend the model’s life by replacing the OHV six with the 2,227 cc (136 cu. in.) E-series engine was also abandoned.
In the Mk 2’s final years, British Leyland (as BLMC was formally known following the 1975 nationalization) seemed loath to spend any of the corporation’s now publicly subsidized resources marketing the big Triumphs, but the 2000 and 2500 were still reasonably competitive against a growing horde of Continental rivals and dressed-up family sedans like the Ford Granada Ghia. If you were looking for something genuinely sporty, the Triumph wasn’t likely to suit, but there was still a place in the market for a largish sedan with nicer appointments and more cachet than a Vauxhall or Leyland’s own Princess.
Production of the 2000TC, 2500TC, and 2500S continued after the introduction of the V-8 SD1 in mid-1976, finally ending in May 1977; some overseas CKD assembly continued for another year or so. The Triumphs remained on sale into the 1978 model year in the U.K. and until 1979 in certain export markets. By the end, rampant mid-decade inflation had pushed the price of even a basic 2000TC to more than £4,000 (over $7,000) and a loaded 2500S to almost £6,000 (around $10,500), a sum that two years earlier would have bought a Jaguar XJ6 4.2.
FROM TRIUMPH TO DEFEAT
British Leyland’s plan to withdraw Triumph from the luxury market to focus on smaller sedans and sports cars was only half successful: Triumph did indeed pull out of the large sedan segment after the demise of the Mk 2, but the smaller Dolomite and Toledo sedans also expired in 1980, replaced months later by the short-lived, Honda-based Acclaim. The last Triumph sports cars died in 1981 and the Triumph marque, which had been selling around 140,000 cars a year immediately prior to the formation of BLMC, disappeared completely in 1984.
The closest British Leyland came to replacing the Triumph 2000/2500 was the six-cylinder SD1 models, the Rover 2300 and 2600, which bowed in 1977. The 2300 and 2600 were powered by 2,350 cc (143 cu. in.) and 2,597 cc (158 cu. in.) versions of the OHC six that Triumph had developed but never had the opportunity to use in its own cars. As with the Stag’s V-8, that may have been for the best; the six’s service record was a generally unhappy one.
With the benefit of hindsight, it’s clear that the decision to drop the big Triumph sedans was a mistake. Together, the 2000/2.5/2500 had accounted for nearly 317,000 sales, split roughly 40/60 between Mk 1 and Mk 2 cars. (Our sources are unclear about whether or not those figures include CKD production in South Africa and elsewhere.) While the Rover P6 sold something between 325,000 and 330,000 cars during the same period, about 80,000 of those were the significantly costlier eight-cylinder 3500. If we count only the P6’s four-cylinder variations, which were much closer to the Triumphs in price and performance, the Triumphs outsold the P6 by nearly 30%, although both did well given their price and market. It’s hard to see why anyone thought the buyers of two such distinct (if similarly successful) cars could be magically shifted to a single new model, particularly one that was quite different from either of its predecessors.
We’re as critical as anyone of the British auto industry’s traditional affection for badge engineering, but developing separate Rover and Triumph versions of the SD1 would not have been a wholly ridiculous idea. The SD1’s Ferrari-influenced hatchback profile was striking, but there would probably also have been room for a more conservative-looking three-box derivative, which would have served to expand the utility of the platform. The early-70s BLMC board liked radical designs, which is why they favored the P10 (and for that matter the Harris Mann proposal that became the Triumph TR7) in the first place, but their judgment in that area was by no means universally shared. Their successors were more cautious; Rover-Triumph planned a four-door notchback version of the Bravo, the SD1’s abortive successor, and the later Rover 800 was offered in both four- and five-door forms.
It would be tempting to lay the blame for these miscalculations on BLMC’s mid-decade managerial and financial chaos, but as previously noted, Leyland was planning to eventually drop the big Triumphs before BLMC was even formed. However, being stuck in the middle of BLMC’s ramshackle brand hierarchy certainly didn’t help. As part of British Leyland, Rover-Triumph (the two were formally merged in March 1972) couldn’t extend its range too far in one direction without ruffling the feathers of Austin Morris or venture too far the other way without stepping on Jaguar’s tail. In any case, British Leyland’s disastrous financial condition and complex political situation meant that there was no money to spare, a problem that also doomed the SD2, Triumph’s planned successor to the Toledo and Dolomite. There’s also no reason to think a Triumph derivative of the SD1 would have escaped the quality problems that dogged the Rover.
The market that Triumph had tapped with the 2000/2.5/2500 did not go away after the demise of those cars, but British Leyland (shortly renamed Austin Rover and then the Rover Group) gradually surrendered much of its share to European rivals, most of them German. Since then, the growing popularity in Europe and the U.K. of “premium” cars with prestigious badges — even in sparsely equipped, entry-level form — has decimated the market for big bread-and-butter sedans like the Opel Omega and Ford Scorpio, cut a bloody swath through the D-segment, and more recently launched a concerted assault on the C-segment. The U.S. has so far been spared from this onslaught, mostly because European automakers typically only federalize the more expensive, big-engined versions of each model line, but as of this writing, there’s no end in sight elsewhere.
Crediting the Triumph 2000 (and its Rover rival) with starting that trend would be stretching a point too far, but the big Triumphs did foreshadow the direction the market was going. It’s a pity that the Triumph’s maker wasn’t able to capitalize on that prescience.
The author would like to thank Stig Baumeyer, Bryce Chessum, Chris Dalton, and Richard Wiseby for the use of their photos.
NOTES ON SOURCES
Our sources on the development of the big Triumph sedans and their Rover P6 rival included “A Brilliant Triumph,” Wheels July 1964, reprinted in Triumph 2000 – 2.5 – 2500 1963-1977, ed. R.M. Clarke (Cobham, England: Brooklands Books, 1984): 16–19; Keith Adams, “The cars; Triumph 2000/2500 development history” and “The cars: Rover SD1 development history,” AROnline, 11 September 2011, www.aronline. co.uk, accessed 19 June 2013; “Autotest: Rover 2600,” Autocar 22 October 1977: 54–58; “Autotest: Triumph 2000 Mk 2 (1,998 c.c.),” Autocar 16 October 1969: 132–135; “Autotest: Triumph 2.5 PI Mk 2,” Autocar 17 February 1972: 8–12; “Autotest: Triumph 2500S 2,498 c.c.,” Autocar 5 July 1975: 25–29; “Autocar Road Test No. 1944: Rover 2000,” Autocar 11 October 1963, reprinted in Rover 2000/2200, ed. R.M. Clarke (Cobham, England: Brooklands Books Ltd., ca. 1983): 10–15; “Autocar Road Test No. 1956: Triumph 2000 1,998 c.c.,” Autocar 10 January 1964: 66–70; “Autocar Road Test No. 2045: Triumph Vitesse Convertible 1,596 c.c.,” Autocar 17 September 1965: 535–540; “Autocar Road Test No. 2106: Triumph Estate Car 1,998 c.c.,” Autocar 18 November 1966, reprinted in Triumph 2000 – 2.5 – 2500 1963-1977: 28–33; “Autotest No. 2224: Triumph 2.5 PI (2,489 c.c.) [sic],” Autocar 6 February 1969, reprinted in ibid: 44–49; “Beefy commuter with few faults (12,000 mile staff car report),” Motor 14 November 1970, reprinted in ibid: 60–64; John Bolster, “Britain’s best medium-sized car,” Autosport 8 January 1970, reprinted in ibid: 58–59; Paul Bridger, “The Rover SD1 Story,” n.d., homepage.ntlworld. com/ william.whittaker1 /cache_sd1_story/ sd1story.htm, accessed 22 June 2013, and “The Rover Six Cylinder SD1 Story,” n.d., homepage.ntlworld. com/ william.whittaker1/ cache_sd1_story/ 2300_2600story.htm, 22 June 2013; Charles Bulmer, “Rover v. Triumph,” Motor 18 December 1965: 26–27; “Buying Secondhand: Triumph 2000,” Autocar 24 August 1974, reprinted in Triumph 2000 – 2.5 – 2500 1963-1977: 88–90; Wayne Cantell, “Triumph 2500 TC — injection beater?” Modern Motor June 1973, reprinted in ibid: 74–78; Michael Cook, Triumph Cars in America (St. Paul, MN: MBI Publishing Co., 2001); Barry Cooke, “Two-Pedal Triumph,” Modern Motor March 1965, reprinted in Triumph 2000 – 2.5 – 2500 1963-1977: 20–21; Mike Covello, Standard Catalog of Imported Cars 1946-2002, Second edition (Iola, WI: Krause Publications, 2001); C.R., “The New Rover 3500,” Motor Sport July 1976; Edward Eves, “Four Wheels for Snow,” Autocar 1 March 1973, reprinted in Triumph 2000 – 2.5 – 2500 1963-1977: 72–73, and “Taking Stock No. 22: What it means to own a Triumph 2.5 PI Estate car,” Autocar 13 July 1972, reprinted in ibid: 70–71; “Giant Test,” CAR April 1971, reprinted in ibid: 66–69, 79; “Giant Test: Consul 2500 Estate, Triumph 2000 Estate, Vauxhall Ventora Estate,” CAR January 1974: 58–65; “Giant Test: Triumph 2.5PI v. Rover 2000TC: The Battle Hots Up,” CAR January 1969: 42–59, reprinted in Rover 2000/2200: 68–73; “Giant Test: Triumph 2000 II/Vauxhall VX 4/90,” CAR January 1970: 68–73; Harold Hastings, “A new kind of Roving,” Motor 20 April 1968: ii–iv, 69–70; “The Triumph 2000 automatic: 24,000 mile staff report,” Motor 5 August 1967, reprinted in Triumph 2000 – 2.5 – 2500 1963-1977: 34–37; Geoffrey Howard, Dave Thomas, “2-Car Test: Rover 3500S, Triumph 2.5 PI,” Autocar 5 October 1972: 36–41; “It’s the little things that make it Truly a Triumph,” Wheels September 1968, reprinted in Triumph 2000 – 2.5 – 2500 1963-1977: 40–43; David Knowles, MG: The Untold Story (Osceola, WI: Motorbooks International, 1997); Egil Kvaleberg, “Lucas Petrol Injection,” 2000, t2000.kvaleberg. org/ t_pi.html, accessed 7 June 2013; Jonathan Lewis, “The Triumph 2000 Story – Conquest and Consolidation 1963-1969,” “The Triumph 2000 Story – Gilding the Lily: The Mk 2 Models, 1969-1974,” “The Triumph 2000 Story — Joining the Power Elite: The 2.5PI,” “The Triumph 2000 Story – Origins and Development,” “The Triumph 2000 Story – The Big Triumphs in ‘Works’ Competition: 1964-1976,” and “The Triumph 2000 Story – The Final Years: ‘TC’ and ‘S’ Models, 1974-1977,” Triumph 2000 Register, 2010, triumph2000register. co.uk, accessed 10 June 2013; Annamaria Lösch, ed., World Cars 1979 (Rome: L’Editrice dell’Automobile LEA/New York: Herald Books, 1979); Raymond Mays, “Rover makes good,” Motoring Life #19 (1968), reprinted in Rover 2000/2200: 67+; F. Wilson McComb, MG by McComb, Second edition (Colchester, Essex: Osprey Publishing Ltd., 1978); Productioncars.com, Book of Automobile Production and Sales Figures, 1945-2005 (N.p.: 2006); “Road Research Report: Triumph 2000,” Car and Driver Vol. 11, No. 5 (November 1965): 54–58, 114; “Road Test: Triumph 2500TC,” Motor 8 June 1974, reprinted in Triumph 2000 – 2.5 – 2500 1963-1977: 82–87; Graham Robson, The Rover Story, Fourth edition (Wellingborough, Northamptonshire: Patrick Stephens Limited, 1988), and The Triumph TRs: A Collector’s Guide, Second edition (London: Motor Racing Publications Ltd., 1981); Graham Robson and Richard Langworth, Triumph Cars: The Complete Story, Second edition (Pitlake, Croydon: Motor Racing Publications Ltd., 1988); “Room for Two?” CAR February 1967, reprinted in Rover 2000/2200: 56–57; “Rover 2000,” Autocar 11 October 1963, reprinted ibid: 5–10; “Rover 2000TC versus Triumph 2.5 PI,” Motoring Life August 1969, reprinted in Triumph 2000 – 2.5 – 2500 1963-1977: 50, 65; “Seven Years Apart (Giant Test: Triumph Vitesse Mk 2/Ford Capri 1600GT),” CAR May 1969: 56–61; “Shaping up well (Motor Road Test No. 51/69: Triumph 2.5 PI Mk. II),” Motor 25 October 1969: 27–32; “So similar, but so different (What Car? Compares Vauxhall, Triumph, Chrysler: Big four-door saloons for around £2,800),” What Car? December 1975, reprinted in Triumph 2000 – 2.5 – 2500 1963-1977: 91–96; James Taylor, “High Hopes,” Thoroughbred & Classic Car February 1992: 74–80, and The Classic Rovers 1934-1977: A Collector’s Guide, 2nd printing (Pitlake, Croydon: Motor Racing Publications Ltd., 1989); Mike Taylor, “Stag at Bay: Part two — the making of a classic,” Sporting Cars June-July 1984: 51–55; “Technical Specifications,” Triumph 2000 Register, n.d., triumph2000register. co.uk, accessed 10 June 2013; “Triumph 2000,” Autocar 18 October 1963, reprinted in Triumph 2000 – 2.5 – 2500 1963-1977: 5–9; “Triumph 2000,” Road & Track Vol. 17, No. 2 (October 1965), reprinted in ibid: 22–25; “Triumph 2000 Extended Test,” Motor 14 March 1964, reprinted in ibid: 11–15, 57; “Triumph 2000 — Further Details,” Autocar 25 October 1963, reprinted in ibid: 10; “Used Car Test 275: Triumph 2000 (overdrive),” Autocar 28 December 1967, reprinted in ibid: 38–39; John Williams, “Practical Classics Buying Feature: Triumph 2000,” Practical Classics March 1982, reprinted in ibid: 97–100; and Rene Winters, “The World of the Rover SD1,” Dutch Rover Archives, June 2003, www.roversd1. nl/ sd1web/, last accessed 19 June 2013.
Additional information on the Triumph’s various rivals came from “Autocar Road Test No. 1870: Ford Zodiac Mark III 2,553cc,” Autocar 20 April 1962: 623–627; “Autocar Road Test No. 1874: Austin A.110 Westminster 2,912 c.c.,” Autocar 15 March 1963: 436–440; “Autocar Road Test No. 1917: Jaguar 3.8 Mark 2 Automatic 3,781 c.c.,” Autocar April 1963, reprinted in Jaguar Mk 2 1959-1969, ed. R.M. Clarke (Cobham, England: Brooklands Books Ltd., ca. 2000): 54–58; “Autocar Road Test No. 1982: Austin A.110 Westminster Mk. II 2,912 c.c.,” Autocar 10 July 1964: 72–76; “Autocar Road Test No. 2022: Ford Executive Zodiac 2,555 c.c.,” Autocar 9 April 1965: 713–718; “Autocar Road Test No. 2040: Ford Anglia 1200 Estate Car 1,198 c.c.,” Autocar 13 August 1965: 303–308; John Baker, “Austin A70 Hampshire,” “Austin A90,” “Austin A99 Westminster,” “Austin A105,” and “Austin A110/120 – 125/135,” Austin Memories, n.d., www.austinmemories. com, accessed 13 June 2013; William Boddy, “Jaguar 3.8 Mk. II: One of the Best Saloon Cars in the World,” Motor Sport September 1960, reprinted in Jaguar Mk 2 1959-1969: 30–31, and “The Latest Citroën DW,” Motor Sport March 1964, reprinted in Citroën DS & ID 1955-1975, ed. R.M. Clarke (Cobham, England: Brooklands Books Ltd., ca. 1988); “Executive’s bargain (Motor Road Test No. 11/67: Ford Corsair 2000E),” Motor 6 April 1967: 23–28; “Giant Test: Corsair 2000 E -v- Victor 2000,” CAR February 1968: 44–49; “Flexible five-seater (Motor Road Test No. 16/66: Ford Zodiac Mk. IV),” Motor 23 April 1966: 55–60; “Giant Test: Ford Zephyr V6/Vauxhall Cresta d/l,” CAR August 1966: 43–49; “Giant Test: 4 symbols of status,” CAR January 1967: 38–45; Peter Hall, “Charming Jaguar Cub,” Wheels March 1962, reprinted in Jaguar Mk 2 1959-1969: 48-51; Annamaria Lösch, ed., World Cars 1979 (Rome: L’Editrice dell’Automobile LEA/New York: Herald Books, 1979); “The Autocar Road Tests 1762: Jaguar 3.8 Mk 2 Overdrive,” The Autocar 26 February 1960, reprinted in ibid: 12–15; “The Jaguar 3.4-litre Mark 2,” The Motor 16 Aug. 1961, reprinted in ibid: 40–43; and “Z cars Mk IV,” Motor 23 April 1966: 47–54.
Some historical exchange rate data for the dollar and the British pound came from Lawrence H. Officer, “Exchange Rates Between the United States Dollar and Forty-one Currencies” (2011, MeasuringWorth, https://www.measuringworth.org/exchangeglobal/, used with permission). Exchange rate values cited in the text represent the approximate equivalency of British and U.S. currency at the time, not contemporary U.S. suggested retail prices. Please note that all equivalencies cited herein are approximate, provided for the reader’s general reference; this is an automotive history, not a treatise on currency trading or the value of money, and nothing in this article should be taken as financial advice of any kind!
- Déesse Ex Machina: The Remarkable Citroën DS
- Grandfather’s Ax: The Many Evolutions of the Triumph TR4, Part 1: TR4 and TR4A
- Grandfather’s Ax: The Many Evolutions of the Triumph TR4, Part 2: TR5, TR250, and TR6
- Red Rover: The Remarkable Rover P6
- The Strange Tale of the Buick Skylark, Buick-Rover V8, and 3800 V6
- Way of the Wedge: The Triumph TR7 and TR8