> What do you guys think?
1. A company the size of BMW doesn't need the opinions of a list of
enthusiasts to help with or determine its marketing efforts.
2. If it uses existing tooling to build a re-worked Z two seater and slap a
Triumph badge on it, what about the rest of the range?
3. As I've pointed out several times on this list, sports cars for
Standard-Triumph accounted for only 20% of its total output for all markets
in the post-war years, so what about all the other 'Triumphs' that were sold
profitably in other world markets outside the US? These are the cars the
majority of people on these lists have rarely, if ever seen, and only know
of by repute. They were also the cars that brought in the profits. Contrary
to popular opinion, Triumph was not known only for its sports cars.
4. BMW has owned the Triumph name for enough time to have worked on a new
car and get it close to launch - but hasn't, AFAIK.
I think BMW is better advised to keep to making the cars it knows it can
sell profitably - and in volume, and those are the cars with BMW badges on
them. In any case, if BMW's *new* Triumph was restricted to only a two
seater AND if it was as ground-breaking as the Rolls Royce now made by the
Bavarian Engine Works (in England), I can't think of any reason to buy one.
Let's face it, a BMW Triumph would be just as much an oddball as the
post-war Triumphs made by the Standard Motor Company - i.e. a clone on a
name.
That's why I enjoy my two 'Standard Vanguards' from 1970 and 1974 that just
happen to have Triumph badges on them - but NO WAY are either of them true
Triumphs.
Jonmac
|