The 40% increase in power probably wasn't accurate. IIRC, the way horsepower
was measured was changed about this time from Gross to Net. I think the later
PI cars were quoted at about 125hp, which is still a nice bump. The cost of
the PI system was not the only cost that was involved. Dealer training would
have added to the cost, but another factor that I think was hurting Triumph &
BL was the Pound to Dollar ratio. Over the next couple of years these cars
went up in price dramatically while they were trying to keep losing market
share to the new Japanese market entrants.
Ashford Little
70tr6@comcast.net
On Jan 12, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Larry Young <cartravel@pobox.com> wrote:
> I have trouble believing the argument about complexity of maintenance of the
PI system. Remember, GM had been using fuel injection on several models since
the late 50's. Not to mention all the hot rodders using the Hilborn system.
I believe the Lucas system was a step closer to our current modern systems
though.
>
> With regard to the cost argument, wouldn't you pay just a little bit more
for a 40 percent increase in power? The alternative was two additional
cylinders, but virtually no increase in power over the previous model. Since
they couldn't market performance, you got things like buttons that said
"Triumph Over Conformity - TR250". I have a couple of these buttons.
>
> Kas Kastner told me he thought the majority of the power increase was not
due to the PI system, but other modifications. The conservative cam with
little or no overlap comes to mind.
>
> Larry
>
> ________________________________________
>
> 6pack@autox.team.net
>
> Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
> Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
> Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
> Unsubscribe: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/6pack/70tr6@comcast.net
________________________________________
6pack@autox.team.net
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Unsubscribe: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/6pack/mharc@autox.team.net
|