This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============8857825966003882524==
boundary="------------060504020901010900060302"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------060504020901010900060302
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 3/16/2016 1:10 PM, billdentin@aol.com wrote:
> Agreed! If nothing else, it would be nice to have just for its rare,
> historical significance. But down through the years I have always
> wondered why the SABRINA engine never made it into their production
> cars. They sure seemed to do their job on the race track, but there
> must have been issues why they never went into their normal production
> cars.
>
> I wonder if Kas or Mike Cook has any take on that.
>
>
I imagine they do, but, my first guess would be the overall cost. At
precisely the time that the American market was expecting lots of
changes year to year, Triumph was making just a few cosmetic changes to
control expenses and to address manufacturing problems. It made no
sense to hang onto an engine the basic design of which dated back to the
`30s--which Triumph did==except for reasons having to do with money.
Tooling costs, especially for low-volume producers, are horribly
expensive. With talented people and enough time, it's possible to make
a few units in-house without production tooling and come up with
something that works reasonably well (this might be why the engines had,
IIRC, some persistent oil leaks during racing), but translating that
design to production is quite another matter. New castings means new
forms, and any changes in the design means changes to production
equipment, too--most manufacturers at the time had specially-made gang
drills to drill out the bosses for head bolts in the block and the head,
etc. (by and large, no CNC machining centers then, especially for small
producers), and all those had to be redone or adjusted to new tasks.
And all this would have come at the precise time that Triumph was just
absorbing new tooling costs for the Spitfire and the TR4. And in that
period, early `60s, market conditions were already changing--the trend
toward muscle cars in the U.S. certainly had an impact on the sports car
market--and emission controls were coming and the company was already
inching toward receivership (wasn't the first part of S-T turned over to
British Leyland in 1968?).
In a way, it was a perfect storm of adverse conditions. I'm sure that
S-T sensed a need to make some radical changes, but they only had the
money to make do.
Cheers.
--
Michael Porter
Roswell, NM
Never let anyone drive you crazy when you know it's within walking distance....
--------------060504020901010900060302
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/16/2016 1:10 PM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:billdentin@aol.com";>billdentin@aol.com</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:15380d62cc9-c8d-34f0@webprd-m94.mail.aol.com"
type="cite"><font size="2" color="black" face="arial">
<div>Agreed! If nothing else, it would be nice to have just for
its rare, historical significance. But down through the years
I have always wondered why the SABRINA engine never made it
into their production cars. They sure seemed to do their job
on the race track, but there must have been issues why they
never went into their normal production cars.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I wonder if Kas or Mike Cook has any take on that.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</font><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font size="2"><font face="arial">I imagine they do, but, my first
guess would be the overall cost. At precisely the time that the
American market was expecting lots of changes year to year,
Triumph was making just a few cosmetic changes to control
expenses and to address manufacturing problems. It made no
sense to hang onto an engine the basic design of which dated
back to the `30s--which Triumph did==except for reasons having
to do with money. <br>
<br>
Tooling costs, especially for low-volume producers, are horribly
expensive. With talented people and enough time, it's possible
to make a few units in-house without production tooling and come
up with something that works reasonably well (this might be why
the engines had, IIRC, some persistent oil leaks during racing),
but translating that design to production is quite another
matter. New castings means new forms, and any changes in the
design means changes to production equipment, too--most
manufacturers at the time had specially-made gang drills to
drill out the bosses for head bolts in the block and the head,
etc. (by and large, no CNC machining centers then, especially
for small producers), and all those had to be redone or adjusted
to new tasks. And all this would have come at the precise time
that Triumph was just absorbing new tooling costs for the
Spitfire and the TR4. And in that period, early `60s, market
conditions were already changing--the trend toward muscle cars
in the U.S. certainly had an impact on the sports car
market--and emission controls were coming and the company was
already inching toward receivership (wasn't the first part of
S-T turned over to British Leyland in 1968?). <br>
<br>
In a way, it was a perfect storm of adverse conditions. I'm
sure that S-T sensed a need to make some radical changes, but
they only had the money to make do.<br>
<br>
<br>
Cheers. <br>
</font></font>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Michael Porter
Roswell, NM
Never let anyone drive you crazy when you know it's within walking
distance....</pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------060504020901010900060302--
--===============8857825966003882524==
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
fot@autox.team.net
http://www.fot-racing.com
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
--===============8857825966003882524==--
|