On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Van S. Griffin wrote:
> Triumph Enthusiasts and Historians,
> This weekend someone who is looking into purchasing a convertible
> inport commented that around '75 the Triumph engineers adopted a strategy
> that underminded the reliability of their product in hopes of reaping
> profits from servicing and parts. Is this a generally accepted notion...
Not by me! Frankly, I can't imagine why ANY producer of consumer goods
would intentionally create a product that would ultimately cause
irreparable harm to the brand name and the company producing it. Yes,
companies make mistakes -- sometimes BIG mistakes. We Americans managed
to survive Pintos and Vegas as did their manufacturers. But the average
consumer probably would not/will not put up with a bad product for long
before moving on to a competitor's product.
The situation that befell BLMC in the 1970s was not a happy one. Labor
troubles; internal strife on many levels caused partly by uniting several
strong, stubborn competing marques under one "umbrella"; ever-changing
world conditions; occasionally confused and/or poorly executed marketing
strategies; emission and safety mandates, particularly those in the US,
which was one of BLMC's best markets (at least for the sports cars);
being saddled with aging -- even ancient -- designs and not having the
resources or perhaps the will and foresight to modernize same -- all
these worked against Triumph and MG and Jaguar and....
Particularly in the US market, though, BLMC was not alone in its
struggles to stay abreast of the market and the legislation. There were
any number of incredibly mediocre, just plain bad, or unfortunately
short-lived automobiles from Japan, the US (see above examples), Germany,
Sweden, Italy and France among others in the 1970s. Which rusted quickest
(especially in the "Rust Belt"): Saab 99, Plymouth Duster, Fiat 124
Spyder, Triumph TR6, Honda Civic, Renault Le Car or VW Rabbit?
Yes, Triumph had its share of design flaws or production deficiencies.
TR6 and Herald chassis frames seemed doomed from the start to oxidize
quickly. The very similar Spitfire chassis did not seem so predisposed,
until Federal mandates required the addition of the rear frame rail
extensions under the Spit's trunk -- this modification seemed to cause
no end of corrosion problems, most of them in that very part of the
chassis. One wishes that better corrosion prevention techniques had been
applied to these cars from new, particularly for markets where rust is a
serious problem. But it was no better for MGB and Midget, whose unibody
construction was no more durable, though more difficult to repair (and
possibly more demanding of proper repair for safety's sake).
Hindsight is wonderful, but it often clouds the reality. In the present
market of computer controlled systems and "100,000 miles between tuneups"
it's hard to put in proper perspective the car of 20 years ago that still
needed new plugs and POINTS every 10-12,000 miles, or the car of 40 years
ago that needed oil changes and full chassis lubrication every 2-3,000
miles. If Triumph were guilty of any sort of "conspiracy to create a
demand for service and parts sales," they most certainly weren't alone,
but I think that's rather too cynical an attitude.
WHEW! I feel better!
--Andy
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Andrew Mace e-mail: amace@unix2.nysed.gov *
* *
* Mrs Irrelevant: Oh, is it a jet? *
* Man: Well, no... It's not so much of a jet, it's more your, er, *
* Triumph Herald engine with wings. *
* -- The Cut-price Airline Sketch, Monty Python's Flying Circus *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|