triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: re-emergence of Triumph name

To: Ken Bertschy <kentop@dakotacom.net>
Subject: Re: re-emergence of Triumph name
From: "Michael D. Porter" <mdporter@rt66.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 02:57:00 -0600
Cc: Triumphs@Autox.Team.Net
Organization: Barely enough
References: <l03020904b249cedd9122@[208.235.164.228]>
Ken Bertschy wrote:
> 
> The Triumph marque is not a "quality" marque. The cars have always been
> cheapo little everyman type cars. Nothing fancy, certainly nothing
> expensive.

Well, not exactly. One could buy a slightly less than pedestrian Mustang
in 1965 for about the same price as a TR4A. 

> Reviving the Triumph name could only improve it's "standing",
> not lower it.

I would disagree here, but only to this extent. Those who would buy a
new Triumph out of affection for the old variety would buy it for many
of the same qualities possessed by the older variety. A mere re-badge of
an existing make with none of the qualities of old would not fare well
with the very people who would build market share. 

> I dearly love my Spitfire and wouldn't get rid of it for the
> world and I wouldn't mind one bit if Kia slapped Triumph badges on their
> sephia model and called it a "revival" of a classic standard: the cheap
> import.  That's why Spits sold so well across the pond.

Sort of... the Spit, when first imported, sold for something like $1599
US. But, it had a slightly larger engine than contemporaneous Spridgets
(which I think were still running 1098s in 1962--could be wrong), had
roll-up windows instead of side curtains, and, for better or worse
(usually worse), could still claim 4-wheel independent suspension. The
emphasis was, at that time, on value, compared to the other cars in its
class.  
 
> In the 90's, the Triumph name has very little portability. Most people
> vaguely remember something about making motorcycles and a lot are surprised
> that they made cars at all. I fail to see how a new car maker would even
> consider naming something a Triumph, when it is a mostly forgotten marque
> in the grand scheme of things.  Sorry, but the truth hurts.  When people on
> the street see my spit, they immediately tell me that it is a great looking
> car, then they ask me what kind of car it is.  It's like they never heard
> of it, nor have they ever seen one before.  But it really impresses them.
> Triumph really lives in the hearts of the owners.  To the rest of the
> world, it's just another cute car coming down the road.

And, if BMW desired to do it (which they seemingly do not), they could
produce a car for the `90s and beyond with the same flair as earlier
Triumphs, and with similar character. Truth is, if someone, anyone, were
producing a modern-day roadster with the road feel and general handling
of a Triumph, with some residual sense, in the design, of the character
of the older cars (without, certainly, the maintenance schedule they
required), there would be a lot fewer Miata sales.

In strictly a marketing sense, the situation today is really ripe for
such a rebirth (if done well). Retro cars are the rage--witness the
Plymouth Prowler--and some industry analysts believe that other makers
are going to hop onto that bandwagon. What is different today in a
population largely ignorant of the marque than in the `50s, when no one
in America even knew the British produced automobiles of such a stripe
until American servicemen began bringing them back from Europe? Nothing.
There's a whole new generation waiting to become acquainted with sports
cars, especially at a reasonable price (keeping in mind that reasonable
hovers around $13-18K these days). Any maker who can capture that
character will find a solid niche in the market. And, if the car is
named Triumph, and maintains that character, all the better. I just
don't think it will ever happen with a re-badged anything. That's just
marketing BS, and that will show through. As was said in the `60s,
"cream rises."

Cheers.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>