On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Michael D. Porter wrote:
> 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.
As I recall, the advertised price for the original Mustang in 1964 was
"starting at $2368" (6 cyl., notchback body style). Meanwhile, the Sports
6 was being listed at $2499, POE East Coast. The TR4 was up around $2700
or so, right? And going back to the immediate postwar Triumphs ("1st
resurrection" of the marque), the Roadster and saloon weren't exactly
"cheapo"; nor was even the original TR2.
To a degree, the Herald and Spitfire MIGHT qualify as "everyman type"
cars, but not necessarily "cheapo"; a Herald convertible at $1949 or a
Spitfire at $2200 or so wasn't exactly "dirt cheap" in 1964. And by the
early 1970s, a $3300+ GT6 or $??? Stag certainly wasn't cheap, either.
[KB] 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....
Guess that depends upon where you are (geographically). From what I've
observed over the years, Triumph always had and still has a very good name
recognition value in areas where they sold in quantity -- upstate New York
being just one example closest to me.
[KB] 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.
But the same can honestly be said of so many other nameplates that have
vanished from the U.S. new car dealer showrooms: Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Sunbeam
-- even the vaunted MG, gone from the U.S. market for as long now as
Triumph.
[MP] 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."
I have to agree almost completely. However, and to be realistic about all
this, any "new" Triumph will have to be either badge-engineered to some
extent or at least make massive use of the BMW/Rover parts bins, as did
all other previous Triumph sports cars. Otherwise, we'll be drooling over
a TR9 with a $125k price tag, which doesn't appeal to me any more than
would a Z3 with a Triumph Globe in place of the blue-and-white BMW
roundel.
But the MG name did survive, perhaps partly BECAUSE it was used on the
otherwise mundane Metro sedan, right? Maybe some of the new Rover sedans
supposedly destined for the U.S. could be called Triumphs here. Won't be
the first time that the Triumph name has been used in North America for
its better name recognition or image (witness the Standard/Triumph 10).
We'll see....
--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 *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|