"Stinocher, Bryan D." wrote:
> >
> > If Triumph was only making [a few thousand] cars a year
> > (and North America was supposedly their largest market, if I remember
> > correctly), how could they do it? Given the investment, wages, materials,
> > etc., how did they do it? Or were they running other things besides the TRs
> > at the same time?
Your last question provides much of the answer. There WERE many other cars
being built alongside the "sports" cars, and those cars -- Standard
Vanguards, Ensigns, 8s, 10s; Triumph Heralds, Vitesses, 2000/2500/2.5,
Toledos, 1300/1500s, Dolomites, etc. -- provided not only some of the
profit needed to produce the sports cars but also the mechanical and other
bits.
On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> Precisely why Triumphs are no longer being made. British Leyland
> struggled to be competitive in an increasingly global market selling
> hand-fitted cars built in antiquated factories using decades old
> technology. Triumphs did not have a 'quality' image for the most part
> when they were being built, however they were expensive to make given
> the amount of labour that went into them.
I'm not sure that's all true. At least one of the Triumph factories was,
in fact, brand new in the early 1960s and was pretty much
state-of-the-art at that time. And I think that the 1800/2000 Roadster and
Renown series of cars were the last Triumphs to be "coachbuilt" as it
were, although there might well have been a lot of hand-fitting on the
earlier sidescreen TRs. I won't argue that some of the engineering in the
Triumphs might have appeared a bit dated then, but it really wasn't much
worse than what was found in the products of the U.S. "Big Three" (Four?)
or many of the "imports" during that period.
> Makes you wonder- if British Leyland could have made the quantum leap
> into the 'modern age', would we now have a front-wheel-drive, unibody,
> plastic dash, econobox sports car like the Mercury Capri? ( Only with
> racier body styling?) Or would they be more like a BMW Z3- beautiful but
> priced out of reach for the average guy?
Well, they (Rover, actually, with perhaps some help from then-partner
Honda) did make that leap and produced the MG "F" -- a car that seems
pretty modern and has been well-regarded. It's rather closer in concept to
the BMW than the FWD Australian Capri (the latter not all that bad a
convertible, just maybe not a great sports car?).
> Triumph, along with most British industry, had massive labour problems
> and were always undercapitalized...
No argument with that. It was probably that as much as anything that did
in BL. I'm not sure, but I'd not be surprised to find that BL was, at its
largest, still smaller than Ford of England or Vauxhall (GM). Anyone know?
> Further still, if you think about what the U.S. regulations did for the
> performance and looks for the cars exported to BL's largest market- not
> exactly conducive to selling more cars.
Probably about 99% true, and certainly the regulations ultimately hurt BL
more than other manufacturers who were far bigger and who were not relying
on what really were "niche" cars in their biggest market (North America).
--Andy
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Andrew Mace, President and *
* 10/Herald/Vitesse (Sports 6) Consultant *
* Vintage Triumph Register <www.vtr.org> *
* amace@unix2.nysed.gov *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|