In a message dated 9/2/00 9:21:15 PM EDT, fergie@ntplx.net writes:
> Too bad the TR3 illustration is PINK!
Faded red, Mike, faded red. (Like there's a difference?)
What I find too bad is the usual bad-mouthing of the British cars, such as:
"Besides, once you pulled the lugs and had a look at the quaint 1930s-design
brake components meant to stop your ton of steel...."
Yeah, I know the point he was trying to make about all those driving
techniques we oldsters learned about by reading Road & Track, but apparently
he never looked too closely at any of those Mustangs or Barracudas or
jacked-up '57 Chevies and their brake systems. At least the TR3/3A and beyond
(not to mention the Spitfire, GT6, etc.) had disk brakes up front as STANDARD
EQUIPMENT. Oh, and those 1930s-design rear brakes (usually Girling on the
above Triumphs) were based pretty closely on the ubiquitous Kelsey-Hayes or
Bendix brakes -- the same brakes found on -- you guessed it! -- most 1960s
American cars FRONT and rear.
"British sports-car engineering in the '50s and '60s was the epitome of
low-tech, with elements of the perverse. Aside from the coachwork, the cars
were often cobbled together from pre-existing components."
Gee, ever look closely at a pre-1963 Corvette? Especially the
first-generation cars, based largely on a '52 station wagon chassis and the
immortal and antique (circa 1929) stove-bolt, er, BLUE FLAME six! OK, it did
have overhead valves. And the mighty Mustang wasn't a whole lot better than
the Falcon on which it was so closely based mechanically (and possibly no
better at all, except in style, than the Falcon Futura Sprints that took
Monte Carol Rallyes in the mid-1960s).
"For the TR3, they couldn't be bothered to design an engine. They just took a
2 litre block from a Vanguard farm tractor, slapped a pair of SU carbs on it
and got lucky."
OK, let's see now: Research Dept. must've been on vacation here. The Standard
Vanguard was the first vehicle to feature this engine, which was then
developed by one "faction" into the FERGUSON tractor engine and by another
"faction" into the TR2 engine. If you've ever read of the development of the
TR2 engine, you know that it involved a whole lot more than slapping the SU's
on!
Oh, and where did that wonderful 289 Mustang V-8 come from? Could it be...the
FAIRLANE? Even today's Miata has its roots from the vast parts bins of
Mazda's more pedestrian offerings. Maybe that sort of parts sharing isn't
quite as common when you move up to the Audi TT, Porsche Boxster or Honda
S2000, but you're shelling out a whole lot more money. Does anyone think
folks would've paid $5000 for the TR3 in 1957, or $4000 for a Spitfire or MG
Midget in 1964? I suspect they'd have cost at least that much or more were it
not for clever re-use of existing components. Same with the Mustang ($2,368
base price, FOB Detroit, 1964, right FT?)!
Call me picky. Call me testy. But I really dislike reading this sort of badly
researched drivel. Kinda cute story otherwise in its own way, but bits like
the above really ruin it for me.
--Picky, Testy, but not late for dinner Andy
Andrew Mace, President, The Vintage Triumph Register
|