datesmanaric@netscape.net wrote:
>
> Been lurking a while but felt an urge to chime in on this one....
>
> I seem to recall reading in one of the mags a number of months back
> (Automobile?) that BMW had been looking at releasing a competitor for the Z3
> under one of the British marques it owned (I assume to allow the Z3 to
> continue upmarket and still allow them to compete with the Miata).
>
> Admittedly it was in the hearsay section of the magazine......
The last time this subject came up (around the time that BMW eventually
sold the Rover Group to Phoenix, Ltd.), I had a few things to say about
resurrecting the breed.
But, to refer back to Patrick's original post, he did mention that the
trademark registration was for "parts and supplies." This suggests to me
that BMIHT-authorized parts are at the heart of the reason for the
registration, and I would hope that John Macartney would weigh in on
this possibility, since he's a lot closer to the action than those of us
on this side of the pond.
I think the general consensus, then, as now, was that a re-badged
British or German car would not be wildly popular (nor would be, I
suspect, service through BMW with its rather upscale labor rates, and
_very_ expensive German-made parts).
Any talk of new production also generates the sort of comments made most
recently, by both purists and general enthusiasts alike. But,
automobiles have changed a fair amount since Triumph departed, and any
new make would have to accommodate both changed tastes and changed
regulations. For instance, I mentioned some time ago that the tin-pan
doors would, by necessity, be a thing of the past, simply because of
side-intrusion requirements. After all, when the Spitfire was first
introduced, one of its big selling points was roll-up windows. (!)
A modern Triumph, just as with many other contemporary cars, would be a
bit wider, a bit longer wheelbase, and would have to have a suspension
of considerably more refinement than earlier cars, to satisfy a public
enamored of both comfort and handling. To meet fuel economy and
driveability requirements, it would undoubtedly have to be equipped with
digital fuel injection of some variety, with all its attendant
complexity, which would make self-service much more difficult (there are
ways around that problem, for the enthusiasts, including making
computerized fault diagnosis simple and straightforward).
But, it could be done, but not by following the trends today, especially
with regard to styling. In part, that was what attracted many of us to
the cars in the first place--how they looked. Then, there was no
mistaking a Spitfire for a Spridget, although their proportions are
similar (now, I'm not talking about the high school, drive-in
frequenting kid of today, who says, "nice MG" <smile>). The cars were
distinctive enough not to be mistaken for something else, which is a
common occurrence today.
In 1962, a Spitfire was imagined to be, in the popular mind, affordable,
sporty, sleek and economical--a styling and engineering coup on the part
of a very small manufacturer, with only one bad feature not recommending
it--the light rear end with a swing axle. Its larger brother, the TR4,
was, particularly from the front, seen as large-mouthed, and therefore
aggressive and more powerful--a more demanding car to drive... and the
power bulge on the hood didn't hurt, either. The TR3 was swoopy and full
of compound curves and classically British. All were distinctive, in
their own ways.
But, those nostalgic for a brand-new Triumph which leaves drips on the
driveway, no... those days are long gone. Could a new, classically
British Triumph be built today, without any of the bad behaviors of the
previous ones, and still retain the character of the earlier cars? Yes,
of course. Is anyone going to do it? No, probably not. In today's
cost-micromanagement environment, a lot of the glorious little touches
would be lost. Someone at BMW, or Rover, or whomever, would say, "a real
wood dash on a $23,000 car? Impossible!" And there would be a plastic
imitation, instead. A fuel filler sticking out of the body? Heavens
forbid! That's not the way things are done today.
But, my father, nearing eighty, said last year, "I always liked the
looks of the ones you had." About as close to envy as he's ever likely
to get. And my boss, well into middle age (like me), said, when looking
seriously at the first TR4 to show up in a local used car lot in town in
a long, long time, "I always did like the look of that car. I just don't
need another project right now." Would there be a market for a "modern"
Triumph? Yeah. Would it make enough money for anyone to do it? Nope.
Probably not.
Cheers, all.
--
Michael D. Porter
Roswell, NM
[mailto: mporter@zianet.com]
`70 GT6+ (being refurbished, slowly)
`71 GT6 Mk. III (organ donor)
`72 GT6 Mk. III (daily driver)
`64 TR4 (awaiting intensive care)
`80 TR7 (3.8 liter Buick-powered)
|