Subject: Re: [TR] Build date question??

From: "Randall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 16:45:11 -0700

> So they built at least 3370 cars in October 1970??????
> Something smells funny.

Ever notice how each year, you can find next year's model on the dealer's
lot starting in September or so?  Even for cars 'built' in the US.

Now 'funny' is the Sports 6 I used to have, which was built in 1963, but
sold new as a 1965 model.  

-- Randall 

** [email-masked] **

Archive: http://www.team.net/archive

---

From: "Andrew S. Mace" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 20:32:07 -0400 (EDT)

Yeah, "funny" thing about those Sports 6 cars; they didn't sell all that
quickly in some areas, hence some being first "titled" two years later!

--Andy Mace

*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.
-- Cut-price Airlines Sketch, Monty Python's Flying Circus (22)

Triumph 10 / Herald / Sports 6 vehicle consultant, The Vintage Triumph
Register: http://www.vtr.org

Check out the North American Triumph Sports 6 (Vitesse 6) and Triumph Herald
Database: http://triumph-herald.us

-----Original Message-----
From: Randall <[email-masked]>
To: triumphs <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thu, Jul 4, 2013 7:45 pm
Subject: Re: [TR] Build date question??

Now 'funny' is the Sports 6 I used to have, which was built in 1963, butsold
new as a 1965 model.  -- Randall

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 09:57:12 -0400 (EDT)

Randall,
 
That's the best example of how crazy titling a Triumph can be!
 
It beats my TR6 which was built on July 5, 1976, but not shipped to the USA 
 until December, 1976, and not sold until April, 1977.....amazing....how 
did Brit  Leyland make any money leaving products laying around the docks for 
so  long!!??  Geez, by the time the first owner bought the car, the seals 
had  already started to dry rot from nonuse.
 
I guess it was a good thing that Triumph wasn't building TR6s at that  
point or the DOT would have called it a 1977 TR7....that would have raised a few 
 eyebrows!
 
Chip

In a message dated 7/4/2013 7:45:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[email-masked] writes:

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 09:30:44 -0400 (EDT)

John,
 
Maybe a lot of what you provided here helps explain why dealerships selling 
 Triumphs back in the 60's and 70's around where I grew up in southeastern  
Pennsylvania also sold other makes of vehicles....it was the only way to 
assure  enough steady cash flow.
 
The dealer that I bought my 1969 TR6 from (new in Feb, 1969), also sold  
Volvos.  He continued to sell Volvos long after he stopped selling  Triumphs.  
Some dealers also held franchises for other British cars as  well..i.e., 
MG, AH, Jaguar but I can't think of any dealership selling Triumphs  
exclusively. 
 
chip

In a message dated 7/5/2013 6:04:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[email-masked] writes:

Chip Krout  wrote:
It beats my TR6 which was built on July 5, 1976, but not  shipped to the 
USA 
until December, 1976, and not sold until April,  1977.....amazing....how 
did Brit  Leyland make any money leaving  products laying around the docks 
for 
so  long!!??  Geez, by the  time the first owner bought the car, the seals 
had  already started  to dry rot from nonuse.
 
Chip
 
To understand the reasons why requires a knowledge of  international 
banking. All exports in those days - as well as today - are/were paid for using a 
document called a Confirmed  Irrevocable Letter of Credit. Its a means of 
ensuring the buyer doesn't pay  until the car is on its way and the seller is 
guaranteed his money. The LC is  is valid for a relatively short time - 
usually just a few weeks - and can be  drawn down (cashed) only when the car is 
loaded on a vessel and the bank is  presented with the shipping documents 
and invoice within that time  frame.
 
Enter stage left, the British Trade Unions who, more often  than not in 
those days were on strike - ergo no cars got made. Strike ends and  production 
re-starts and by the time the car is finished (maybe with another  strike or 
two for good measure) the Letter of Credit has expired so car  can't be 
paid for and so it can't be shipped until another Letter of Credit is  opened. 
This takes an inordinately long time and isn't cheap. Too often, we  were 
left with the option of "do we make the car when another LC arrives or do  we 
go ahead so that when it does arrive, the car can go straight away?" Throw  
into this heady mix, the volatility of exchange rates because you'll either  
make a fortune or lose your shirt.
 
The bottom line was that BL didn't make much money because  too much 
working capital was tied up in stocks wanted by the  customer