AHC - Save Triumph Motorcar Company (not the bikes)

Points granted, but the Triumph V8 was a POS - it had all kinds of trouble with cylinder heads warping because of inadequate cooling, its head gasket design was crap and the water pump design was inadequate (both of which added to the overheating problems), the main bearings are much too small and the anvil-tough chromium-iron block didn't match well with the aluminum heads. The design of the engine was simply compromised by so many compromises made in its design, and in my world the Rover V8's existence simply made the Triumph V8 unneccessary unless you could make the two use common components. That's possible, but not easily done outside of engine ancillaries such as fuel and intake systems.

Agree that the OTL Triumph V8 is rubbish and could have done with a lot more development at best, which is why ATL Triumph is better off continuing to work with Saab on Slant-4 (and other ATL related) engines until the ATL V8 further developed to at least form an earlier basis of the OTL Saab V8.
 
Agree that the OTL Triumph V8 is rubbish and could have done with a lot more development at best, which is why ATL Triumph is better off collaborating with Saab on engines until the ATL V8 further developed to at least form the basis of the OTL Saab V8.

The problem is that unless Triumph and Rover are never part of the same firm (which makes Triumph's survival at best iffy), you'll always have the Rover (nee Buick) V8 on hand, and its simply a better unit than the Triumph V8 will ever be unless its totally unlike its OTL counterpart. I can see the use of the engine only working if its like the OTL Saab V8, but that didn't exist until the early 1980s at earliest.

What I can see working if you are absolutely demanding to keep the unit available is that the Triumph V8 is built with an aluminum block, much better cooling and main bearings, and the same 16-valve engines as the Dolomite Sprint, and using the Bosch fuel injection that was originally intended for the Triumph V8, with Saab and Triumph collaborating on the engine design to reduce development costs. The resulting engine has a 80mm bore and a 74.5mm stroke, giving a displacement of 2996cc. It uses a DOHC cylinder head (which is also used in the Dolomite Sprint), but the oversquare design gives it excellent characteristics.
 
The problem is that unless Triumph and Rover are never part of the same firm (which makes Triumph's survival at best iffy), you'll always have the Rover (nee Buick) V8 on hand, and its simply a better unit than the Triumph V8 will ever be unless its totally unlike its OTL counterpart. I can see the use of the engine only working if its like the OTL Saab V8, but that didn't exist until the early 1980s at earliest.

What I can see working if you are absolutely demanding to keep the unit available is that the Triumph V8 is built with an aluminum block, much better cooling and main bearings, and the same 16-valve engines as the Dolomite Sprint, and using the Bosch fuel injection that was originally intended for the Triumph V8, with Saab and Triumph collaborating on the engine design to reduce development costs. The resulting engine has a 80mm bore and a 74.5mm stroke, giving a displacement of 2996cc. It uses a DOHC cylinder head (which is also used in the Dolomite Sprint), but the oversquare design gives it excellent characteristics.

What I had in mind is ATL Triumph and Rover being part of two separate companies as a result of some government intervention that does not entail a merger like it did in OTL (though some initial loose ends tying the companies together may exist until the two companies have fully diverged), Triumph would sit beneath Jaguar / Daimler yet above Morris (or Innocenti) as part of Leyland with the Slant-4 and related 3/6-cylinder engines (with continued collaboration with Saab) forming the basis for future Triumph and Morris models.

Triumph would eventually release a developed version of the V8 engine (growing into something akin to the OTL Saab V8 with potential for turbocharging) though during the interim it could possibly utilize other in-house V8s from a 3.3-3.6 60-degree Jaguar V8 engine based on the Jaguar V12 and 1.8-2.5 CFF/CFA Coventry Climax V8 (originally intended to power a smaller version of the Jaguar XJ) to potentially an uprated 3.0-4.0 version of the Daimler V8.

Meanwhile envisioning Rover (plus Land Rover / Range Rover and possibly Alvis) being part of a bailed out and restructured BMC together with Austin and MG (though it is possible to butterfly BMC's financial problems via Britain joining the EEC in the early-1960s and quickly establishing a presence in EEC markets), which would allow Rover to shine as the top marque and develop more potent versions of the Rover V8, spawn an All-Alloy Rover V6 (in the event of failing to acquire the Rover SD1-Six) as well as bring the likes of the P8 and P9 into production without Jaguar getting in the way like they did in the OTL.
 
Last edited:
TheMann said:
The Mini, to be fair, is a truly masterful piece of design and engineering. ...It's not that difficult to make a Mini, just because of the design its not the cheapest thing in the world to make....
I agree, it's a marvelous piece of work. Thing is, AIUI, Austin lost money on every single one...:eek: What I had in mind was a re-engineering to simplify. Is that impossible, within the limits of the proposed design? IDK.
 
I agree, it's a marvelous piece of work. Thing is, AIUI, Austin lost money on every single one...:eek: What I had in mind was a re-engineering to simplify. Is that impossible, within the limits of the proposed design? IDK.

They did big time, Ford UK famously disassembled a Mini to cost the components and worked out that they were losing money on every one produced, apparently they were so shocked they wrote to BMC with their findings, very generous to tell your main competitor they're committing commercial suicide. The Mini was a great concept but was arguably too compromised to be commercially viable, it was difficult to service, apparently mechanics used to starting swearing whenever one came in. The later ADO16 was a much more commercially viable car that drew on the Mini concept but was more practical and if BMC had sorted out its rustproofing and other problems then it would have been a serious moneyspinner and the company's subsequent implosion mightn't have happened.
 
I agree, it's a marvelous piece of work. Thing is, AIUI, Austin lost money on every single one...:eek: What I had in mind was a re-engineering to simplify. Is that impossible, within the limits of the proposed design? IDK.

There was the "Barrel Car" that was developed alongside the Issigonis 9X, featuring an 84-inch wheelbase as well as Mini-like styling and simplified body engineering that increased space and made it both cheaper and less labor intensive to produce.

If they were able to increase the width by 2-inches or so like on the later Minki II for the production version then it might be possible to replace the gearbox-in-sump with a more simpler end-on gearbox.

supernew_01.jpg

supernew_02.jpg
 
Last edited:
Masked Grizzly said:
There was the "Barrel Car" that was developed alongside the Issigonis 9X, featuring an 84-inch wheelbase as well as Mini-like styling and simplified body engineering that increased space and made it both cheaper and less labor intensive to produce.

If they were able to increase the width by 2-inches or so like on the later Minki II for the production version then it might be possible to replace the gearbox-in-sump with a more simpler end-on gearbox.
That sounds like an excellent idea.:cool: (It would appear to be better for a "Better Mini" thread, tho.;))
 
Do they even need to source a v8 except for the american market? Even without one by 1973 they could go for the economy and mid market when fuel prices started to rise. Leave the very top end to jaguar and RR Bentley...
Good point. The Triumph i6 was well regarded and could be tuned for more power. http://www.tccv.net/documents/six_cylinder.pdf For example, the 2.5L i6 engine in the TR6 (69-72) produced 150 bhp and 164 lb·ft torque. Emission regulations later cut that down, but a displacement increase to 3.0 L should get it back.

The inline-6 motor format was certainly popular at Jaguar, which didn't launch a V8 until 1997! Of course up until then they also had their V-12.
 
Last edited:
What I had in mind is ATL Triumph and Rover being part of two separate companies as a result of some government intervention that does not entail a merger like it did in OTL (though some initial loose ends tying the companies together may exist until the two companies have fully diverged), Triumph would sit beneath Jaguar / Daimler yet above Morris (or Innocenti) as part of Leyland with the Slant-4 and related 3/6-cylinder engines (with continued collaboration with Saab) forming the basis for future Triumph and Morris models.

This means that you have to break off Morris from BMC and make it part of Leyland, and the size of Morris would make any merger between these pretty much a takeover by Morris, which becomes an almost immediate problem of the size of Morris and the fact that its management and senior staff were either much too arrogant for their own good (as Issigonis was) or was responsible for many of its problems (Leonard Lord most of all). Innocenti was a whole another ball game. I still think the best way for Leyland to live on would be to keep BMC as far away from it as possible.

A way around this I can see is to have Rover stay independent of BMC and Leyland. This is tricky but possible, though having the two co-operate on things as you point out is possible. This might also mean that neither company would particularly care about the lower end of the market until BMC falls apart, at which point the Rover Company and Leyland Motor Corporation would split the remains. Morris and MG go to Rover, while Austin goes to Leyland. BMC's truck and bus divisions go to Rover, while Jaguar and Daimler goes to Leyland.

Triumph would eventually release a developed version of the V8 engine (growing into something akin to the OTL Saab V8 with potential for turbocharging) though during the interim it could possibly utilize other in-house V8s from a 3.3-3.6 60-degree Jaguar V8 engine based on the Jaguar V12 and 1.8-2.5 CFF/CFA Coventry Climax V8 (originally intended to power a smaller version of the Jaguar XJ) to potentially an uprated 3.0-4.0 version of the Daimler V8.

I can see the Triumph-Saab V8 being a better unit (perhaps Ricardo, who hooked the two up in the first place, has a hand in this), but I'd still say if you are going this way simply improved the Triumph straight-six until the V8 is ready to go rather than trying to make a V8 from the Jaguar V12, and upsizing the small Daimler V8 is probably not a good idea (you'd have some of the same problems the OTL Triumph V8 had in all likelihood), though one could see the big Daimler V8 being used with a shorter stroke, though you probably want to work on the weight of that big lump.
 
.....

As for a FWD replacement for the Herald, one idea would be to make use of the stillborn ADO74 prototype (a project led by Triumph's Harry Webster) especially the Harris Mann styled one below that resembles a 3-door hatchback version of the TR7 and have it powered by 3-cylinder versions of the Triumph Slant-4, in the OTL 3-cylinder prototype engines based on the 1850cc Slant-4 were tested in Allegros in both 6-valve and 12-valve forms though like other interesting and advanced projects under BL there was no money for it to develop beyond the prototype stage.
.....

superado74_10.jpg

From http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/concepts/concepts-and-prototypes/supermini-projects-ado74/

I like the Michelotti version commissioned by Webster, Michelotti and Triumph have a nice background of creating likable cars together.

(Looking at pic of car again...) Maybe I just like the idea of it being designed by Michelotti, I could be wrong.

superado74_07.jpg
 
The problem is that unless Triumph and Rover are never part of the same firm (which makes Triumph's survival at best iffy), you'll always have the Rover (nee Buick) V8 on hand, and its simply a better unit than the Triumph V8 will ever be unless its totally unlike its OTL counterpart. I can see the use of the engine only working if its like the OTL Saab V8, but that didn't exist until the early 1980s at earliest.

What I can see working if you are absolutely demanding to keep the unit available is that the Triumph V8 is built with an aluminum block, much better cooling and main bearings, and the same 16-valve engines as the Dolomite Sprint, and using the Bosch fuel injection that was originally intended for the Triumph V8, with Saab and Triumph collaborating on the engine design to reduce development costs. The resulting engine has a 80mm bore and a 74.5mm stroke, giving a displacement of 2996cc. It uses a DOHC cylinder head (which is also used in the Dolomite Sprint), but the oversquare design gives it excellent characteristics.

Saab V-8 prototypes did exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVidhrnLFf0

http://www.saabplanet.com/saab-9000-with-v8-engine/

http://www.saabisti.fi/miscellanea/saab-v8-engine-the-complete-story/#.ViPdluxViko

Apparently the thing used some hardware from the four-cylinder engine. (You know, the evolved Triumph motor.)

Would have been fun. GM then bought Saab and said pish-posh use our V-6 motors instead. And Saab was strangled ever after.
 
.....

Btw where can I find info on the Dolomite Sports Coupe (1972 Sherpa)?

As for a FWD replacement for the Herald, one idea would be to make use of the stillborn ADO74 prototype (a project led by Triumph's Harry Webster) especially the Harris Mann styled one below that resembles a 3-door hatchback version of the TR7 and have it powered by 3-cylinder versions of the Triumph Slant-4, in the OTL 3-cylinder prototype engines based on the 1850cc Slant-4 were tested in Allegros in both 6-valve and 12-valve forms though like other interesting and advanced projects under BL there was no money for it to develop beyond the prototype stage.

Had the smaller 1.3-1.6 versions of the Triumph Slant-4 entered production though then together with the 1709cc Slant-4 that opens up the possibility for 1000-1300cc 3-cylinder Slant-4 derived engines to be developed for the ATL Herald replacement.

superado74_10.jpg



The best fwd replacement for the Herald would have been the Triumph 1300, a nice little car (Michelotti designed!) that ended up being "upgraded" by being turned into a heavier rear-wheel drive car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7_RPfsctIA


My aunt had a Triumph 1300 in Israel, a blue one. I remember the distinctive window-cranks as shown in the link below,
http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/cars/triumph/1300-dolomite/triumph-1300-autocars-israel/

ajaxisrael_02.jpg
 
Agree with developing the 4WD for production.

Btw where can I find info on the Dolomite Sports Coupe (1972 Sherpa)?

As for a FWD replacement for the Herald, one idea would be to make use of the stillborn ADO74 prototype (a project led by Triumph's Harry Webster) especially the Harris Mann styled one below that resembles a 3-door hatchback version of the TR7 and have it powered by 3-cylinder versions of the Triumph Slant-4, in the OTL 3-cylinder prototype engines based on the 1850cc Slant-4 were tested in Allegros in both 6-valve and 12-valve forms though like other interesting and advanced projects under BL there was no money for it to develop beyond the prototype stage.

Had the smaller 1.3-1.6 versions of the Triumph Slant-4 entered production though then together with the 1709cc Slant-4 that opens up the possibility for 1000-1300cc 3-cylinder Slant-4 derived engines to be developed for the ATL Herald replacement.

superado74_10.jpg


More stuff on the 1300,

http://www.curbsideclassic.com/curb...974-triumph-toledo-they-did-what-to-the-1300/

and that link led to this, http://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/TriumphToledo-0203.jpg two-door Dolomite, did you say?

TriumphToledo-0203.jpg



(Edit: and more stuff here, http://thestudentreview.co.uk/2011/05/car-review-triumph-1300-vs-modern-rubbish/ )

triumph_1300.jpg
 
The best fwd replacement for the Herald would have been the Triumph 1300, a nice little car (Michelotti designed!) that ended up being "upgraded" by being turned into a heavier rear-wheel drive car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7_RPfsctIA

Problem was that the 1300 was never able to take advantage of the FWD layout like the Austin 1100/1300 and was also never a high seller especially when compared with the Austin 1100/1300, still it was a prime candidate for 1300-1700cc Slant-4 engines to replace the old 1300-1500 Triumph I4 units and also should have spawned a SWB 2-door variant.

Perhaps Triumph could continue to develop the FWD layout then rename it the Triumph Toledo (keeping FWD yet powered by 1300-1700cc Slant-4s) with the ATL ADO74 Herald sitting below?
 
From http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/concepts/concepts-and-prototypes/supermini-projects-ado74/

I like the Michelotti version commissioned by Webster, Michelotti and Triumph have a nice background of creating likable cars together.

(Looking at pic of car again...) Maybe I just like the idea of it being designed by Michelotti, I could be wrong.

See where your coming from the Michelotti version goes with Triumph yet the Harris Mann version fits with the then upcoming styling theme that was to appear on the TR7.
 
Another potential Triumph POD that would require the Leyland-BMC merger to be butterflied away is for Reliant is via its acquisition of Bond to continue the latter's arrangements with Triumph to allow Reliants / Bonds to be sold from Triumph dealerships, which would mean that any new cars would have to be largely based on Triumph components.

Reliant's all-alloy 600-850cc OHV engine was essentially a downsized copy of the 803-1493cc Standard-Triumph SC (aka Standard Eight) 4-cylinder engine, with the latter itself also forming the basis of the 1600-2500cc Triumph I6 that utilized an albeit poorly-executed form of fuel-injection.

In OTL Reliant also commissioned BRM to produce an OHC conversion of the 750cc Reliant OHV engine that was said to put out 60+ hp (yet needed further development), while the earliest proposal for what eventually became the 2300-2600cc Rover SD1-Six (Triumph PE166) engine was for a low-cost overhead camshaft conversion of the existing Triumph I6 engine's bottom-end (the original 6-cylinder engine's displacement was allegedly capable of being further increased from 2500cc to 2700cc). You can possibly see where this is going.

What-if Reliant's association with Triumph allowed both to update their related 600-850cc / 800-1500cc engines to feature all-alloy (in Triumph's case), (a more reliable form of) fuel-injection and OHC as well as a full redesign for the Triumph unit with a more robust bottom-end allowing it to be reliably bored-out from 1493cc to 1598cc (with a Reliant engine redesigned along similar lines in turn being further enlarged from 850cc to roughly 950-1000cc)?

Perhaps a tie-up could mutually benefit Reliant and Triumph with the former using the latter's updated 1000-1600/1800cc 4-cylinder all-alloy OHC fuel-injected engines, even extended to updated 2000-2700cc all-alloy OHC fuel-injected Triumph I6 engines powering Reliant Scimitars sold in Triumph dealerships, while Triumph moves on to 1600/1800-2000cc Slant-4, 2400-3000cc Triumph PE166 (aka Rover SD1-Six) and 3000-4000cc Triumph V8 engines.

Additionally in OTL Saab USA's Jonas Kjellberg in the early-70s contacted Reliant with the aim of establishing a deal where Reliant would design, engineer and assemble a new generation of Saab Sonnet for the US Market, a proposal killed off by the fuel crisis. Now in an ATL scenario where Triumph still collaborates with Saab and is associated with Reliant, what if this new generation Saab Sonnet also formed the basis for a Triumph Spitfire replacement as well as an early version of the Reliant Scimitar SS1 with significantly improved styling?

Let's not forget that the Reliant Scimitar SS1's underdeveloped styling (similar in profile to the Triumph TR7) was done by Michelotti before much of the styling was finalized when he passed away in 1980, with his proposal alleged by some to be a recycling of a rejected Spitfire replacement proposal from a few years previously.
 
Last edited:
Top