Seen yesterday: Yellow TR-7 towing an empty car dolly that was at least 3 feet wider than the car.
Seeing a TR-7 under its own power is unusual enough, the idea of it towing another car got my attention.
Old TR-7 TV ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk1QaAH-r_o
Wow, a TR7 doing the towing, instead of being towed? There's an "independent" mechanic's garage in my pizza delivery zone that has a TR7 or 8 sitting in the fenced area at the side of the main garage. I don't think it's moved in months. I never seem to remember to stop during the day to find out what the story with it is. (I deliver nights.)
my 7 hasnt moved under its own power in at least 2 years... I need to get working on that!
2 years :)
My latest TR7 hasn't run in 4. I have another in pieces in the garage that's been 8+. Hope this makes you feel better, as now I need to get working on those. (and the house, and scouts for my boys, and, and, and... ) Um, someday Real Soon Now :)
bludroptop wrote: Old TR-7 TV ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk1QaAH-r_o
It's kind of depressing when you watch that old TV ad now because that particular Triumph probably hasn't run in years and is rusting itself into the ground.
Plus, the dog's dead.
Woodyhfd wrote:bludroptop wrote: Old TR-7 TV ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk1QaAH-r_oIt's kind of depressing when you watch that old TV ad now because that particular Triumph probably hasn't run in years and is rusting itself into the ground. Plus, the dog's dead.
Ya, but the dog probably moved a lot more in it's life than the TR7 ever did.
I have been "Babysitting" a TR8 for a friend this summer, it has a Holley, headers and I believe a hotter cam. The exhaust note from that sweet V8 is absolutely spell-binding as you work through all five gears! While I know these cars need to be understood and sorted, this one certainly has!
I was walking up to a cruise night on Saturday just as a guy in a TR8 convertible was tearing out of the parking lot. I definitely noticed the engine note. My thought was that it must have had another V8 swapped in. It sounded a lot bigger than a 3.8.
oh fun memories. Back at Boces we had a TR7 that the Auto Body class painted and I guesse we (the auto tech class) were suposed to get running good. I would be suprised if we actually got it to pass a state inspection and run more than a mile at 55. It was raffeled off at the end off the year. It is best that dont remember how much money I spent on tickets.
Its kind of funny with all the comments here, that I had a TR-7 project a few years back that ran great. It didn't really do anything else though.
I owned one when they were new, an '80 Anniversary edition convertible, and it was really reliable. No problems at all to speak of. Not very fast but a great tourer. At the time i really, really wanted a TR8, but couldn't quite swing one. I had driven both the carburated and injected models, and both were far beyond what the TR7 could do.
The last of the TRs were probably the best Triumphs ever made, but they were cheap for far too long, and and such, abused to the point it takes a lot of money to put them back right. And not many people want to spend more than a car is worth, even today.
I definitely have spent more than any 78 TR-7 is worth on that thing!
Somehow I have a early production "TR7 V8" coupe as it say in the glove box in my back yard for the last year or so. I belongs to a friend,and I have no idea why it is still here. He is a serious TR8 head,and I guess from what he tells me this car is pretty rare being a TR8 coupe,and an early one at that. I like his TR8 coupe race car much more than this heap in the back yard. The one he is building up for a friend of his is even cooler in my opinion. It has a fresh coat of pearl white paint,and it is a convertible with a hot,larger V8 under the hood,and a big honking carb. Cool cars I guess,but I like my wedge better.
Chris
79 RX-7 GS 74 REPU
A TR7V8 is a rare bird. Let me know if youi need it out of there.
My TR8 gets out on the road regularly, but only for about 15 minutes at a time. I finally fugured out why the MS converted car dies after 15 minutes. The fuel pump is overheating, and it's not a Triumph or Lucas part. Time for a new high pressure FI pump.
Woodyhfd - The TR8 exhaust does sound larger than the 3.5 liter engine it is. I'll bet it was stock.
Jack TR's 3&8
The TR7V8 coupe belongs to fellow GRM'er ToddK,and I know he wants to sell it,but he is having trouble with the title. I think he may be able to get one for the car,but he hasn't been working on it as hard as he should be. I would love for it to leave my yard,but I doubt that will happen too soon. The car is pretty solid,but the soft sunroof is messed up a bit,and it does need some interior owrk.
Chris
TR7, one of the worst cars that ever came out of BL. Between the labor union production problems, lack of proper design and quality of parts and materials, the TR7 is a real problem child. I remember these when they were new and owners were not pleased with the car's problems or dealer service response to the problems.
Keep in mind, the TR7 was a last gasp for Triumph under BL ownership and they did not have the funding or resources to properly develop this design.
If one really wants one of these "Weggiees" better get a TR8 or install the TR8 drive train into the TR7.
The styling is a FIAT / Bertone X1/9 knock off.. that would have looked better without the weird looking line on the side.
By coincidence, I saw a gold TR8 on Rt. 206 here in NW-NJ two days ago. Anyone here?
I've driven a standard form TR7 and they're not bad. At least as nice to drive as my MGB, in my opinion. But I'm not a fan of the styling. I always thought it would be neat to buy one and remove the "swish" on the side....I think it would be a big improvement.
The four cylinder has weird issues with corrosion between the head and studs. Getting a "stuck" head off can be a devil of a job.
Here's a TR7 I saw at the Duryea Hillclimb a few weeks ago.
More pics from Duryea '08 ~HERE~
Something I was pondering earlier, having seen this thread. Why did Triumph not use the more powerful 16v engine out of the Dolomite Sprint, in the Tr-7?
Luke wrote: Something I was pondering earlier, having seen this thread. Why did Triumph not use the more powerful 16v engine out of the Dolomite Sprint, in the Tr-7?
BL actually made some test versions of the TR7 with the Dolly engine, but by then, the company was in too much financial trouble to do a 16-valve TR7.
A shame.
BL had enough problems trying to make their current 4 cylinder meet USA emissions requirements at the time, specially in CA. BL was also in such a finical bind that they simply could not afford an engine certification program for the USA market. The smart thing they did do was the TR8 which was too late to enter the market and once the TR7 established this TR was a problem child in the public, it made little difference in the eyes of potential owners. In time, TR8 became far more desierable than the TR7 that it was based on. In many ways, they are the same car.
While many Triumph purist felt the TR7 / TR8 was not a real Triumph, it really was an improvement over the previous TR3/4/5/6 series cars. Gone was the problem IRS in the TR4A/5/6, tub on frame construction and it's overall dated problem ridden chassis design, improved safety features to meet USA requirements and etc..
What Triumph and BL did do in the USA market was their promotion and marketing. Since they sold something like 80+% of their production in the USA, it was an important market to them. The marketing and good will promoted in the USA via their SCCA racing program is still alive and well today as shown in the "classic sports car market" which is British Car centric.
BMW still owns the Triumph brand name and it is likely they will re-introduce this brand to the USA market similar to the Mini.
While British car folks have a rather amazing and loyal following in the USA, there are far more interesting and better value cars that were built and sold in the USA by the Italians, French and Germans. It just seems car folks in the USA simply don't understand or interested in anything that is not a traditional front engine / rear drive layout on a 1930's vintage chassis.
What is amazing to me is how many designed in problems Brit car owners are willing to put up with. It's like a state of deep denial of what the real problems are and the owners are not willing to admit it and deal with these problems properly. Many of these designed in problems are down right deadly safety problems.
Rupunzell wrote: While British car folks have a rather amazing and loyal following in the USA, there are far more interesting and better value cars that were built and sold in the USA by the Italians, French and Germans. It just seems car folks in the USA simply don't understand or interested in anything that is not a traditional front engine / rear drive layout on a 1930's vintage chassis. What is amazing to me is how many designed in problems Brit car owners are willing to put up with. It's like a state of deep denial of what the real problems are and the owners are not willing to admit it and deal with these problems properly. Many of these designed in problems are down right deadly safety problems.
As a British car fan, I am forced to agree. Although BL cars and the pre-BL brands can be made great driving cars, they were somewhat primitive and designed and built with budget induced limitations. One reason many love these cars though is not only the styling and driving experience, but that they are primitive and relatively inexpensive. There is nothing exotic about them and they are very straightforward with easy parts support. As far as flat out dangerous, I'm not sure the later LBC's are any better or worse than any of the other, non exotic malaise era vintage sports cars.
There may be better values, I'm thinking of Alfa coupes and Fiats, Lancias, a 912 or 914, BMW 2002, and so on, but those would challenge my budget to run after I bought them, and with the exception of the Alfas, frankly aren't as good looking.
I'd like a TR7 coupe as a next LBC. I think they are kind of sharp and the dated design is a bit of a statement in irony and good fun. Removing the scallops on the side would be a huge improvement, though. Depending on the color they look way to heavily drawn.
We are currently building a TR6 from the ground up with a special RATCO frame. The stock TR6 frame has many sever design problems and areas like the lower front suspension pick-ups are prone to fail. This has been a rather interesting engineering project as many of the original bits and parts have been replaced by something far better or re-designed and built from scratch. While it retains most of the TR6 chassis design, dash and such. It now has a Nissan R200 diff with R200 inner CV joints and RG hubs and made to order half shafts, Likely a Toyota W58 transmission with the TR6 engine for now. It no longer has lever arm shocks or stock anti-roll bars. Basically, we went as far as the stock design could be modified without completely re-designing the entire chassis. The rear suspension still has excessive camber and toe change over it's travel and the roll center is too high so all one can do to improve this, like many semi-trailing arm suspensions is to severely limits it's travel. Even so, the trailing arms are cast from the most porous aluminum I have ever seen and many of the stock parts like rear hubs and such are severely under-designed and likely to fail if stressed. These cars are very prone to rust, except it's not easily visible. Basically, they rust from the inside out.
What we have done could be considered blasphemy in the eyes of Triumph purist, but the fact is, if one wanted a safe, durable, reliable British roadster of this variety and still keep much of it's English charm, this is what must be done. Repeated replacements of parts for a design that is was never correct in the first pace is insanity and only makes the British parts suppliers happy.
BL had enough sense to ditch the TR3/4/5/6 design and move on to the uni body, solid rear axle TR7/8. In many ways, it was the better design. Again, there is only so much one could do with a front engine, rear drive layout, but since market inertia and IMO, ignorance and expectation of chassis dynamics, the market basically won't accept anything much differnt than this, it's pretty much all that gets produced even to this day.
TR6's are sweet cars but like Rupunzell says, a lot of that stuff is derived from the TR4A IRS which debuted in, IIRC, 1964 meaning the basic engineering was straight out of the late 1950's: body on frame and iffy suspension design. Sort of like the way the Spitfire was derived from the Herald which goes back to the late '40's the design period but they kept the same basic engineering all the way through the end of production. It was definitely time for something new.
At the time: Datsun had the Fairlady and then the 240Z, giving notice that the Japanese were serious about this part of the market. The Delorean was touted as the next big thing and the unibody Jensen Healey pretty much buried everything else in its class (2 liter sports car) performance wise, Triumph saw they needed to do something quick, unlike MG which decided to run the 1930's and '40's Y series suspension and the B series motor all the way to 1980. Of course, British Leyland had a lot to do with all of that. Personally, I think since the B's unibody was tried and true they could have updated the looks and the powerplant, given it tube shocks and better brakes and had a world beater. But I digress.
Triumph did cut corners (MacPherson struts and live axle, Triscuit sized brake pads, rear drum brakes) but it was better in most ways than the TR6. (ducks rocks, bottles and bricks). Too bad they didn't use the Dolomite Sprint head etc in the production cars, it might have had the HP to match what the chassis was capable of.
I wouldn't mind having a TR7, but it would have to be a roadster. I just don't care for the coupe's rear window and C pillar treatment, even though it's got to be a much stiffer unibody.
You'll need to log in to post.
