Jaguars are for old men: XJ6
for old men who recvall the past: S type
and for men who aspire to proper Jags and buy the name: X type.
Since when did Jaguar last build a car - which if it did not have the brand name- would sell on its own merits?
Ehhh.. Can't recall one.
The brand is devalued by indifferent model design. The quality is goodish.. but then that's a given.
I can see no model in the line up that makes me say "I want that" as opposed to its German or Japanese competitors..
And since it is only producing 55,000 cars a year, the punters agree with me.
Boring me too cars.
Now Ford will have to soend £600M on a new model line up.. or sell it or close it.
Of course it is loss making so another £600M ploughed into it is a complete waste of money.
madf
|
|
|
"Since when did Jaguar last build a car - which if it did not have the brand name- would sell on its own merits?"
The new XK seems to be well recieved. I agree they need to revamp their styling / and image (old mans car) on the other models - but a lot of the arguments also apply to the Japanese cars in the sector and Audi (although Audi doesn't have the image stereotype).
|
I think the current Jags are lovely cars, but this is why I think they struggle:
Nothing in Jaguar's line up apart from the four pot diesel X-Types are even half feasible as company cars, and nobody with an ounce of sense (or with more of it than money) would spend their own cash on a new big executive car. The V6 and V8 engines chuck out enough CO2 to get you an eye watering "seeing to" from Gordon.
No big execs with small diesels (A6 2.0 TDI, BMW 520d, Merc E220 CDi etc).
Jaguar doesn't have a 4x4 / SUV. Exec car sales have been giving way to premium 4x4's / SUV's for years. BMW, Mercedes and VAG recognised this ages ago and launched the X5, ML and Toerag. Ford have sat by while LR takes sales from Jag (and makes a profit).
And more recently, fuel at a quid a litre is making some people think if they really need to drive a big tank, whatever its drive layout or size. Nobody wants big petrol engined cars any more in any case.
Cheers
DP
|
Yep, pretty much agree with that, the biggest mistake probably being that they were late in with diesels agian - the 2.7 is regarded as the most refined. The new v8 diesel may be seen in the xj, but Why they didn't give it more power is a mystery - (presuming they could have got the same sort of power from tweaking the six pot 2.7 (enlarging boosting).
|
|
They will be building Jags in the USA by the end of this decade. It doesn't make sense for them to build in the UK. By far the biggest market for Jags is the USA and they can avoid the exchange rate fluctuations.
|
Aston is well profitable and doesn't share a great deal with the rest of PAG's parts bin, so can be sold fairly easily, with a healthy return.
Jaguar has been losing money, so would not be that saleable & the returns would be less. Ford have stated that they are going down the aluminium route for car production in the future.... and the all alloy car in their company is... the Jaguar XJ.... Wouldn't be sensible to sell the company that is currently the only one producing an aluminium car at the mo.
Land Rover covers nicely the 4x4 bit as stated above.
When you factor in the similarity (to a degree) with the cheaper Aston and Jag XKR, it makes more sense to grab the money from Aston and persevere with Jag, particularly as the American home market is getting fed up with it's own mediocre offerings. The exchange rate isn't helping matters at all, again stated above.
Volvo nicely covers the sector below Jag, which is why the X Type will probably go. Why on earth wasn't there an F Type (similar to a Boxster) instead of the X type....
|
|
|
"They will be building Jags in the USA by the end of this decade. It doesn't make sense for them to build in the UK. By far the biggest market for Jags is the USA and they can avoid the exchange rate fluctuations."
See also
www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/20...l
--
Phil
|
|
See, even the Torygraph agrees with me. I must be destined for higher things ;-)
|
|
|
|
">By far the biggest market for Jags is the USA and they can avoid the exchange rate fluctuations.<"
Which is why Jaguar was so successful in the mid-1980s when the exchange rate sunk to near parity.
The Jaguar story is just another rerun of British manufacturing, the world's best designers and engineers led by incompetent bean counters. The XJ6 was far, far ahead of anything else in 1968, but this lead wasn't maintained by further development. The XJ13 would sell today as a fast road car, but the plug was pulled 40 years ago. The X-type is laughable, why buy something that costs more yet offers less than the humble Mundano it's based upon?
I visited Brown's Lane in the 1980s, it had the appearance of several independent small-scale manufacturing outfits that happened to be based on the same, semi-derelict site. I can recall being amazed that cars could be produced in such a shambolic manner; I've visited several kitcar manufacturers who had a more orderly approach to production.
|
Jaguar seems to be the archetypal victim of the company car-based structure that has distorted the UK car market.
I'm an old man, OK, but I'm old enough to remember that Jaguars sold on an image of first-rate mechanical design, high performance and luxury, at a reasonable price, and were bought by people who wanted that image and didn't mind paying.
Now, of course, it's companies and leasing providers who call the shots and we have the Jaguar name - that's all it is now - devalued by being stuck on a lot of re-badged and re-panelled oil-burners, sold for fiscal reasons rather than admiration of the sort of engineering that goes into them.
Best let production (and sales) go to the USA I guess, where people still buy high-performance petrol-engined cars with their own money and for the reasons outlined above.
BTW - I am a former Jaguar (Daimler) owner and bought mine for those same reasons.
|
"...where people still buy high-performance petrol-engined cars with their own money..."
I wonder how much longer this will continue for.
|
|
According to a certain National newspaper Aston looking for a managment buy out.
|
|
Ford should stop selling 20 mpg vehicles in the US and start selling 40 mpg ones. They wouldn't have to start from scratch - just look to Americanizing more of their Euro lineup.
|
Will the Americans get weary of their monstrous SUVs ? They need their own refinery.
Do Ford make One ?
|
As an accountant myself it always amuses me how all he ills of the world are blamed on 'incompetent beancounters' whilst the brilliant fantastic marvellous world beating UK engineers do a fabulous job.
Utter tosh. Take this for example.
'I visited Brown's Lane in the 1980s, it had the appearance of several independent small-scale manufacturing outfits that happened to be based on the same, semi-derelict site. I can recall being amazed that cars could be produced in such a shambolic manner; I've visited several kitcar manufacturers who had a more orderly approach to production.'
Would someone care to explain to me how the accountants sorry incompetent beancounters are responsible for the factory layout? Would this not be the production engineers job?
|
'incompetent beancounters'
SWMBO takes that very personally ---- very personally.
|
Yeah Pug but its always the line thats trotted out.
Rover design faults. How is that the accountants fault?
Aston Martins look like they have been put together by drunken monkeys, the build quality is shocking, have you ever sat in one and watched the trims fall off your prestige motor?. How is that the accountants fault?
Jaguar brand devalued by re-badging Mondeos. No diesel X type is available for years. How is that the accountants fault?
Land Rovers are only bought by the MOD and people who haven't realised car design and build quality has improved in the last 20 years. If they did they'd buy a Landcruiser. How is that the accountants fault?
Bad MANAGEMENT ok I can go with you on that but blaming the accountants whilst worshipping the engineers who designed say the Lagonda, well its just silly.
|
As a former accountant who visited Browns Lane in 1983 I concur. Jaguar made the old 6 cylinder twin cam engine block -on a machine which was secondhand when acquired from Standard (who?) and was over 50 years old. And peopel wondered why their Jaguar burned oil and lost power after 50k miles.
Bronws Lane was a model of management ineptitude and trade union intransigence and Jaguar quality pre Ford!!!! (and that's not an opinion as look what Ford had to do post acquistion)
Mind you the accountants are usually blamed .. by people who don't understand financial numbers in my experience...:-)
madf
|
">on a machine which was secondhand when acquired from Standard (who?) and was over 50 years old. <"
Was it as old as that? QED.
|
|
I always thought the reference to beancounters was the finance people, who restricted budgets hence limited quality. Are they not different to accountants in this sense?
|
"> Rover design faults. How is that the accountants fault?<"
Which Rover design fault? K-series engine perhaps? It's still (potentially) a world beater after 18 years:
www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?essaykseriesf.htm
but it should have been replaced in 1993. In 1988, Ford where still using the Pinto, in 1993 the Zetec appeared, in 2001 it was superceded by the Duratec. Rover soldiered on with the K-series. Lack of investment.
">Aston Martins look like they have been put together by drunken monkeys, the build quality is shocking, have you ever sat in one and watched the trims fall off your prestige motor?. How is that the accountants fault?<"
Do you mean as part of PAG, or historically:
www.astonmartins.com/factory/virage_production.htm
and in a sentence:
">
Although these pictures were taken in the 1990's it is important to remember that Aston Martin had been building cars in pretty much the same way since the DB4 in 1958. The strong platform chassis of the DB4/5/6 designed by Harold Beech, was widened for the DBS/DBSV8, lengthened for the Lagonda and again modified for the Virage. It's hard to believe but their is a direct link between the DB4 and the 2000 V8 swb Vantage Volante.
<"
and
">The trim shop was located across the road from the main manufacturing area in a building that at one time had been a cinema.<"
Yes, I can remember that, AMs being pushed across the road as part of the production process.
">Jaguar brand devalued by re-badging Mondeos. No diesel X type is available for years. How is that the accountants fault?<"
With sufficient investment, Jag would still be a Brit company so the link with a Mondeo would be an impossibility.
LR 4WD tech was worth £1bn plus to BMW, why do you think they bought Rover? A SWB LR Defender will still out perform anything from Toyota off-road, the LR is squaddy-proof ... well, nearly. The original 1970 Range Rover was a world beater, but it should have been replaced in 1975, which would have required investment. Instead, the original ran for 25 years.
AM Lagonda was a real oddity and a fine example of engineering ingenuity without financial support.
On a global basis, there are only two types of auto manufacturers who survive: huge and small. GM and Ford should have gone years ago, but they have the resources to remain in business (a small debt is your problem, a huge debt is the bank's problem). Small? Morgan! The exception is BMW, clever marketing, asset stripping, investment and a gullible market will ensure that BMW will be here for a long time ... probably.
|
|
Pugugly....... are you being rude or am i looking far too deeply into this......if you pardon the expression
|
'who restricted budgets hence limited quality'
Why is it always assumed that throwing money at a problem leads to a better result?
Without veering off topic look at the NHS as an example.
|
I agree that the underlying problems need sorting out. Throw money at a problem and it masks it for a bit. Then it bites you back harder.
But I still think apart from Jaguar the rest of PAG must be doing fine. They only combined Jaguar and LR to help out Jaguar. But now it's harder to unravel if they wanted to.
I like the look of previous Jags, especially older ones like my unlce's XK150, but in recent years they have all looked like the old XJ's. Apart of course for the new XK's which I like.
Rob
|
">Without veering off topic look at the NHS as an example.<"
You're right. We need to follow the French/German example and spend more money as a percentage of GDP on the NHS. I'm very happy to pay taxes if the money is used wisely.
In the 1970's, the NHS was the most efficient health provider in the world in terms of management efficiency. And then the bean counters moved in.
|
|
No rudeness intended, SWMBO is a forensic accountant (which is how I met her) she has a certain bit of Thatcher about her and hates being wrong !
|
"> 'incompetent beancounters'
SWMBO takes that very personally ---- very personally.<"
I'll take that at face value. To the best of my knowledge, I've never met your SWMBO, so I can't see how she can take my comments personally. But if she is responsible for the lack of investment in Brit manufacturing, particularly cars and 'bikes then I'm pleased that she has an interest in my comments.
|
">Would someone care to explain to me how the accountants sorry incompetent beancounters are responsible for the factory layout?<"
Lack of investment dear boy. Brown's Lane should have been demolished and rebuilt in the early 1960s. Brit beancounters can't look past the next 5 years (or less). If you want an example, I suggest you study the demise of the British motorcycling industry. Hopwood's designs were world beating, but they never got past the drawing board.
|
|
">I wonder how much longer this will continue for.<"
In the UK, it's depreciation that's generally the biggest cost for any high performance car. Petrol now below 90 pence per litre locally .... OK, so I've been price conditioned into accepting that 89.9 pence per litre is "cheap" ;-)
|
|
|
|
The XJ6 in 1968 had Grace, Space and Pace (OK, so perhaps the boot and rear leg room wasn't that spacious), but it was a long, long way ahead of anything else. I think the XJ12 of the early 1970s must have been the fastest production 4 door saloon until the Lotus Carlton, the Broadspeed Jags demonstrated what the V12 was capable of ... including breaking down :-( Huge potential wasted. XJ220 was a fine example of how the bean counters wrecked a world beating car. The thing ended up with a V6!! In some ways, Jaguar have been unlucky in recent years, launching the V12 during the early 1970's oil crisis was a bit problematic and the XJ220 arrived just in time for the depression in the early 1990s.
">we have the Jaguar name - that's all it is now<" Absolutely.
I've lusted after a 1970's XJ coupe for 30 years now many years. It's on the list ....
|
The XJ220 was a fine example of what not to do.
Formula 1 racing was a fine example of what not to do.
By all means do these extravagant gestures when your basic bread and butter models are selling well an dyou are swimming in profits.
But when the costs are high and you can't afford to replace your existing models (where's the F type?) it is sheer financial , engineerring and product LUNACY.
Plough the money into new models and new diesels?
Nope. We'll go Formula 1 racing.
Aboslute muppetry.
No wonder the brand is devalued.
And on top of all that the F1 racing was a disaster.
A classic and textbook example of what NOT to do.
But Ford also bought Kwikfit etc.
I'm sorry. It's a sad story of management incompetence (shades of Rover and saloon car racing and V8 engined Rover 75s: absolute and total waste of time..)
When BMW were nearly bust in the late 1950s did they go racing/F1? No they bought out a new small and sporty car.. the 02 series . It rescued the company.
Ford spent Jaguar's money on what is the motoring equivalent of bling.. and see where it got them.
madf
|
"> The XJ220 was a fine example of what not to do.<"
Yes, V6 and 2WD was an appalling decision. But it saved money in the short term, so that's OK then (?). Audi still sell on a performance image linked directly to the original (expensive) quattro development; quattro was rocket science compared to the competition, yet the 6R4 was potentially a far better Group B car. Rover cut the link to the 6R4 at the earliest opportunity, and yet it was developed (by UK engineers working on a shoe string) into a quattro beater (no quattro could catch a twin-turbo 6R4 on any circuit with corners).
"> Formula 1 racing was a fine example of what not to do.<"
Ferrari only survives as a name because of success in F1. Why do Renault compete in F1? Advertising.
Brit engineering tech drives F1 forwards, but incompetent bean counters ensure that Brit car manufacturing is left in the doldrums.
|
|
'Brit beancounters can't look past the next 5 years (or less).'
I think someone needs to explain to you the difference between presenting figures and taking a management decision.
|
>Micky.
You stated.
"Lack of investment dear boy. Brown's Lane should have been demolished and rebuilt in the early 1960s. Brit beancounters can't look past the next 5 years (or less)."
In 1966 Jaguar was merged (taken over) by Britcih Leyland. Jaguar in the early 1960s was run and owned and ruled by Sir William Lyons. He was no bean counter and would have taken umbrage at being called one.
So I'm afraid you are factually incorrect.
madf
|
Lyons agreed to merge Jaguar into BMC. A bean counter's decision. BMC/BL was a bean counter's debacle. World beating engineering smothered by bean counting incompetence. Triumph refused to use the proven Buick V8 in the Stag, the underdeveloped 3.0 Triumph V8 was a disaster. The Yanks would have bought every Stag produced (LBC still holds a strong attraction in the US), but 90% plus of the Stags sold to the southern US needed new engines within a few thousand miles.
The Triumph V8 was released too soon (insufficient testing in hot climates, restricted airflow through the engine bay, water pump in the wrong position, casting sand in the block), and the bean counters response? Disconnect the overheating indicator bulb!!!!! Unbelievable. Compare and contrast with the BMW approach to the Nikasil bore coating problem.
|
">I think someone needs to explain to you the difference between presenting figures and taking a management decision.<"
Feel free ....
|
Micky.
Well I assume you are either looking to stir up an argument or you are seriously unaware of how business or even logic works.
'Lyons agreed to merge Jaguar into BMC. A bean counter's decision.'
So who was in charge? Who made the decision Lyons who certainly was not a beancounter or the beancounters? In your own words 'Lyons agreed' so tell me who made the decision again?
'BMC/BL was a bean counter's debacle.'
I think you'll find it was a combination of management incompetence and union intransigence as said before.
'World beating engineering smothered by bean counting incompetence. Triumph refused to use the proving Buick V8 in the Stag, the underdeveloped 3.0 Triumph V8 was a disaster.'
Difficult to know where to start with this piece of nonsense. If Triumph had world class engineering why would they need to buy in an engine? Surely the 'bean counter' decision would have been to buy in proven technology rather than throw money at R&D? This is always the cheaper option, may I suggest that it was the engineers that made this decision because they wanted to prove their 'world beating' skills?
'The Triumph V8 was released too soon (insufficient testing in hot climates, restricted airflow through the engine bay, water pump in the wrong position, casting sand in the block), and the bean counters response? Disconnect the overheating indicator bulb!!!!!'
So first the 'world beating' engineers design an engine that simply is not equal to the task, they can't even get the water pump located in the right place, and then in the weird world of Micky the beancounters are taking management decisions to disconnect bulbs?
Sad really.
|
|
Thommo, Your response to that previous response is spot on. If their data/info is correct then as you say "beancounters" not even in the vicinity when the decisions made.
|
"> Thommo, Your response to that previous response is spot on. If their data/info is correct then as you say "beancounters" not even in the vicinity when the decisions made.<"
What does that mean?
|
">Well I assume you are either looking to stir up an argument or you are seriously unaware of how business or even logic works.<"
You can assume what you want old bean, it's a free country. I'll ignore any personal comments.
">So who was in charge?<" Lyons sold out, he was a long way past his retirement age and he should have gone in 1961 or earlier.
">I think you'll find it was a combination of management incompetence and union intransigence as said before.<"
So where was the money to develop the range? The management couldn't see beyond the next cost cutting exercise, the concept of a British quattro in the early 1980s was unthinkable, but it made Audi. BL management was epitomised by Edwards, who was a hatchet man, he created the worst possible scenario, a medium sized auto company with no clear direction and minimal long term investment. Unions? Yes, there certainly was a problem. But the US and German auto industries are more heavily unionised.
">If Triumph had world class engineering why would they need to buy in an engine?<"
In concept, the Triumph V8 was an engine for the 1970s, OHC (x2) and free revving. But it was under developed, it needed another year in R & D. Triumph management intransigence ensured that the iron/alloy V8 was released too early. The correct management decision should have been to use the proven Buick alloy V8 or a developed Triumph V8, they did neither. The engineer's solution would have been to build an all-alloy V8 with DOHC, Saab used the Triumph slant 4 design for many years and the Dolly sprint was producing 127bhp with a 16v head in 1973, far ahead of anything that could be achieved with 50% of a Buick V8. British engineering expertise.
">So first the 'world beating' engineers design an engine that simply is not equal to the task, they can't even get the water pump located in the right place, and then in the weird world of Micky the beancounters are taking management decisions to disconnect bulbs?<"
The engine as designed was more than equal to the task, a 150 bhp 3 litre V8, but it needed R & D to get it right. The management decision to release the V8 in an under-developed state was criminal.
">and then in the weird world of Micky the beancounters are taking management decisions to disconnect bulbs?<"
Not my "weird" world, the world of Triumph/BL cost cutting.
|
'Lyons sold out'. Ah so not the beancounters then.
'The management couldn't see beyond the next cost cutting exercise... BL management was epitomised by Edwards, who was a hatchet man... Unions? Yes, there certainly was a problem.' Ah so not the beancounters then.
'Triumph management intransigence.' Ah so not the beancounters then.
'The management decision to release the V8.' Ah so not the beancounters then.
'the world of Triumph/BL cost cutting.' OK your getting there. Now who makes the decision to cut costs? Not collect the costs and present the data but to actually cut them? Come on now you can do it just a little more effort...
|
">Lyons sold out'. Ah so not the beancounters then.<"
Lyons was the chief-beancounter-in-charge at Jaguar. He stopped the XJ13 project when he counted the number of beans required to race the thing. Ferrari knew that racing kept the Ferrari alive, the "halo" effect of successfully racing the yanks and Ferrari would have been incalculable. But Lyons's judgement was flawed by then, he should have gone by 1961. Short term bean counting.
">'The management couldn't see beyond the next cost cutting exercise... BL management was epitomised by Edwards, who was a hatchet man... Unions? Yes, there certainly was a problem.' Ah so not the beancounters then.<"
The Labour government's instruction to Edwards was to cut bean expenditure above all else. It finished the Brit car industry, no investment = no future. Short term bean counting.
">'Triumph management intransigence.' Ah so not the beancounters then.<"
Triumph management counted the beans required to fully develop the Stag engine and prefered the short term option of releasing the car with an insufficiently tested engine. That decision killed the Stag. They made the wrong decision to save money in the short term. Short term bean counting.
">the world of Triumph/BL cost cutting.' OK your getting there. Now who makes the decision to cut costs? Not collect the costs and present the data but to actually cut them? Come on now you can do it just a little more effort... <"
Ah, I see. I use the term bean counter to mean someone who places short term financial gain above medium to long term business success; I suspect that your definition of bean counter is narrower. The function of the bean counters should be to support the engineers and the designers, not vice versa.
|
In concept, the Triumph V8 was an engine for the 1970s,
Avoiding the beancounter argument I agree with much of the above staetement, the Stag V8 was under developed, the Buick V8 would have been ideal and it did not have to be "bought" as such because BL already had the rights. The disparate brands within BL continuing to do their own thing was key to the eventual downfall, perhaps chassis saharing would not have worked though the management should have chosen the best 2.0 4 cyl, the best V8 etc rather than let two, three or four lots of engineers loose in efffect competing with each other.
Just think at one time you could get the Maxi/Allegro 1750, the Marina 1800, the Dolomite 1850/Sprint, the Triumph 2000, the Rover 2200 (and i have probably missed one or two), all very different design four cyl engines between 1750 and 2200cc. Take any snapshot in time between 1965 and around 1980 and the same situation existed.
The 16v Sprint engine was great though the single cam with rockers design would have needed extensive re-engineering to use in a V8 configuation.
|
|
Let JCB have them, they will dig them out of trouble.
|
>>The 16v Sprint engine was great though the single cam with rockers design would have needed extensive re-engineering to use in a V8 configuation.
But not emmissions compatable in the US hence it couldn't go into the TR7 for the US which was BL's biggest market at the time. So it might have been a wonderful design but wasn't able to be used in BLs biggest market!
Also the Stag had other issues than cooling, it has undersized crank journals for it's size which cause problems. NOt a wonderful engine although the 4 pot was good as proved by SAAB who developed it & used it for years after Triumph had disappeared!
|
I cannot take SERIOUSLY any thread which proposes that Triumph were an example of fine engineering.
The front brakes on the TR7 : undersized.
The Stag with its myriad faults.
The Triumph Herald with its dangerous swing axle rear suspension.
The Dolomite Sprint? Quality control? What was that?
The Triumpg 2000: the sliding splines in the rear suspension coupling differential to wheels which seized solid if power was applied on a corner.
The world beating Triumph 1300 ?
The Triumph Spitfire 1500 whose engine was knackered within 50k miles.
Yes : world class engineering. Right. They were just hampered by a bunch of accountants..And to suggest that most of the time the designs were too costly and were not profitable? A mere bagatelle.
:-)
madf
|
|
The Acclaim was a brilliant car!
|
|
The Acclaim was a brilliant Honda - but you knew that didn't you ;-)
|
|
The 1300 was really quite good in 1965.
|
The Acclaim was a brilliant Honda - but you knew that didn't you ;-)
The Acclaim was carp Honda!
|
>>The Acclaim was carp Honda!?
As someone who bought a secondhand Y-reg Acclaim in 1967 for my daughter, who later handed it on to her younger brother, I can vouch for the fact that this particular model was not only well built (in view of its manufacturer) but also very reliable even after eight or nine years' use.
In fact my son, who particularly loved its sharp, accurate steering, was almost grief stricken when I sold it and the almost despised replacement was a four-speed Escort. Even so he's had two Fords since, bought out of his own pocket...
Honda also provided BL with the know how to build cars properly and the Acclaim was the first car to meet the bill (don't ask about the model which followed it though!)
Interestingly enough just 115,000 examples of the Acclaim range were produced, just a fraction of the Allegros, Marinas etc of the time.
There are still quite a few Acclaims knocking around our area, but none of the others (most originally belonged to BL employees working in Leyland who could buy new on the employees' scheme and sell on a year later without losing any/very little money).
Like Honda's insight for BL, Ford worked on improving Jaguar's build quality and reliability and by H-reg models this was good enough for me to be able to recommend buying one in the case of a Jag mad friend in the early1990s - he was very happy with it and did more than 50k before replacing it with another Jag.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
I am fortunate enough to have a Jag and a Triumph....... both of them have silky smooth 6 cyl engines, acres of leather and wood, quality fittings and are built well i.e when the door closes it feels like it. If i drive either one of them I have that grin that comes from enjoying the drive, rather than accepting it as a means to an end.
Some Triumph's definitely had their problems in their day, but decent maintenance/ servicing covers most issues. I wouldn't swap mine for anything.
How do i become a 'bean counter'?
|
">I have that grin that comes from enjoying the drive<"
Yes, a sense of occasion! Convertibles?
|
>>Y-reg Acclaim in 1967>>
1987 of course.....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
Actually, yes I was being facetious (forgot the smiley). Wasn't it a rebadged Honda Ballade or something?
It was actually a decent little car from memory though (if not REALLY a Triumph).
Cheers
DP
|
>>Wasn't it a rebadged Honda Ballade or something?>>
It was based on that model - later Rover built the Honda Concerto on the same Longbridge lines as the 200/400 Series from 1989 onwards.
This is a useful website for looking up the history of Austin-Rover models:
www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?sd3storyf.htm
(LOV 358X looks exactly like our family Acclaim of 20 years ago)..:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
Actually, yes I was being facetious >>
So was I ;-)
The Acclaim was simply not a proper Triumph, it lacked character though was I guess fairly reliable in a 70/80's souless Japanese car kinda way.
|
>>it lacked character though was I guess fairly reliable in a 70/80's souless Japanese car kinda way.>>
It may well have lacked character in your view (although my offspring might not agree), but it had a Honda engine and was streets ahead of anything else BL produced at the time.
The example we had was at least 13 years old when it made way for a replacement, but was perfectly acceptable to the buyer and definitely still a reliable mode of transport.
You certainly couldn't make that claim in the case of an Allegro, Marina or other BL product of its era.
The key point is that Honda delivered lessons that BL initially took on board but, sadly, didn't appear to maintain.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
">I cannot take SERIOUSLY any thread which proposes that Triumph were an example of fine engineering.<"
You're missing the point, it's about bean counters preventing fine engineering.
"> The Stag with its myriad faults.<"
Yes, under developed and rushed into the showrooms by the bean counters.
">The Dolomite Sprint? Quality control? What was that?<"
In comparision with what? Alfa? " Oh look, I've only had the Alfa for 6 months and it's rusted away. Still, at least that's an improvement on the Lancia." Or perhaps we should be comparing Triumph's offerings with Ford and their wonderful Pinto camshafts. The difference is that Ford bean counters reached into the bean tin and fixed the camshaft problem (eventually).
">The Triumpg 2000: the sliding splines in the rear suspension coupling differential to wheels which seized solid if power was applied on a corner.<"
Some of that grease stuff fixes that. At a time many cars were still using cart springs, the semi-trailing arm rear suspension was a move forward.
">The world beating Triumph 1300<"
Was it advertised as a world beater? Well that's something else I've learnt.
">The Triumph Spitfire 1500 whose engine was knackered within 50k miles<"
What, all of them? Or just one?
|
|
">it has undersized crank journals for it's size which cause problems.<" The real problem was the wrong surface finish on the crankshaft journals due to a temporary machining problem.
|
">Just think at one time you could get the Maxi/Allegro 1750, the Marina 1800, the Dolomite 1850/Sprint, the Triumph 2000, the Rover 2200 (and i have probably missed one or two), all very different design four cyl engines between 1750 and 2200cc. Take any snapshot in time between 1965 and around 1980 and the same situation existed.<"
Yes, defies belief doesn't it. The mergers should have led to a reduced model range and economies of scale, but that would have needed substantial investment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
