Michael,
I though that the red/amber tail and amber running lights were only for
non-US distribution. I remember reading in a number of Triumph books
that the Amber tail lights were Not allowed by DOT hence the red/red
tail light for US exports. Could this car have been a Canadian import (
I don't know if their requirements matched US DOT's at the time) It
certainly was not a European version since 250's were not available for
the home market. BTW, who would want a carb choked version when a fuel
injected pocket-rocket TR-5 was available. I recently replaced both
taillight assemblies on my 250 with the repro lens from TRF, Very nice
quality at a reasonable price ($10.95/each) however the raised numbering
is different than the original lens, I wonder if this would cost you
any points at a concours?
Ed Cordes
TR250
(bleeding all over my garage floor at this moment)
> ----------
> From: MICHAEL FRANCIS
> KUTKA[SMTP:cpecod@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 1997 8:03 AM
> To: triumphs@autox.team.net
> Subject: TR-250 rear lens
>
> Hello all,
> Looking at my two TR-250's I have red/amber on CD-255 with the
> vertical
> ridges in the lens and red/red on CD-6434 also with the vertical
> ridges
> in the lens. I believe these to be original, although one red/amber on
>
> the earlier car was smashed when I purchased it and I now have a poor
> quality reproduction in its place. If any one wishes to part with an
> original I'd love to hear from them. In addition and to add a bit of
> controversy.....I have amber front running lights on the early car and
>
> clear on the later car????? Both have the amber front indicator lens'.
> I believe that Triumph used whatever they had at the time in the bins.
> I
> don't have B-heritage certificates for either to document build dates,
>
> but they were spread apart in the production cycle. My data plate on
> CD-255 is also configured differently than on the later car. Any
> suggestions?
> MK
>
|