triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: New Toy

To: "'philpatt@net-link.net'" <philpatt@net-link.net>
Subject: RE: New Toy
From: kurt oblinger <koblinger@linkline.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 21:39:27 -0700
Cc: "'triumphs@autox.team.net'" <triumphs@Autox.Team.Net>
Phil,

This is VERY interesting! Your comm. no. is TS1440LO and your BMIHT certificate 
says you should have engine no. TS1426E. TR2 through TR3 engine numbers are, 
with few exceptions, HIGHER than the comm. no. This is accounted for by the 
fact that when Triumph was building the TR2, TR3, 3A, that they were also 
supplying production engines for other cars such as the Swallow Doretti, the 
Morgan Plus 4, and the Peerless/Warwick. I have TR2 comm. no. TS1436L, and when 
I got the car it had with it engine no. TS1632E. I believe that engine TS1632E 
is the original engine because the Ca. title I have on the car lists TS1632E as 
the VIN no. This was standard practice in Ca. in the '50s and possibly into the 
mid '60s to register the car against the engine no. My 57 TR3 and my 54 Swallow 
Doretti all use the engine no. as the VIN. I sent for a BMIHT certificate for 
my TR2 and it came back with an engine no lower than the comm. no. just as 
yours did. I have reason to believe that the info from BMIHT is incorrect in my 
case in as much as I have documentation that TS1632E is the correct engine no. 
and the engine was with the car. Additionally, BMIHT listed the trim color as 
"Blueberry", whereas the interior of the car is in Blackberry and as far as I 
can tell is original. I have never seen "Blueberry" listed as a trim color for 
TR2 or TR3. 

>From what I understand, BMIHT does its record traces from microfilm copies of 
>a handwritten record, and that some pages are not too clear. The Triumph 
>Register in the UK has access to a separate set of original build records and 
>I have intended to contact them and get build data from their records but this 
>has been a low priority. 

I am not saying categorically that the info on your car, or mine for that 
matter, from BMIHT is incorrect, there are enough documented cases of "anomaly" 
cars that don't fit the usual patterns that it is entirely possible that the 
lower engine no. is correct. Your car has now renewed my interest in this 
matter and I think I will have to investigate 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>