John Vance wrote:
I thought someone would come back with that!!! I agree, although how
about
resurrecting the Stag (many of us are older with families these days)
and
drop the Ford/BMW/Land Rover/Rover/Buick V8 into it (as they should
have
done in the first place).
Three good reasons why they didn't - possibly four.
1. Rover didn't have the production capacity to make it for fitment in
cars outside the Rover range
2. The parochialism that existed in the very early days (1966 on)
between Rover and Triumph engineering along the lines of "you're not
having our engine," and
3. One of the conditions of sale from Buick to Rover was that the
power unit would not be used outside the Rover range for a specific
period.
and
4. All the early pre-production Stags proved to be a great deal faster
than their production counterparts, eminently reliable and pretty
well equal in performance to the Rover unit. The main problem was that
Engineering specified a grade of alloy for the cylinder heads that
proved to be less than satisfactory, allied to cost reduction moves in
fitting a smaller radiator and a less than effective water pump. After
that lot was unravelled and sorted, the car was virtually dead in the
water. Still nice to see there are still lots around of the original
25,000 that were built.
Jonmac
MG 4305 DLO 1970 Triumph 2.5PI, TED 152318 1950 Ferguson TED20
"Children in back seats cause accidents. Accidents in back seats cause
children."
/// triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe triumphs
///
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
|