Subject: Re: [6pack] Canada - TR5 or TR250

From: "David Fidler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:59:22 -0500

Sorry to correct you Dave, I know of a few TR5s that were sold new in
Toronto through Sportscars Unlimited. They were shipped here in error and,
rather than take them back, BL said sell 'em! One of our TTC members is the
guy who sold them.

Fid.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Dave More
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 6:23 PM
To: Timothy Holbrook
Cc: 6Pack List
Subject: Re: [6pack] Canada - TR5 or TR250

Canada, like the US, received the TR250. No TR5's were sold as new in North
America.

Cheers,
Dave

On 2012-12-26, at 4:18 PM, Timothy Holbrook <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> Trying to figure out a piece of Triumph trivia with my Dad...did the
> Canadian market get the TR5, or the TR250?  Online references about the
TR250
> are somewhat contradictory/vague, sometimes saying that the 250 was for
the
US
> market, other times stating it was the North American market.  What's the
> word?
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>
> ________________________________________
>
> [email-masked]
>
> Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
> Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
> Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
> Unsubscribe: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/6pack/[email-masked]

________________________________________

[email-masked]

Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Unsubscribe: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/6pack/[email-masked]

________________________________________

[email-masked]

Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Unsubscribe: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/6pack/[email-masked]

---

From: Dave More <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 19:56:09 -0700

Ya got me! So "officially" there were no Tr5's sold in North America other
than those admitted due to bureaucratic bungling? :)

Is there any record of where those TR5's ended up, and if they're still
active?

Cheers,
Dave

On 2013-01-10, at 12:59 PM, "David Fidler" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Unsubscribe:
http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/6pack/[email-masked]

[email-masked]

---

From: Jody Kerr <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 21:27:34 -0700

I met th fellow who lives in New Mexico and owns a proper TR5. When I
asked he said there were 17 of them in the US.

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Dave More <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Unsubscribe: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/6pack/[email-masked]
>
>

-- 
http://www.theymightberacing.com/

1953 Studebaker Champion            1960 Austin Healey 3000 (BT7L/5479)
1974 Jensen Healey MKII (14291)   1974 Jensen Healey MKII (18854)
1978 Triumph Spitfire (Mum's)         1981 Triumph TR8
1970 MG MGB                               1980 Triumph TR7
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn
from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent
disinclination to do so."
--Douglas Adams

[email-masked]

---

From: David Fidler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:04:09 -0500

Quite a few exist in NA, but as far as I know, only the few (I think it was 3)
sold in Canada arrived here unregistered new. Of course some US and Canadian
armed forces guys bought TR5s while they were stationed in Europe and shipped
over when they came home, so there are probably a lot more here than we think.
I see them on eBay frOm time to time.

I don't know where the Canadian fives ended up or if they're still on the
road, but I'll ask our guy (he's also our historian, so if anyone knows, he
will).

Best regards,

David.

Sent from my iPad

>> http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/6pack/[email-masked]
http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/6pack/[email-masked]

[email-masked]

---

From: "Dave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 02:52:46 -0600

one of those is in the philadelphia area, member of the delaware county 
triumphs.  that car came from belgium, and had been wrecked.  its gorgeous 
now.

-----Original Message----- 
From: Jody Kerr
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 10:27 PM
To: Dave More
Cc: 6Pack List
Subject: Re: [6pack] Canada - TR5 or TR250

[email-masked]

---

From: Ashford Little <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:15:53 -0500

Is it a BRG car?  One lived in Atlanta a few years ago.  I met the owner at a
local show.  We got to talking about the car.  He really didn't know much
about the car or Triumphs.  I asked him to call me if he ever wanted to sell
it, and in the meantime to get involved.  Never saw him again, but a year or
so later I came across the car being sold by a dealer.

Thus ended the story.

Ashford Little
[email-masked]

>
> -----Original Message----- From: Jody Kerr
> Unsubscribe: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/6pack/[email-masked]

[email-masked]

---

From: Larry Young <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:12:30 -0600

Did the TR5 meet Canadian emission standards of the time?  I bought my 
TR250 on European delivery and had to have a special EPA form stating 
that it met US emission standards in order to register it in the US.
Larry Young

On 1/10/2013 11:04 PM, David Fidler wrote:
> Unsubscribe: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/6pack/[email-masked]

[email-masked]

---

From: "David Fidler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:23:25 -0500

Are you sure about that Larry? I've never actually seen the test results,
have you? 

My guess is that the problem was more to do with the lower octane (RON)
rating of US fuel. The UK PI TR5s (and TR6s) were designed to run on 4 star
leaded fuel (97 octane), if they didn't meet the US regs, it's most likely
the inferior fuel quality/lower octane was the cause. Europe has as strict,
if not more stringent, emissions regs than the US and the PI TR5s and 6s
passed those. Injected cars typically have better emissions than carbs,
although the Lucas system was totally mechanical and therefore didn't have
any of the modern electronic emissions control systems.

Just sayin'

Fid.

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Young [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 11:36 AM
To: David Fidler
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [6pack] Canada - TR5 or TR250

The TR5 did not meet US Emission standards and could not legally be 
imported into the US.

On 1/11/2013 10:27 AM, David Fidler wrote:
> Larry,
>
> I don't think the dealer cared about that. The TR5s were able to exceed US
and Canadian emissions standards anyway. The real reason (so I'm told) is
they were dumbed down to Stroms because the US dealers created hell about
having to maintain the Lucas injection system and the boffins at Triumph
acquiesced.

[email-masked]

---

From: Ashford Little <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:31:56 -0500

I heard that the whole emissions argument was "the story" but that the real
reason was cost.  The PI system costs more and they didn't think us Yanks
would pay for the added cost as PI wasn't common at the time.  I think Mike
Cook might have said this.  Then again, I might be wrong.

Ashford Little
[email-masked]

> having to maintain the Lucas injection system and the boffins at Triumph

Ashford Little
[email-masked]

[email-masked]

---

From: Sally or Dick Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 12:51:37 -0800 (PST)

Fid --- High octane fuel was available here in the States during all of the
'60s when the TR5s were new. I remember seeing 100+ octane on some of our
pumps and muscle cars lined up to get it. I'm less certain as to why the U.S.
didn't allow their sales here. It would seem like it would be an emissions
thingy, as the US didn't care about whether these cars would run on a lesser
grade of octane. We know the cam used in the 5 to be "dirtier" than the
carbureted engine. Another drawback to US sales could've been the higher cost
of the P.I. system, and the training necessary to service them. Oh, well...
Dick
'73 
Los Angeles area

>________________________________
> From: David
Fidler <[email-masked]>
>To: 'Larry Young' <[email-masked]> 
>Cc:
[email-masked] 
>Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 12:23 PM
>Subject: Re:
[6pack] Canada - TR5 or TR250
> 
>My guess is that the problem
was more to do with the lower octane (RON)
>rating of US fuel. The UK PI TR5s
(and TR6s) were designed to run on 4 star
>leaded fuel (97 octane), if they
didn't meet the US regs, it's most likely
>the inferior fuel quality/lower
octane was the cause. Europe has as strict,
Sent from my iPad
>Archive:
http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/6pack/[email-masked]

[email-masked]

---

From: Dave More <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 13:52:41 -0700

And to add to the tales of complexity and cost apparently the PI cars also
didn't take kindly to the types of elevation changes we have in North America,
which tends to be a non-issue with modern  EFI systems. Although I did own a
'77 Rabbit and a '76 Saab 99, both with Bosch K-Jetronic (mechanical)
injection and altitude didn't seem to bother those

Cheers,
Dave

[email-masked]

---

From: Michael Porter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 14:06:46 -0700

> Cook might have said this.  Then again, I might be wrong.

IIRC, the plan was to introduce PI as a means of meeting the 1968 US 
emissions standards, but the development costs mounted (partly because 
Lucas specified individual runner throttling and some other new 
proprietary parts, which really drove up unit pricing and time to 
delivery).  There was also some preliminary rally testing done that 
indicated that the lack of barometric mixture control made performance 
problematic in a lot of US locations.  When it was found at a late stage 
of development that Stromberg could meet emissions at a lower cost than 
PI, that pretty much sealed the deal for the larger US market.

As for emissions standards, they may be comparable to the US standards 
now (or even tighter), but that simply wasn't the case in 1968. Triumph 
at the time was concerned about meeting US standards, which were quite 
new to both them and the American manufacturers. The British and 
European standards were almost non-existent then, which is why the the 
PI engines were first equipped with a camshaft with considerably more 
overlap than the US engine and could make a rated 150 hp. Nor did fuel 
quality have much to do with it (there's nothing intrinsically better 
about European fuel blending). At the time of introduction, pump gas of 
~ 100 octane was available (remember Sunoco 260?).  It was only when 
tetraethyl lead began to be phased out in the `80s that octane ratings 
dropped (Europe was well behind the US in that change, which might 
contribute to the belief that European fuel was superior).

Cheers.

-- 

Michael Porter
Roswell, NM

Never let anyone drive you crazy when you know it's within walking distance....

[email-masked]

---

From: "David Fidler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:17:54 -0500

Yep, that is pretty much what I heard too, but I forgot about the cost
factor, which I think was more to do with the maintenance cost than the OEM
cost of the unit... you Yanks didn't/wouldn't go on the training courses to
learn how to tune/fix them! ;-) Corvettes had fuel injection from the late
fifties, so I don't know why it held any mystery for US mechanics? We'll
probably never really know for sure.

Fid.

From: Ashford Little [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 3:32 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Ashford Little; 'Larry Young'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [6pack] Canada - TR5 or TR250

Ashford Little

[email-masked]

Just sayin'

Fid.

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Young [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 11:36 AM
To: David Fidler
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [6pack] Canada - TR5 or TR250

Larry,

Best regards,

David.

Sent from my iPad

[email-masked]

[email-masked]

---

From: Larry Young <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:36:19 -0600

On 1/11/2013 10:27 AM, David Fidler wrote:
> Larry,
>
> I don't think the dealer cared about that. The TR5s were able to exceed US and Canadian emissions standards anyway. The real reason (so I'm told) is they were dumbed down to Stroms because the US dealers created hell about having to maintain the Lucas injection system and the boffins at Triumph acquiesced.
>
> Best regards,
>
> David.
>
> Sent from my iPad

[email-masked]

---

From: Larry Young <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:16:27 -0600

I have owned my TR250 since it was new and many of the period road tests 
stated that emissions was the reason for using carbs on the TR250.  
Ironically, fuel injection is now the cleaner system, but it was at a 
much more primitive stage of development in 1968.  There were many other 
modifications required to meet US emissions - cam, compression, 
ignition, etc.   I don't believe there were any appreciable differences 
in fuels.  My 250 was delivered in Coventry and was driven all over 
Europe before shipment back to the states. It required premium 
everywhere which was leaded in those days.  It has never run as well on 
lead free premium.
Larry

On 1/11/2013 2:23 PM, David Fidler wrote:
> any of the modern electronic emissions control systems.y
>
> Just sayin'
>
> Fid.
>

[email-masked]

---

From: Larry Young <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:35:21 -0600

I have trouble believing the argument about complexity of maintenance of 
the PI system.  Remember, GM had been using fuel injection on several 
models since the late 50's.  Not to mention all the hot rodders using 
the Hilborn system.  I believe the Lucas system was a step closer to our 
current modern systems though.

With regard to the cost argument, wouldn't you pay just a little bit 
more for a 40 percent increase in power?  The alternative was two 
additional cylinders, but virtually no increase in power over the 
previous model.  Since they couldn't market performance, you got things 
like buttons that said "Triumph Over Conformity - TR250".  I have a 
couple of these buttons.

Kas Kastner told me he thought the majority of the power increase was 
not due to the PI system, but other modifications.  The conservative cam 
with little or no overlap comes to mind.

Larry

[email-masked]

---

From: Larry Young <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:57:39 -0600

I think 1968 was when the EPA certification came about.   The engine in 
my 250 threw a rod in Europe, so I got a replacement engine under 
warrantee.  I was given a special form  for US Customs certifying that 
it met US emission standards.  I think the US emission standards have 
always been more strict than other countries. European cars are now 
about 40% diesel and it has been very difficult to get them clean enough 
to import.  I have a German diesel with two catalytic converters, one 
requires a urea tank.  It also has a filter for particulates.  The 
Europeans are more concerned about green house gases (carbon dioxide), 
but less concerned about carbon monoxide which is poisonous.
Larry Young

On 1/11/2013 8:03 PM, Greg Lemon wrote:
> Some web research shows Canada didn't have national auto emission 
> standards until 1971 so should not have been an issue with the TR5, if 
> they sold TR250s new in Canada was probably marketing/expediency and 
> not due to regulations.
>
> Also, I met the guy that had his bought in Germany and imported to the 
> US TR5 featured in Hemmings Sports and Exotic a couple of years ago, 
> he said on import to the USA (this was a number of years ago, don't 
> know exactly, I think the 80s), they made him replace the fuel 
> injection with TR250 carbs, vacuum lines, etc, to make it "US EPA 
> spec" (guess they didn't know/care about the cam) then they cleared 
> it, apparently with a nod and a wink, and allowing him to keep the 
> fuel injection, which he re-installed.
>
> Greg Lemon

[email-masked]

---

From: Sally or Dick Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:35:25 -0800 (PST)

Larry --- Would I pay "just a little bit more" for a 40% increase in power?
Probably so, but I would've been in the minority back in the late sixties when
it was just about as cheap to get a V8 Cheve or Mustang. Cost, or dealer
profit, had to be a factor when competing with other (foreign) sports cars. 
A "conservative cam" must've helped sell some later models of the TR6, so far
as emissions regulations was concerned. Power dropped to 125 as I recall. The
CR was also reduced during this period. 
I don't know if even these detuned
engines could pass mustard on emissions in California. The SMOG, or emissions
testing, didn't start here until 1986. I had to take out the S2 cam recently
installed to get my '73 to pass the sniff (HC and CO) test.  

Tim H. is
getting his money's worth on this topic. Right Tim!?    

Dick Taylor    
> From: Larry Young <[email-masked]>
>To: Sally or Dick Taylor <[email-masked]> 
>Cc: "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>; "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]> 
>Sent:
Saturday, January 12, 2013 1:35 PM
>I have trouble believing the argument about complexity of maintenance of
the PI system.  Remember, GM had been using fuel injection on several models
since the late 50's.  Not to mention all the hot rodders using the Hilborn
system.  I believe the Lucas system was a step closer to our current modern
systems though.
>
>With regard to the cost argument, wouldn't you pay just a
little bit more for a 40 percent increase in power?  The alternative was two
additional cylinders, but virtually no increase in power over the previous
model.  Since they couldn't market performance, you got things like buttons
that said "Triumph Over Conformity - TR250".  I have a couple of these
buttons.
>
>Kas Kastner told me he thought the majority of the power increase
was not due to the PI system, but other modifications.  The conservative cam
with little or no overlap comes to mind.

[email-masked]

---

From: Ashford Little <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 11:03:48 -0500

The 40% increase in power probably wasn't accurate.  IIRC, the way horsepower
was measured was changed about this time from Gross to Net.  I think the later
PI cars were quoted at about 125hp, which is still a nice bump.  The cost of
the PI system was not the only cost that was involved.  Dealer training would
have added to the cost, but another factor that I think was hurting Triumph &
BL was the Pound to Dollar ratio.  Over the next couple of years these cars
went up in price dramatically while they were trying to keep losing market
share to the new Japanese market entrants.

Ashford Little
[email-masked]

On Jan 12, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Larry Young <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I have trouble believing the argument about complexity of maintenance of the
PI system.  Remember, GM had been using fuel injection on several models since
the late 50's.  Not to mention all the hot rodders using the Hilborn system.
I believe the Lucas system was a step closer to our current modern systems
though.
>
> With regard to the cost argument, wouldn't you pay just a little bit more
for a 40 percent increase in power?  The alternative was two additional
cylinders, but virtually no increase in power over the previous model.  Since
they couldn't market performance, you got things like buttons that said
"Triumph Over Conformity - TR250".  I have a couple of these buttons.
>
> Kas Kastner told me he thought the majority of the power increase was not
due to the PI system, but other modifications.  The conservative cam with
little or no overlap comes to mind.

[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert M. Lang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:12:28 -0500 (EST)

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013, Larry Young wrote:

[stuff deleted]

> Kas Kastner told me he thought the majority of the power increase was not due 
> to the PI system, but other modifications.  The conservative cam with little 
> or no overlap comes to mind.

And the 9.5:1 compression... that's 10 or 15 HP right there with no other 
mods (in all likelyhood).

Just sayin.

> Larry

regards,
rml
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Lang              Triumph TR6!!            |  This space for rent
Former NER Solo Chair                          |
Voice:617-253-7438                             |  Cell: 339-927-4489
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[email-masked]

---

From: Larry Young <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:15:34 -0600

When I bought my TR250, my dad tried to persuade me to get a Mustang 
instead.  Both he and my brother had them with plain vanilla 2V 289 
(185hp) that he said would do 115 mph.  I tried to explain that straight 
line speed was only part of the fun.  What about driving on a twisted 
mountain road?   I was in the minority of course.  Most guys in my town 
wanted a pickup with a big V8 and a gun rack.  It is a shame that 
Triumph dropped the ball after introducing the TR2 that would kick ass 
and then gave its successors very little power improvement.  I think you 
guys are over inflating the cost issue. How much more was a TR5 when 
currency differences were accounted for?  The hot cam certainly didn't 
cost any more. The TR250 distributor had to cost more with its 
complicated dual vacuum system. The currency differences were actually a 
help.  When I was planning the purchase of my TR250 the pound dropped 
from $2.80 to $2.40 (if memory serves), which made the car cheaper.

I wish we had someone like Mike Cook involved in this discussion.
Larry Young

On 1/13/2013 1:35 AM, Sally or Dick Taylor wrote:
> Larry --- Would I pay "just a little bit more" for a 40% increase in 
> power? Probably so, but I would've been in the minority back in the 
> late sixties when it was just about as cheap to get a V8 Cheve or 
> Mustang. Cost, or dealer profit, had to be a factor when competing 
> with other (foreign) sports cars.
>
> A "conservative cam" must've helped sell some later models of the TR6, 
> so far as emissions regulations was concerned. Power dropped to 125 as 
> I recall. The CR was also reduced during this period.
> I don't know if even these detuned engines could pass mustard on 
> emissions in California. The SMOG, or emissions testing, didn't start 
> here until 1986. I had to take out the S2 cam recently installed to 
> get my '73 to su pass the sniff (HC and CO) test.
> the
> Tim H. is getting his money's worth on this topic. Right Tim!?
> kik
> Dick Taylor

[email-masked]