Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Chef, n.: Any cook who swears in French.


aus+uk / aus.cars / Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

SubjectAuthor
* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
+* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysalvey
|`- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
`* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysGrumpy Tech
 +* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysNoddy
 |+- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 |+* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysDaryl
 ||`* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysNoddy
 || `* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysDaryl
 ||  `* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysNoddy
 ||   +- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 ||   `* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysJohn_H
 ||    +- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 ||    `* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysNoddy
 ||     +- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 ||     +* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysJohn_H
 ||     |+* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysNoddy
 ||     ||+- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 ||     ||`* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysJohn_H
 ||     || +- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 ||     || `* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysNoddy
 ||     ||  +* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 ||     ||  |`- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysClocky
 ||     ||  +- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysalvey
 ||     ||  `* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysJohn_H
 ||     ||   `* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysNoddy
 ||     ||    +* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysDaryl
 ||     ||    |+- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 ||     ||    |`* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysNoddy
 ||     ||    | +- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 ||     ||    | `* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysDaryl
 ||     ||    |  `* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysNoddy
 ||     ||    |   `* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 ||     ||    |    `* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysYosemite Sam
 ||     ||    |     `* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 ||     ||    |      `- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysjonz@ nothere.com
 ||     ||    `* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 ||     ||     `* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysJohn_H
 ||     ||      +* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysNoddy
 ||     ||      |+* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysYosemite Sam
 ||     ||      ||`- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 ||     ||      |+- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysalvey
 ||     ||      |+* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysalvey
 ||     ||      ||`- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 ||     ||      |`* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysJohn_H
 ||     ||      | +- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 ||     ||      | +* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysalvey
 ||     ||      | |`- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 ||     ||      | `* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysNoddy
 ||     ||      |  +* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 ||     ||      |  |`- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysalvey
 ||     ||      |  +- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 ||     ||      |  +- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysalvey
 ||     ||      |  `* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysJohn_H
 ||     ||      |   +- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysalvey
 ||     ||      |   +* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysDaryl
 ||     ||      |   |`* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysalvey
 ||     ||      |   | `- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 ||     ||      |   +* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysNoddy
 ||     ||      |   |+- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 ||     ||      |   |`* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysJohn_H
 ||     ||      |   | +- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysjonz@ nothere.com
 ||     ||      |   | +* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysNoddy
 ||     ||      |   | |+- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 ||     ||      |   | |`* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysJohn_H
 ||     ||      |   | | +- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 ||     ||      |   | | `* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysNoddy
 ||     ||      |   | |  `- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysClocky
 ||     ||      |   | `- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysClocky
 ||     ||      |   `- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 ||     ||      +* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysYosemite Sam
 ||     ||      |`- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 ||     ||      `* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 ||     ||       `* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysYosemite Sam
 ||     ||        `- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysClocky
 ||     |`* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysDaryl
 ||     | +- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysDaryl
 ||     | +- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysNoddy
 ||     | `- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysJohn_H
 ||     `* Had an interesting visitor the past few dayskeithr0
 ||      `- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysJohn_H
 |+* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysClocky
 ||+* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 |||`* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysjonz@ nothere.com
 ||| `* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysNoddy
 |||  +* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 |||  |`- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysClocky
 |||  +* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysjonz@ nothere.com
 |||  |`* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysNoddy
 |||  | +- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 |||  | +- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysClocky
 |||  | `- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 |||  `- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysalvey
 ||`- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 |+- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysalvey
 |`* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysJohn_H
 | +- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 | +* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysDaryl
 | |+* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysNoddy
 | ||`- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 | |+- Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno
 | |`* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysJohn_H
 | `* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysNoddy
 `* Had an interesting visitor the past few daysXeno

Pages:123456789
Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<jegpu4F74giU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14647&group=aus.cars#14647

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: xenol...@optusnet.com.au (Xeno)
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 15:25:21 +1000
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <jegpu4F74giU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <jdujsrFn2jdU1@mid.individual.net> <t5f4bl$1qq$1@dont-email.me>
<t5fa4c$1h3$1@dont-email.me> <je0ph4F59jmU1@mid.individual.net>
<t5ffe9$rbf$2@dont-email.me> <je11suF6ofaU1@mid.individual.net>
<t5flol$2rh$1@dont-email.me> <7kbu7hhdbb5qv0kctlms3mvog96i4f0isp@4ax.com>
<t5nd2j$p9b$1@dont-email.me> <uql08htt9hao4ao6b3jdjavke9fv0mn4bd@4ax.com>
<t5ps1g$1oe$1@dont-email.me> <35318hdu6e03ciha7mgst1tbj3ui7bieei@4ax.com>
<t5q9tj$l6n$1@dont-email.me> <vdu38h1iuioofe4nccotu8o87c8epu6qd3@4ax.com>
<t5t9gs$1p0$1@dont-email.me> <jeer20Fq6hvU1@mid.individual.net>
<t5tei6$8tj$1@dont-email.me> <jeg67mF3m3aU1@mid.individual.net>
<t5upqh$co0$1@dont-email.me> <jegcuhF4rmkU1@mid.individual.net>
<jegds5F500fU2@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net i9HHj7VyDGiogN2JAqooMgPvMefuT+i6B/mRINkn124xLPQATV
Cancel-Lock: sha1:P/THrJ6dMx/eDyO79WCVIz2z5jQ=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Content-Language: en-AU
In-Reply-To: <jegds5F500fU2@mid.individual.net>
 by: Xeno - Tue, 17 May 2022 05:25 UTC

On 17/5/2022 12:00 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 17/05/2022 11:43 am, Xeno wrote:
>> On 17/5/2022 10:21 am, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 17/05/2022 9:49 am, Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 16/5/2022 10:03 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Dunno, but in my books anything that comes out of a bottle that
>>>>> claims it protects valves and guides, and enables old fashioned
>>>>> clearing of fouled spark plugs isn't something I'd bother buying :)
>>>>
>>>> In the long run it would be cheaper to remove the head and modify to
>>>> better suit unleaded fuel.
>>>
>>> That's the only way to solve the problems associated with running
>>> unleaded fuel in an engine without hardened valve seats, as there are
>>> no "upper cylinder lubricant" solutions that will do what lead did.
>>>
>> An upper cylinder lubricant is designed to, well, lubricate the upper
>> cylinder and, hopefully, the valve guides. Not designed generally as
>> an octane enhancement unless it specifically states as much on the
>> packaging.
>>>
>>>>>> I also wonder if its possible to modify cars with old style
>>>>>> mechanical injection to run a modern EFI system, maybe with some
>>>>>> sort of adapter replace the old injectors with new type then an
>>>>>> aftermarket ECU such as a Haltech, you would also need some sort
>>>>>> of crank/cam position sensor plus lots of other wiring and fuel
>>>>>> plumbing but I can't see why it wouldn't work.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only thing stopping it from working would be the amount of time
>>>>> and money you were prepared to sink into it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Plenty of old cars such as MB and Porsche run mechanical injection
>>>>>> so I wasn't just thinking about the Triumph.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can get after-market kits to suit just about anything, or you
>>>>> can make your own hybrid version. I don't think it'd be at all
>>>>> difficult. The only question would be whether or not you wanted to.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Might be worth the effort on an old classic that was worth big money
>>>> but then you might ruin the originality.
>>>> I've seen what looked like side draft Webers on an old Jag engine
>>>> that were actually something like the Holley Sniper EFI system so
>>>> best of both worlds.
>>>
>>> That's one possible solution. Crafting something that looks original.
>>>
>>> An alternative is Toluene. It's been used for years as an anti knock
>>> additive for high compression engines running "pump fuel", it's still
>>> commonly available, is relatively cheap in large quantities and would
>>> work fine with any of today's unleaded fuels.
>>>
>>> There's also E85 and Premium 98 which will happily suit most classic
>>> cars these days.
>>
>> E85 does *not* suit classic cars. You should know this Darren, even
>> with having had an apprenticeship. Corrosion in the fuel system,
>> remember?
>>
>>
>
> even "without" having had an apprenticeship
>
Thank you for the follow-up correction.

Whatever was I thinking! Slaps self upside the head!

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<jegubuF7t91U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14649&group=aus.cars#14649

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: xenol...@optusnet.com.au (Xeno)
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 16:41:00 +1000
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <jegubuF7t91U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <je0ph4F59jmU1@mid.individual.net> <t5ffe9$rbf$2@dont-email.me>
<je11suF6ofaU1@mid.individual.net> <t5flol$2rh$1@dont-email.me>
<7kbu7hhdbb5qv0kctlms3mvog96i4f0isp@4ax.com> <t5nd2j$p9b$1@dont-email.me>
<uql08htt9hao4ao6b3jdjavke9fv0mn4bd@4ax.com> <t5ps1g$1oe$1@dont-email.me>
<35318hdu6e03ciha7mgst1tbj3ui7bieei@4ax.com> <t5q9tj$l6n$1@dont-email.me>
<vdu38h1iuioofe4nccotu8o87c8epu6qd3@4ax.com> <t5t9gs$1p0$1@dont-email.me>
<jef165Fra8cU1@mid.individual.net>
<v5p58hhtqm08igg6ttjgn4du7g37kg9h1e@4ax.com> <t5uqmt$h1p$1@dont-email.me>
<19exl7pst5mzm.bncqm15baahp$.dlg@40tude.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net ATQVwoJORkmcQ+wltUiwUwVmBsdgUBPqPgqq32BFuSjc2rs0Ux
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LmWyic98cVwc7tI3z5RJuu+odeI=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Content-Language: en-AU
In-Reply-To: <19exl7pst5mzm.bncqm15baahp$.dlg@40tude.net>
 by: Xeno - Tue, 17 May 2022 06:41 UTC

On 17/5/2022 12:59 pm, alvey wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2022 10:36:42 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>
>
>> And yet according to all the figures I can find anywhere, this was a car
>> that managed a zero to 60 time of 11 seconds, and 18.5 seconds over the
>> quarter mile.
>
> Speaking of old & slow things, (not Fraudster, a car), I'm restoring and
> colourising a friend's family album of 1950s photos. In it there's a couple
> of pix of a stylish little two seater sports car which I've identified as
> (probably) a Morgan 4/4 Series 1. Don't know what year, suspect the early
> 1950s, and what a beast! Top speed of 75mph and a 0-60mph time of a
> blistering 26s. I wonder if this is the slowest post 1945 'sports' car?
>
>
>
> alvey
>
If it was equipped with the 100E Ford side valve engine, it would
definitely take front running for the slowest post 45 sports car. Same
engine used in the 100E Ford Prefects and Anglias and they would have
been lucky to achieve 75 mph with a strong tail wind. Maybe the sports
car was lighter? Earlier engines were FW Coventry Climax 1100 cc and,
given they were OHC and alloy, were quite light and powerful - for the
day. Not much different either from the 875cc units used in the Hillman
Imps of the 60s. Hmm, the Imp too could have done with more cubes.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<cqb88hldcvqanrk28ufpjtfo4dk3iu4rfs@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14667&group=aus.cars#14667

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: john4...@hotmail.com (John_H)
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 09:56:01 +1000
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <cqb88hldcvqanrk28ufpjtfo4dk3iu4rfs@4ax.com>
References: <je11suF6ofaU1@mid.individual.net> <t5flol$2rh$1@dont-email.me> <7kbu7hhdbb5qv0kctlms3mvog96i4f0isp@4ax.com> <t5nd2j$p9b$1@dont-email.me> <uql08htt9hao4ao6b3jdjavke9fv0mn4bd@4ax.com> <t5ps1g$1oe$1@dont-email.me> <35318hdu6e03ciha7mgst1tbj3ui7bieei@4ax.com> <t5q9tj$l6n$1@dont-email.me> <vdu38h1iuioofe4nccotu8o87c8epu6qd3@4ax.com> <t5t9gs$1p0$1@dont-email.me> <jef165Fra8cU1@mid.individual.net> <v5p58hhtqm08igg6ttjgn4du7g37kg9h1e@4ax.com> <t5uqmt$h1p$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net eMATYx8b+hRs0U29zsP1CAJXZpn02NAogoI5pFd0+ugGqJ8gu3
Cancel-Lock: sha1:52GHYwE84ckslDydAJdA5ec/W8Q=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 220517-2, 5/17/2022), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
 by: John_H - Tue, 17 May 2022 23:56 UTC

Noddy wrote:
>On 17/05/2022 10:07 am, John_H wrote:
>
>> In spite of Noddy's lack of regard for anything more complicated than
>> an ancient F100 (or 1950s Triumph motorcycles) the Triumph PI was a
>> brilliant performer in its day and one of the greatest joys of owning
>> one was blowing knuckle draggers into weeds with what they perceived
>> to be a pommy shitbox. :)
>
>ROTFL :)
>
>And yet according to all the figures I can find anywhere, this was a car
>that managed a zero to 60 time of 11 seconds, and 18.5 seconds over the
>quarter mile. Wow. I can just imagine the endless stream of cars like
>Austin 1800's and HB Toranas you blew into the weeds with something as
>powerful as that :)

Now that's really is funny.

Somewhere deep in my filing system is a "Wheels" road test for the Mk1
PI when it was first released that gave it a low 16s quarter mile time
and 112mph top speed (I don't remember the 0-60 time). However ex
stock they were fitted with a rev limiter (evidenced by the 112
figure) which was easily disabled giving them a top speed of at least
130 and considerably more acceleration.

Toby claimed 140 for his modified Mk2 which is unsubstantiated but I
also knew a Mk 1 owner who was prosecuted for 130mph, supposedly timed
over a measured distance if the cops were telling the truth.

>As I said, I think you like to talk shit up and make excuses for the
>fact that your "Trumpy" was just another unreliable pommy shitbox like
>the rest of them :)

From the master of bullshit! Almost every claim you've made on this
topic has been wrong, spun or exaggerated.. The most recent being
that the manufacturers of Triumph cars and bikes were connected.

Then there's your original claim... *Thirdly, and probably most
comical of the lot, would be who the *fuck* "rallies* a Triumph 2500?
The fucking safety car would be quicker ." When in fact they were a
very successful rally car, even when they weren't backed by "works"
teams, which was most them. :)

And this gem... *They made world conquering bikes in their day, but
their cars were hopeless.*. One can but assume you once rode a
Triumph motorcycle that wasn't fast enough to frighten you (unlike an
RD350 Yamaha with an engine smaller than my wife's ride-on mower).

Plus numerous assertions, and red herrings, about a pioneering fuel
injection system about which you obviously have NFI.

--
John H

Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<jej010Fk32iU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14669&group=aus.cars#14669

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: xenol...@optusnet.com.au (Xeno)
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 11:21:34 +1000
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <jej010Fk32iU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <je11suF6ofaU1@mid.individual.net> <t5flol$2rh$1@dont-email.me>
<7kbu7hhdbb5qv0kctlms3mvog96i4f0isp@4ax.com> <t5nd2j$p9b$1@dont-email.me>
<uql08htt9hao4ao6b3jdjavke9fv0mn4bd@4ax.com> <t5ps1g$1oe$1@dont-email.me>
<35318hdu6e03ciha7mgst1tbj3ui7bieei@4ax.com> <t5q9tj$l6n$1@dont-email.me>
<vdu38h1iuioofe4nccotu8o87c8epu6qd3@4ax.com> <t5t9gs$1p0$1@dont-email.me>
<jef165Fra8cU1@mid.individual.net>
<v5p58hhtqm08igg6ttjgn4du7g37kg9h1e@4ax.com> <t5uqmt$h1p$1@dont-email.me>
<cqb88hldcvqanrk28ufpjtfo4dk3iu4rfs@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 9aMcGvkLbLZmRCgrBPSBvQSX3Sey1oYpODzxTaL0zEZJtf940K
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GWLYgw987Ss5P6P8gelgMWTofug=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Content-Language: en-AU
In-Reply-To: <cqb88hldcvqanrk28ufpjtfo4dk3iu4rfs@4ax.com>
 by: Xeno - Wed, 18 May 2022 01:21 UTC

On 18/5/2022 9:56 am, John_H wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 17/05/2022 10:07 am, John_H wrote:
>>
>>> In spite of Noddy's lack of regard for anything more complicated than
>>> an ancient F100 (or 1950s Triumph motorcycles) the Triumph PI was a
>>> brilliant performer in its day and one of the greatest joys of owning
>>> one was blowing knuckle draggers into weeds with what they perceived
>>> to be a pommy shitbox. :)
>>
>> ROTFL :)
>>
>> And yet according to all the figures I can find anywhere, this was a car
>> that managed a zero to 60 time of 11 seconds, and 18.5 seconds over the
>> quarter mile. Wow. I can just imagine the endless stream of cars like
>> Austin 1800's and HB Toranas you blew into the weeds with something as
>> powerful as that :)
>
> Now that's really is funny.
>
> Somewhere deep in my filing system is a "Wheels" road test for the Mk1
> PI when it was first released that gave it a low 16s quarter mile time
> and 112mph top speed (I don't remember the 0-60 time). However ex
> stock they were fitted with a rev limiter (evidenced by the 112
> figure) which was easily disabled giving them a top speed of at least
> 130 and considerably more acceleration.
>
> Toby claimed 140 for his modified Mk2 which is unsubstantiated but I
> also knew a Mk 1 owner who was prosecuted for 130mph, supposedly timed
> over a measured distance if the cops were telling the truth.
>
>> As I said, I think you like to talk shit up and make excuses for the
>> fact that your "Trumpy" was just another unreliable pommy shitbox like
>> the rest of them :)
>
> From the master of bullshit! Almost every claim you've made on this
> topic has been wrong, spun or exaggerated.. The most recent being
> that the manufacturers of Triumph cars and bikes were connected.
>
> Then there's your original claim... *Thirdly, and probably most
> comical of the lot, would be who the *fuck* "rallies* a Triumph 2500?
> The fucking safety car would be quicker ." When in fact they were a
> very successful rally car, even when they weren't backed by "works"
> teams, which was most them. :)
>
> And this gem... *They made world conquering bikes in their day, but
> their cars were hopeless.*. One can but assume you once rode a
> Triumph motorcycle that wasn't fast enough to frighten you (unlike an
> RD350 Yamaha with an engine smaller than my wife's ride-on mower).
>
> Plus numerous assertions, and red herrings, about a pioneering fuel
> injection system about which you obviously have NFI.
>
I think you have blown Darren into the weeds with something very
powerful, the truth. Thank you John for making my day!

Now please excuse me while I see if I can wipe this smug grin off my
face. ;-)

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<14wq4tgmzri8x$.18a0qeiuvsdgs$.dlg@40tude.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14671&group=aus.cars#14671

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: alv...@is.invalid (alvey)
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 11:36:26 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <14wq4tgmzri8x$.18a0qeiuvsdgs$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <je11suF6ofaU1@mid.individual.net> <t5flol$2rh$1@dont-email.me> <7kbu7hhdbb5qv0kctlms3mvog96i4f0isp@4ax.com> <t5nd2j$p9b$1@dont-email.me> <uql08htt9hao4ao6b3jdjavke9fv0mn4bd@4ax.com> <t5ps1g$1oe$1@dont-email.me> <35318hdu6e03ciha7mgst1tbj3ui7bieei@4ax.com> <t5q9tj$l6n$1@dont-email.me> <vdu38h1iuioofe4nccotu8o87c8epu6qd3@4ax.com> <t5t9gs$1p0$1@dont-email.me> <jef165Fra8cU1@mid.individual.net> <v5p58hhtqm08igg6ttjgn4du7g37kg9h1e@4ax.com> <t5uqmt$h1p$1@dont-email.me> <cqb88hldcvqanrk28ufpjtfo4dk3iu4rfs@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d03be789e5c97113c4cc4cd03b653692";
logging-data="25678"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Yyk7azAYE+w/D0MpClM5C"
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.84
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BZw/jAh0NyfjDEpTuoDulbuw38U=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 220517-2, 17/5/2022), Outbound message
 by: alvey - Wed, 18 May 2022 01:36 UTC

On Wed, 18 May 2022 09:56:01 +1000, John_H wrote:

> Noddy wrote:
>>On 17/05/2022 10:07 am, John_H wrote:
>>
>>> In spite of Noddy's lack of regard for anything more complicated than
>>> an ancient F100 (or 1950s Triumph motorcycles) the Triumph PI was a
>>> brilliant performer in its day and one of the greatest joys of owning
>>> one was blowing knuckle draggers into weeds with what they perceived
>>> to be a pommy shitbox. :)
>>
>>ROTFL :)
>>
>>And yet according to all the figures I can find anywhere, this was a car
>>that managed a zero to 60 time of 11 seconds, and 18.5 seconds over the
>>quarter mile. Wow. I can just imagine the endless stream of cars like
>>Austin 1800's and HB Toranas you blew into the weeds with something as
>>powerful as that :)
>
> Now that's really is funny.
>
> Somewhere deep in my filing system is a "Wheels" road test for the Mk1
> PI when it was first released that gave it a low 16s quarter mile time
> and 112mph top speed (I don't remember the 0-60 time). However ex
> stock they were fitted with a rev limiter (evidenced by the 112
> figure) which was easily disabled giving them a top speed of at least
> 130 and considerably more acceleration.
>
> Toby claimed 140 for his modified Mk2 which is unsubstantiated but I
> also knew a Mk 1 owner who was prosecuted for 130mph, supposedly timed
> over a measured distance if the cops were telling the truth.
>
>>As I said, I think you like to talk shit up and make excuses for the
>>fact that your "Trumpy" was just another unreliable pommy shitbox like
>>the rest of them :)
>
> From the master of bullshit! Almost every claim you've made on this
> topic has been wrong, spun or exaggerated.. The most recent being
> that the manufacturers of Triumph cars and bikes were connected.
>
> Then there's your original claim... *Thirdly, and probably most
> comical of the lot, would be who the *fuck* "rallies* a Triumph 2500?
> The fucking safety car would be quicker ." When in fact they were a
> very successful rally car, even when they weren't backed by "works"
> teams, which was most them. :)
>
> And this gem... *They made world conquering bikes in their day, but
> their cars were hopeless.*. One can but assume you once rode a
> Triumph motorcycle that wasn't fast enough to frighten you (unlike an
> RD350 Yamaha with an engine smaller than my wife's ride-on mower).
>
> Plus numerous assertions, and red herrings, about a pioneering fuel
> injection system about which you obviously have NFI.

How do you think you went here Fraudster?

I'd opine about par.

alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<jej2ghFkf99U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14672&group=aus.cars#14672

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: xenol...@optusnet.com.au (Xeno)
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 12:04:01 +1000
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <jej2ghFkf99U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <je11suF6ofaU1@mid.individual.net> <t5flol$2rh$1@dont-email.me>
<7kbu7hhdbb5qv0kctlms3mvog96i4f0isp@4ax.com> <t5nd2j$p9b$1@dont-email.me>
<uql08htt9hao4ao6b3jdjavke9fv0mn4bd@4ax.com> <t5ps1g$1oe$1@dont-email.me>
<35318hdu6e03ciha7mgst1tbj3ui7bieei@4ax.com> <t5q9tj$l6n$1@dont-email.me>
<vdu38h1iuioofe4nccotu8o87c8epu6qd3@4ax.com> <t5t9gs$1p0$1@dont-email.me>
<jef165Fra8cU1@mid.individual.net>
<v5p58hhtqm08igg6ttjgn4du7g37kg9h1e@4ax.com> <t5uqmt$h1p$1@dont-email.me>
<cqb88hldcvqanrk28ufpjtfo4dk3iu4rfs@4ax.com>
<14wq4tgmzri8x$.18a0qeiuvsdgs$.dlg@40tude.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 0ZC5j+Uc12qESsXmE9AuLAEVkuKVtJ9eLlOxDxX3I928VBWU2w
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gRJtKefbi9aqj2Zx6KbO3xA0IP0=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Content-Language: en-AU
In-Reply-To: <14wq4tgmzri8x$.18a0qeiuvsdgs$.dlg@40tude.net>
 by: Xeno - Wed, 18 May 2022 02:04 UTC

On 18/5/2022 11:36 am, alvey wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2022 09:56:01 +1000, John_H wrote:
>
>> Noddy wrote:
>>> On 17/05/2022 10:07 am, John_H wrote:
>>>
>>>> In spite of Noddy's lack of regard for anything more complicated than
>>>> an ancient F100 (or 1950s Triumph motorcycles) the Triumph PI was a
>>>> brilliant performer in its day and one of the greatest joys of owning
>>>> one was blowing knuckle draggers into weeds with what they perceived
>>>> to be a pommy shitbox. :)
>>>
>>> ROTFL :)
>>>
>>> And yet according to all the figures I can find anywhere, this was a car
>>> that managed a zero to 60 time of 11 seconds, and 18.5 seconds over the
>>> quarter mile. Wow. I can just imagine the endless stream of cars like
>>> Austin 1800's and HB Toranas you blew into the weeds with something as
>>> powerful as that :)
>>
>> Now that's really is funny.
>>
>> Somewhere deep in my filing system is a "Wheels" road test for the Mk1
>> PI when it was first released that gave it a low 16s quarter mile time
>> and 112mph top speed (I don't remember the 0-60 time). However ex
>> stock they were fitted with a rev limiter (evidenced by the 112
>> figure) which was easily disabled giving them a top speed of at least
>> 130 and considerably more acceleration.
>>
>> Toby claimed 140 for his modified Mk2 which is unsubstantiated but I
>> also knew a Mk 1 owner who was prosecuted for 130mph, supposedly timed
>> over a measured distance if the cops were telling the truth.
>>
>>> As I said, I think you like to talk shit up and make excuses for the
>>> fact that your "Trumpy" was just another unreliable pommy shitbox like
>>> the rest of them :)
>>
>> From the master of bullshit! Almost every claim you've made on this
>> topic has been wrong, spun or exaggerated.. The most recent being
>> that the manufacturers of Triumph cars and bikes were connected.
>>
>> Then there's your original claim... *Thirdly, and probably most
>> comical of the lot, would be who the *fuck* "rallies* a Triumph 2500?
>> The fucking safety car would be quicker ." When in fact they were a
>> very successful rally car, even when they weren't backed by "works"
>> teams, which was most them. :)
>>
>> And this gem... *They made world conquering bikes in their day, but
>> their cars were hopeless.*. One can but assume you once rode a
>> Triumph motorcycle that wasn't fast enough to frighten you (unlike an
>> RD350 Yamaha with an engine smaller than my wife's ride-on mower).
>>
>> Plus numerous assertions, and red herrings, about a pioneering fuel
>> injection system about which you obviously have NFI.
>
> How do you think you went here Fraudster?
>
> I'd opine about par.
>
I'd suggest backwards at a great rate of knots. Blown into the weeds!
>
>
>
> alvey
>
>

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<t61lj2$9d4$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14673&group=aus.cars#14673

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: me...@home.com (Noddy)
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 12:27:43 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 160
Message-ID: <t61lj2$9d4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <je11suF6ofaU1@mid.individual.net> <t5flol$2rh$1@dont-email.me>
<7kbu7hhdbb5qv0kctlms3mvog96i4f0isp@4ax.com> <t5nd2j$p9b$1@dont-email.me>
<uql08htt9hao4ao6b3jdjavke9fv0mn4bd@4ax.com> <t5ps1g$1oe$1@dont-email.me>
<35318hdu6e03ciha7mgst1tbj3ui7bieei@4ax.com> <t5q9tj$l6n$1@dont-email.me>
<vdu38h1iuioofe4nccotu8o87c8epu6qd3@4ax.com> <t5t9gs$1p0$1@dont-email.me>
<jef165Fra8cU1@mid.individual.net>
<v5p58hhtqm08igg6ttjgn4du7g37kg9h1e@4ax.com> <t5uqmt$h1p$1@dont-email.me>
<cqb88hldcvqanrk28ufpjtfo4dk3iu4rfs@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 02:27:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="50d02a272b502e4310989380d0a2414a";
logging-data="9636"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18UBsuCsZotXvKwKejE5sLM"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/68.12.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:H2kav1Dp8WHTvIN5uigsL/C6oWk=
In-Reply-To: <cqb88hldcvqanrk28ufpjtfo4dk3iu4rfs@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-AU
 by: Noddy - Wed, 18 May 2022 02:27 UTC

On 18/05/2022 9:56 am, John_H wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 17/05/2022 10:07 am, John_H wrote:
>>
>>> In spite of Noddy's lack of regard for anything more complicated than
>>> an ancient F100 (or 1950s Triumph motorcycles) the Triumph PI was a
>>> brilliant performer in its day and one of the greatest joys of owning
>>> one was blowing knuckle draggers into weeds with what they perceived
>>> to be a pommy shitbox. :)
>>
>> ROTFL :)
>>
>> And yet according to all the figures I can find anywhere, this was a car
>> that managed a zero to 60 time of 11 seconds, and 18.5 seconds over the
>> quarter mile. Wow. I can just imagine the endless stream of cars like
>> Austin 1800's and HB Toranas you blew into the weeds with something as
>> powerful as that :)
>
> Now that's really is funny.

Yeah, I though so as well.

> Somewhere deep in my filing system is a "Wheels" road test for the Mk1
> PI when it was first released that gave it a low 16s quarter mile time
> and 112mph top speed (I don't remember the 0-60 time).

Really? So it was as quick over the quarter mile as an XU1 Torana? A car
that was both lighter and more powerful than the 2500pi?

Yeah, sorry, but I'm not buying that. Not even close.

> However ex stock they were fitted with a rev limiter (evidenced by the 112
> figure) which was easily disabled giving them a top speed of at least
> 130 and considerably more acceleration.

Just out of curiosity, how did a rev limiter make them accelerate
slower? Did it cut in at 4000rpm or something?

> Toby claimed 140 for his modified Mk2 which is unsubstantiated

Yeah, and to be honest Toby claimed *lots* of things.

> but I also knew a Mk 1 owner who was prosecuted for 130mph, supposedly timed
> over a measured distance if the cops were telling the truth.

And it's not like such stories ever get talked up, right?

If you looked at a magazine road test for a ZC "T code" Fairlane you'll
see that they list the top speed at something like 113 miles per hour,
which is utterly ridiculous. Anyone who has driven on of the things can
tell you that they had no trouble at all winding the speedo off the
clock, due to the fact that it had *exactly* the same mechanical package
as an XW GT which could push the speedo to 135mph and the Fairlane was
exactly the same car with an extra 30kg on board.

Years ago you could hire a day at Calder park to do testing. Back in the
day you could pay 20 bucks or so and have access to the track for a day
to do whatever you wanted. There were no facilities set up, no timing or
safety equipment or staff and you would share the track with whoever
else turned up on the day, but you could use it to do what you needed to do.

On one such occasion I was there with some mates testing something or
other and we noticed a small group of blokes with some new car, and one
of them was Bill Tuckey (who I'm sure you know who he was). They were
doing 5th wheel performance tests of this car which if memory serves was
a turbo VL Commodore, with the only problem being that every time they
did the fifth wheel either didn't work or fell off, and in the end they
gave up "and went to the pub" as I overheard Tuckey state.

In the end they had no reliable figures of any kind but rather just
added whatever they felt like in the article to please the plebs which
in my opinion summed up motoring journalists in a nutshell.

Moral of the story is take whatever you read in magazines with a massive
grain of salt.

>> As I said, I think you like to talk shit up and make excuses for the
>> fact that your "Trumpy" was just another unreliable pommy shitbox like
>> the rest of them :)
>
> From the master of bullshit! Almost every claim you've made on this
> topic has been wrong, spun or exaggerated.. The most recent being
> that the manufacturers of Triumph cars and bikes were connected.
>
> Then there's your original claim... *Thirdly, and probably most
> comical of the lot, would be who the *fuck* "rallies* a Triumph 2500?
> The fucking safety car would be quicker ." When in fact they were a
> very successful rally car, even when they weren't backed by "works"
> teams, which was most them. :)

Riiight. So all those Triumph 2500pi's that were so fantastically
successful in the world's various rally events were completely stock and
not prepared for competition duty in any way. Is that it?

And you reckon *I'm* the master of bullshit :)

> And this gem... *They made world conquering bikes in their day, but
> their cars were hopeless.*. One can but assume you once rode a
> Triumph motorcycle that wasn't fast enough to frighten you (unlike an
> RD350 Yamaha with an engine smaller than my wife's ride-on mower).

Yep. I found the RD350 to a cunt of a thing. Brutal 2 stroke power band
on a chassis that was not much better than a Postie bike. Your mileage
may vary, but I never thought much of them. But then again I was never
much of a two stroke fan.

> Plus numerous assertions, and red herrings, about a pioneering fuel
> injection system about which you obviously have NFI.

Now now John. We all know what a foot stamping pissy pants you become
when people don't buy what you say as if it came down from the mount
written in stone :)

I made it *quite* clear that I have zero experience with the Lucas
injection system, and I never made assertions about it. In fact, what I
did was to ask you questions as to why it wouldn't run properly because
I couldn't understand how something that "advanced" could be so
ridiculously temperamental. I also couldn't understand how something you
describe as being brilliant was worth ever owning given the fragility of
them.

I suspected you were doing what a lot of people do in that you were
talking them up to cover their brittleness, and blaming their
unreliability on external things like "bad fuel". If that's your bag
then it's fine with me, but after having my interest piqued I looked
into them a little and found that the cars were indeed known to be
problematic and your views weren't shared by many others.

I found this page here to be a fairly objective read on the subject:

> https://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/triumph-2000-2500-mk2/

The long and short of it seems to be that the 2500pi was *never* a well
sorted car that suffered from reliability issues over it's entire life,
Triumph got sick of the injection system and reverted to carburetors
because they could never make the thing run properly.

If you object to that then that's fine with me, but that's my read of it
and it ties in with my belief that just about every British car of that
era was an unmitigated heap of shit that may have looked great on paper
but was a disaster in practice.

You liked them, and that's all that matters, right?

On the plus side, you'll have no end of new mates coming out to support
you on this, even if they have no fucking idea of what's being discussed
one way or the other. Just be thankful that this isn't facebook, as
you'd be swamped with friend requests from a bunch of spastics about now :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<jej5fiFl02fU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14675&group=aus.cars#14675

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: xenol...@optusnet.com.au (Xeno)
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 12:54:39 +1000
Lines: 191
Message-ID: <jej5fiFl02fU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <je11suF6ofaU1@mid.individual.net> <t5flol$2rh$1@dont-email.me>
<7kbu7hhdbb5qv0kctlms3mvog96i4f0isp@4ax.com> <t5nd2j$p9b$1@dont-email.me>
<uql08htt9hao4ao6b3jdjavke9fv0mn4bd@4ax.com> <t5ps1g$1oe$1@dont-email.me>
<35318hdu6e03ciha7mgst1tbj3ui7bieei@4ax.com> <t5q9tj$l6n$1@dont-email.me>
<vdu38h1iuioofe4nccotu8o87c8epu6qd3@4ax.com> <t5t9gs$1p0$1@dont-email.me>
<jef165Fra8cU1@mid.individual.net>
<v5p58hhtqm08igg6ttjgn4du7g37kg9h1e@4ax.com> <t5uqmt$h1p$1@dont-email.me>
<cqb88hldcvqanrk28ufpjtfo4dk3iu4rfs@4ax.com> <t61lj2$9d4$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net aqTLgsmxTm1CoaAIRD0lnw4RJtr/4t6d1xfDLMOe8jN18QOG4i
Cancel-Lock: sha1:u6I2sl4LP8CZwGYc3ZFvI/MuNoE=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Content-Language: en-AU
In-Reply-To: <t61lj2$9d4$1@dont-email.me>
 by: Xeno - Wed, 18 May 2022 02:54 UTC

On 18/5/2022 12:27 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/05/2022 9:56 am, John_H wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>>> On 17/05/2022 10:07 am, John_H wrote:
>>>
>>>> In spite of Noddy's lack of regard for anything more complicated than
>>>> an ancient F100 (or 1950s Triumph motorcycles) the Triumph PI was a
>>>> brilliant performer in its day and one of the greatest joys of owning
>>>> one was blowing knuckle draggers into weeds with what they perceived
>>>> to be a pommy shitbox.  :)
>>>
>>> ROTFL :)
>>>
>>> And yet according to all the figures I can find anywhere, this was a car
>>> that managed a zero to 60 time of 11 seconds, and 18.5 seconds over the
>>> quarter mile. Wow. I can just imagine the endless stream of cars like
>>> Austin 1800's and HB Toranas you blew into the weeds with something as
>>> powerful as that :)
>>
>> Now that's really is funny.
>
> Yeah, I though so as well.
>
>> Somewhere deep in my filing system is a "Wheels" road test for the Mk1
>> PI when it was first released that gave it a low 16s quarter mile time
>> and 112mph top speed (I don't remember the 0-60 time).
>
> Really? So it was as quick over the quarter mile as an XU1 Torana? A car
> that was both lighter and more powerful than the 2500pi?
>
> Yeah, sorry, but I'm not buying that. Not even close.
>
>> However ex stock they were fitted with a rev limiter (evidenced by the
>> 112
>> figure)  which was easily disabled giving them a top speed of at least
>> 130 and considerably more acceleration.
>
> Just out of curiosity, how did a rev limiter make them accelerate
> slower? Did it cut in at 4000rpm or something?
>
>> Toby claimed 140 for his modified Mk2 which is unsubstantiated
>
> Yeah, and to be honest Toby claimed *lots* of things.
>
>> but I also knew a Mk 1 owner who was prosecuted for 130mph, supposedly
>> timed
>> over a measured distance if the cops were telling the truth.
>
> And it's not like such stories ever get talked up, right?

Well, there are a lot of bullshit artists like you around - so there's that!
>
> If you looked at a magazine road test for a ZC "T code" Fairlane you'll
> see that they list the top speed at something like 113 miles per hour,

Irrelevant. The issue is the *triumph 2.5 PI*.

> which is utterly ridiculous. Anyone who has driven on of the things can
> tell you that they had no trouble at all winding the speedo off the

No one, with any seriousness, ever took a *speedometer reading* as gospel!

> clock, due to the fact that it had *exactly* the same mechanical package
> as an XW GT which could push the speedo to 135mph and the Fairlane was
> exactly the same car with an extra 30kg on board.
>
> Years ago you could hire a day at Calder park to do testing. Back in the
> day you could pay 20 bucks or so and have access to the track for a day
> to do whatever you wanted. There were no facilities set up, no timing or
> safety equipment or staff and you would share the track with whoever
> else turned up on the day, but you could use it to do what you needed to
> do.

Bullshit alert!
>
> On one such occasion I was there with some mates testing something or
> other and we noticed a small group of blokes with some new car, and one
> of them was Bill Tuckey (who I'm sure you know who he was). They were
> doing 5th wheel performance tests of this car which if memory serves was
> a turbo VL Commodore, with the only problem being that every time they
> did the fifth wheel either didn't work or fell off, and in the end they
> gave up "and went to the pub" as I overheard Tuckey state.

Bullshit alert!
>
> In the end they had no reliable figures of any kind but rather just
> added whatever they felt like in the article to please the plebs which
> in my opinion summed up motoring journalists in a nutshell.
>
> Moral of the story is take whatever you read in magazines with a massive
> grain of salt.

You and moral make poor bedfellows.
>
>>> As I said, I think you like to talk shit up and make excuses for the
>>> fact that your "Trumpy" was just another unreliable pommy shitbox like
>>> the rest of them :)
>>
>>  From the master of bullshit!  Almost every claim you've made on this
>> topic has been wrong, spun or exaggerated..  The most recent being
>> that the manufacturers of Triumph cars and bikes were connected.
>>
>> Then there's your original claim...  *Thirdly, and probably most
>> comical of the lot, would be who the *fuck* "rallies* a Triumph 2500?
>> The fucking safety car would be quicker ."  When in fact they were a
>> very successful rally car, even when they weren't backed by "works"
>> teams, which was most them.  :)
>
> Riiight. So all those Triumph 2500pi's that were so fantastically
> successful in the world's various rally events were completely stock and
> not prepared for competition duty in any way. Is that it?
>
> And you reckon *I'm* the master of bullshit :)

No Darren, *everyone* reckons you're the master of bullshit.
FFS, you *prove it* day after day after day!
>
>> And this gem... *They made world conquering bikes in their day, but
>> their cars were hopeless.*.  One can but assume you once rode a
>> Triumph motorcycle that wasn't fast enough to frighten you (unlike an
>> RD350 Yamaha with an engine smaller than my wife's ride-on mower).
>
> Yep. I found the RD350 to a cunt of a thing. Brutal 2 stroke power band
> on a chassis that was not much better than a Postie bike. Your mileage
> may vary, but I never thought much of them. But then again I was never
> much of a two stroke fan.
>
>> Plus numerous assertions, and red herrings, about a pioneering fuel
>> injection system about which you obviously have NFI.
>
> Now now John. We all know what a foot stamping pissy pants you become
> when people don't buy what you say as if it came down from the mount
> written in stone :)
>
> I made it *quite* clear that I have zero experience with the Lucas
> injection system, and I never made assertions about it. In fact, what I

You have zero *experience* with a lot of things automotive Darren, and
it shows.

> did was to ask you questions as to why it wouldn't run properly because
> I couldn't understand how something that "advanced" could be so
> ridiculously temperamental. I also couldn't understand how something you
> describe as being brilliant was worth ever owning given the fragility of
> them.
>
> I suspected you were doing what a lot of people do in that you were
> talking them up to cover their brittleness, and blaming their
> unreliability on external things like "bad fuel". If that's your bag
> then it's fine with me, but after having my interest piqued I looked
> into them a little and found that the cars were indeed known to be
> problematic and your views weren't shared by many others.
>
> I found this page here to be a fairly objective read on the subject:

HTF would you know it's *fairly objective* Darren? The concept of
*objective* is way beyond your ken. It's an abstract concept and you
haven't reached that stage yet, you're still in concrete, remember?
>
>> https://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/triumph-2000-2500-mk2/
>
> The long and short of it seems to be that the 2500pi was *never* a well
> sorted car that suffered from reliability issues over it's entire life,
> Triumph got sick of the injection system and reverted to carburetors
> because they could never make the thing run properly.
>
> If you object to that then that's fine with me, but that's my read of it
> and it ties in with my belief that just about every British car of that
> era was an unmitigated heap of shit that may have looked great on paper
> but was a disaster in practice.
>
> You liked them, and that's all that matters, right?
>
> On the plus side, you'll have no end of new mates coming out to support

This is where Darren begins to realise he has shit the bed and now he
has to *lie* in it.

> you on this, even if they have no fucking idea of what's being discussed
> one way or the other. Just be thankful that this isn't facebook, as
> you'd be swamped with friend requests from a bunch of spastics about now :)

Spastics like you Darren?

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<jejjr6FnhsuU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14678&group=aus.cars#14678

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: xenol...@optusnet.com.au (Xeno)
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 16:59:47 +1000
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <jejjr6FnhsuU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <je11suF6ofaU1@mid.individual.net> <t5flol$2rh$1@dont-email.me>
<7kbu7hhdbb5qv0kctlms3mvog96i4f0isp@4ax.com> <t5nd2j$p9b$1@dont-email.me>
<uql08htt9hao4ao6b3jdjavke9fv0mn4bd@4ax.com> <t5ps1g$1oe$1@dont-email.me>
<35318hdu6e03ciha7mgst1tbj3ui7bieei@4ax.com> <t5q9tj$l6n$1@dont-email.me>
<vdu38h1iuioofe4nccotu8o87c8epu6qd3@4ax.com> <t5t9gs$1p0$1@dont-email.me>
<jef165Fra8cU1@mid.individual.net>
<v5p58hhtqm08igg6ttjgn4du7g37kg9h1e@4ax.com> <t5uqmt$h1p$1@dont-email.me>
<cqb88hldcvqanrk28ufpjtfo4dk3iu4rfs@4ax.com> <t61lj2$9d4$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net W9Jd7lwyrafhpu3cNOjHwgvXhm3S8CUNdpE+cJzlUU5zECBs1W
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9YsPGWpCtaEB/9LoETReeXZpIig=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Content-Language: en-AU
In-Reply-To: <t61lj2$9d4$1@dont-email.me>
 by: Xeno - Wed, 18 May 2022 06:59 UTC

On 18/5/2022 12:27 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/05/2022 9:56 am, John_H wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:

>
> I found this page here to be a fairly objective read on the subject:
>
>> https://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/triumph-2000-2500-mk2/

Hmm, I read it and find your idea of *objectivity* to be somewhat short
of the mark. In fairness, I put that down to you never having left the
concrete stage when you entered your teen years.
>
> The long and short of it seems to be that the 2500pi was *never* a well
> sorted car that suffered from reliability issues over it's entire life,
> Triumph got sick of the injection system and reverted to carburetors
> because they could never make the thing run properly.

Funny how, in the comments, here and elsewhere, lots of people had no
trouble with the Lucas PI system. Do you, perchance, have a link to an
article based on *verifiable facts*? Hard ask, I know, since the word
*verifiable* seems to put the wind up you. Like when I ask you for your
*independently verifiable* trade qualifications numbers. Questions like
that give you the *runs*. And you do.
>
> If you object to that then that's fine with me, but that's my read of it
> and it ties in with my belief that just about every British car of that
> era was an unmitigated heap of shit that may have looked great on paper
> but was a disaster in practice.
>
> You liked them, and that's all that matters, right?

What does that have to do with anything?

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<afe4j7djknxn.z92zko5eum17$.dlg@40tude.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14679&group=aus.cars#14679

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: alv...@is.invalid (alvey)
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 17:19:04 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 136
Message-ID: <afe4j7djknxn.z92zko5eum17$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <je11suF6ofaU1@mid.individual.net> <t5flol$2rh$1@dont-email.me> <7kbu7hhdbb5qv0kctlms3mvog96i4f0isp@4ax.com> <t5nd2j$p9b$1@dont-email.me> <uql08htt9hao4ao6b3jdjavke9fv0mn4bd@4ax.com> <t5ps1g$1oe$1@dont-email.me> <35318hdu6e03ciha7mgst1tbj3ui7bieei@4ax.com> <t5q9tj$l6n$1@dont-email.me> <vdu38h1iuioofe4nccotu8o87c8epu6qd3@4ax.com> <t5t9gs$1p0$1@dont-email.me> <jef165Fra8cU1@mid.individual.net> <v5p58hhtqm08igg6ttjgn4du7g37kg9h1e@4ax.com> <t5uqmt$h1p$1@dont-email.me> <cqb88hldcvqanrk28ufpjtfo4dk3iu4rfs@4ax.com> <t61lj2$9d4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="big5"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="892fdcae50b59e526ea7c3b8c7913f0a";
logging-data="22232"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Wa5VuY3v40HzOpla6NjDA"
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.84
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6/IAfWyp/6l3MByMq2xONwTsa8c=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 220517-2, 17/5/2022), Outbound message
 by: alvey - Wed, 18 May 2022 07:19 UTC

On Wed, 18 May 2022 12:27:43 +1000, Noddy wrote:

> On 18/05/2022 9:56 am, John_H wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>>> On 17/05/2022 10:07 am, John_H wrote:
>>>
>>>> In spite of Noddy's lack of regard for anything more complicated than
>>>> an ancient F100 (or 1950s Triumph motorcycles) the Triumph PI was a
>>>> brilliant performer in its day and one of the greatest joys of owning
>>>> one was blowing knuckle draggers into weeds with what they perceived
>>>> to be a pommy shitbox. :)
>>>
>>> ROTFL :)
>>>
>>> And yet according to all the figures I can find anywhere, this was a car
>>> that managed a zero to 60 time of 11 seconds, and 18.5 seconds over the
>>> quarter mile. Wow. I can just imagine the endless stream of cars like
>>> Austin 1800's and HB Toranas you blew into the weeds with something as
>>> powerful as that :)
>>
>> Now that's really is funny.
>
> Yeah, I though so as well.
>
>> Somewhere deep in my filing system is a "Wheels" road test for the Mk1
>> PI when it was first released that gave it a low 16s quarter mile time
>> and 112mph top speed (I don't remember the 0-60 time).
>
> Really? So it was as quick over the quarter mile as an XU1 Torana? A car
> that was both lighter and more powerful than the 2500pi?
>
> Yeah, sorry, but I'm not buying that. Not even close.

Yet you expect people to believe your fairytales.
You are the Bumhole Inquisition Fraudster. "We have two weapons! Lies,
abuse and massive hypocrisy... *Threeee* weaponsss! Lies etc".
>
>> However ex stock they were fitted with a rev limiter (evidenced by the 112
>> figure) which was easily disabled giving them a top speed of at least
>> 130 and considerably more acceleration.
>
> Just out of curiosity, how did a rev limiter make them accelerate
> slower? Did it cut in at 4000rpm or something?
>
>> Toby claimed 140 for his modified Mk2 which is unsubstantiated
>
> Yeah, and to be honest Toby claimed *lots* of things.

Ummmmmm.

March on ANZAC Day do you Fraudster? You know. Because your old man "fought
in Korea".

>
>> but I also knew a Mk 1 owner who was prosecuted for 130mph, supposedly timed
>> over a measured distance if the cops were telling the truth.
>
> And it's not like such stories ever get talked up, right?

Like you converting the garage at your parents home into a fabulously
profitable workshop in the Slough Industrial Estate?
>
> If you looked at a magazine road test for a ZC "T code" Fairlane you'll
> see that they list the top speed at something like 113 miles per hour,

Fraudster! You remembered! I'm touched.
What the lying hypocrite is referring to here is when I called bullshit on
this...errr, bullshit.
“Travelling towards the city along the Westgate freeway at 130 miles per
hour in pissing down rain in a ZC Fairlane when the steering drag link
dropped off the idler arm…” Fraudster, 14Jul01

Amongst other reasons for the call was that Ford listed the top speed of
this bloated ugliness (the Failaine, not Fraudster), as 117mph when *new*.
"new" being a relevant fact as Ford stopped producing the hideous things
when Fraudster was seven.

> which is utterly ridiculous. Anyone who has driven on of the things can
> tell you that they had no trouble at all winding the speedo off the
> clock, due to the fact that it had *exactly* the same mechanical package
> as an XW GT which could push the speedo to 135mph

Really? The source I looked at said 118mph?
https://www.automobile-catalog.com/auta_details1.php
What's your source Fraudster?

> and the Fairlane was exactly the same car with an extra 30kg on board.

Again, my source says 120kg.

Anyhoo, why on earth would a manufacturer understate their cars top speed
by such a massive margin?

>
> Years ago you could hire a day at Calder park to do testing.

Here we go. The Convenient Anecdote makes its appearance.
> Back in the
> day you could pay 20 bucks or so and have access to the track for a day
> to do whatever you wanted. There were no facilities set up, no timing or
> safety equipment or staff and you would share the track with whoever
> else turned up on the day, but you could use it to do what you needed to do.
>
> On one such occasion I was there with some mates testing something or
> other and we noticed a small group of blokes with some new car, and one
> of them was Bill Tuckey (who I'm sure you know who he was). They were
> doing 5th wheel performance tests of this car which if memory serves was
> a turbo VL Commodore, with the only problem being that every time they
> did the fifth wheel either didn't work or fell off, and in the end they
> gave up "and went to the pub" as I overheard Tuckey state.

Uh huh. Sure you did Fraudster. I believe you. Honest.

> In the end they had no reliable figures of any kind but rather just
> added whatever they felt like in the article to please the plebs which
> in my opinion summed up motoring journalists in a nutshell.
>
> Moral of the story is take whatever you read in magazines with a massive
> grain of salt.

What a load of bullshit.

And you are not fit to lick Romsey Quints' tyres Gibbens.

snip remainder.
That's enough of your bullshit for me today.

alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<z8sodaolfb31.dx4mdoi8yiue$.dlg@40tude.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14680&group=aus.cars#14680

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: alv...@is.invalid (alvey)
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 17:40:26 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <z8sodaolfb31.dx4mdoi8yiue$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <je11suF6ofaU1@mid.individual.net> <t5flol$2rh$1@dont-email.me> <7kbu7hhdbb5qv0kctlms3mvog96i4f0isp@4ax.com> <t5nd2j$p9b$1@dont-email.me> <uql08htt9hao4ao6b3jdjavke9fv0mn4bd@4ax.com> <t5ps1g$1oe$1@dont-email.me> <35318hdu6e03ciha7mgst1tbj3ui7bieei@4ax.com> <t5q9tj$l6n$1@dont-email.me> <vdu38h1iuioofe4nccotu8o87c8epu6qd3@4ax.com> <t5t9gs$1p0$1@dont-email.me> <jef165Fra8cU1@mid.individual.net> <v5p58hhtqm08igg6ttjgn4du7g37kg9h1e@4ax.com> <t5uqmt$h1p$1@dont-email.me> <cqb88hldcvqanrk28ufpjtfo4dk3iu4rfs@4ax.com> <t61lj2$9d4$1@dont-email.me> <jej5fiFl02fU1@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="892fdcae50b59e526ea7c3b8c7913f0a";
logging-data="30572"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18qQScOdmGtl+5DVQyQT0ab"
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.84
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dzE87oVkwbWbUHgNdJZdH1Jjrvo=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 220518-0, 18/5/2022), Outbound message
 by: alvey - Wed, 18 May 2022 07:40 UTC

On Wed, 18 May 2022 12:54:39 +1000, Xeno wrote:

> On 18/5/2022 12:27 pm, Noddy wrote:

>>
>> In the end they had no reliable figures of any kind but rather just
>> added whatever they felt like in the article to please the plebs which
>> in my opinion summed up motoring journalists in a nutshell.
>>
>> Moral of the story is take whatever you read in magazines with a massive
>> grain of salt.
>
> You and moral make poor bedfellows.

It's tragic really. Fraudster, the secong biggest liars I've known (outside
politics), bleating that motoring journos, a breed who generally live & die
on their accuracy, aren't reliable, but he is!! As Romsey would have said,
"Jeeves. Bring me a large G & T!".

alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<t635j2$ec2$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14696&group=aus.cars#14696

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: notgo...@happen.com (Clocky)
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 00:06:52 +0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <t635j2$ec2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <je0ph4F59jmU1@mid.individual.net> <t5ffe9$rbf$2@dont-email.me>
<je11suF6ofaU1@mid.individual.net> <t5flol$2rh$1@dont-email.me>
<7kbu7hhdbb5qv0kctlms3mvog96i4f0isp@4ax.com> <t5nd2j$p9b$1@dont-email.me>
<uql08htt9hao4ao6b3jdjavke9fv0mn4bd@4ax.com> <t5ps1g$1oe$1@dont-email.me>
<35318hdu6e03ciha7mgst1tbj3ui7bieei@4ax.com> <t5q9tj$l6n$1@dont-email.me>
<vdu38h1iuioofe4nccotu8o87c8epu6qd3@4ax.com> <t5t9gs$1p0$1@dont-email.me>
<jef165Fra8cU1@mid.individual.net>
<v5p58hhtqm08igg6ttjgn4du7g37kg9h1e@4ax.com>
<jegco9F4qqiU1@mid.individual.net> <jegdocF500fU1@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 16:06:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5ac66d1c7e04d1a989063d6b51eeb171";
logging-data="14722"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ad+ePtBDBWlZnnGrkxFdY"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/68.5.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1fTpesD8g8I2RyCWARQUMnAXqK0=
In-Reply-To: <jegdocF500fU1@mid.individual.net>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Clocky - Wed, 18 May 2022 16:06 UTC

On 17/05/2022 9:57 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 17/05/2022 11:40 am, Xeno wrote:
>> On 17/5/2022 10:07 am, John_H wrote:
>>> Xeno wrote:
>>>> On 16/5/2022 8:37 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 16/05/2022 5:35 pm, John_H wrote:
>>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> John also said the fuel RON rating went *down* in the 80s.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right. So what you're saying *now* is that retarded the timing and
>>>>>>> *that* caused the thing to not run properly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seriously? Just exactly how temperamental *were* these things?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They were only temperamental for the ignorant dickheads who didn't
>>>>>> understand how the Lucas system operated... inlet vacuum being the
>>>>>> essential clue.
>>>>>
>>>>> So backing the timing off a couple of degrees to stop the things
>>>>> pinging
>>>>> killed them?
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't do anything for performance, that much is sure.
>>>
>>> Don't recall the exact figure but  by the time I parked it up it had
>>> to be backed off considerably more than a couple of degrees to prevent
>>
>> Yeah, even my old Marinas pinged on Super petrol in the 80s and 90s.
>> They were, IIRC, about 9:1 on the E Series engine.
>>
>>> pinging which also shifted the intake vacuum enough to upset the
>>> metering unit calibration.
>>
>> I knew the metering unit would be sensitive to engine vacuum but I
>> didn't realise it would be *that* sensitive. So, if the engine became
>> a bit worn with a subsequent reduction in engine vacuum, you would
>> also run the calibration off sufficiently. That might explain why they
>> *seemingly* gave trouble when getting the kilometres up on them.
>>>
>>> I could've gone down the Weber path, which some TR owners did, but it
>>> wasn't worth the expense for an already aging sedan and nor would I've
>>> enjoyed the decreased performance.  Milder cam would've been an even
>>> bigger hassle as I don't think anyone in this country was ever set up
>>> to recalibrate the metering units.  Nor do I have any particular
>>> interested in resurrecting machinery that's well past its practical
>>> use by date although I do appreciate seeing the efforts of those who
>>> do.
>>
>> Do you still have it?
>>
>> I too don't like resurrecting cars that are past their use by date. I
>> just fix them enough to use them. When cars are your bread and butter,
>> they are much less likely to become your hobby and my hobbies
>> definitely didn't include restoring or hotting up cars. A Japanese
>> girl, friend of our daughter, was most impressed by one of my ancient
>> Marinas. Remarked that she had never before in her life sat in a car
>> that was older than her.  ;-)
>>>
>>> In spite of Noddy's lack of regard for anything more complicated than
>>> an ancient F100 (or 1950s Triumph motorcycles) the Triumph PI was a
>>> brilliant performer in its day and one of the greatest joys of owning
>>
>> Joe loves his and would, I daresay, agree wholeheartedly with you.
>>
>>> one was blowing knuckle draggers into weeds with what they perceived
>>> to be a pommy shitbox.  :)
>>>
>> I used to like the Pommy stuff, even with all their faults. That said,
>> most of my cars were tame performers, Hillman Minxes, Minis, Marinas
>> and the like. Weren't blowing too many knuckle draggers into the weeds
>> with those. Had 21 Marinas between 1982 and 1995, cheap, easily
>> repaired and they got us through the hard times when interest rates
>> were 17.5%+ and we were a tad overcommitted. Actually, I sent the last
>> Marina off to the wreckers probably around 97 or 98.
>>
>
> our family car when I was growing up was a Hillman station wagon. it had
> the gear shift on the steering column.
>

So did my first car, a Renault 16TS. The family camper van was a manual
column shift. My last Commodore was column shift auto so I certainly
don't mind it.

I don't care much for pommy cars as they were generally unreliable and
slow heaps of shit bit I did see a restored Marina just last week at the
shops that looked tidy enough. If I see it again I'll take a photo, just
for Xeno :-)

Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<deta8hhu683bbes4rsc65vdp1lbh61laaa@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14710&group=aus.cars#14710

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: john4...@hotmail.com (John_H)
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 10:01:13 +1000
Lines: 226
Message-ID: <deta8hhu683bbes4rsc65vdp1lbh61laaa@4ax.com>
References: <7kbu7hhdbb5qv0kctlms3mvog96i4f0isp@4ax.com> <t5nd2j$p9b$1@dont-email.me> <uql08htt9hao4ao6b3jdjavke9fv0mn4bd@4ax.com> <t5ps1g$1oe$1@dont-email.me> <35318hdu6e03ciha7mgst1tbj3ui7bieei@4ax.com> <t5q9tj$l6n$1@dont-email.me> <vdu38h1iuioofe4nccotu8o87c8epu6qd3@4ax.com> <t5t9gs$1p0$1@dont-email.me> <jef165Fra8cU1@mid.individual.net> <v5p58hhtqm08igg6ttjgn4du7g37kg9h1e@4ax.com> <t5uqmt$h1p$1@dont-email.me> <cqb88hldcvqanrk28ufpjtfo4dk3iu4rfs@4ax.com> <t61lj2$9d4$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net VnTqwrDtVQQm1RCHWklE0AZjUKcxyQ/viny6ggPfzh3JC/8f2h
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NRC2xqAHSwX4IFq5nqZb1bhtRa4=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 220518-4, 5/19/2022), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
 by: John_H - Thu, 19 May 2022 00:01 UTC

Noddy wrote:
>On 18/05/2022 9:56 am, John_H wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>>> On 17/05/2022 10:07 am, John_H wrote:
>>>
>>>> In spite of Noddy's lack of regard for anything more complicated than
>>>> an ancient F100 (or 1950s Triumph motorcycles) the Triumph PI was a
>>>> brilliant performer in its day and one of the greatest joys of owning
>>>> one was blowing knuckle draggers into weeds with what they perceived
>>>> to be a pommy shitbox. :)
>>>
>>> ROTFL :)
>>>
>>> And yet according to all the figures I can find anywhere, this was a car
>>> that managed a zero to 60 time of 11 seconds, and 18.5 seconds over the
>>> quarter mile. Wow. I can just imagine the endless stream of cars like
>>> Austin 1800's and HB Toranas you blew into the weeds with something as
>>> powerful as that :)
>>
>> Now that's really is funny.
>
>Yeah, I though so as well.
>
>> Somewhere deep in my filing system is a "Wheels" road test for the Mk1
>> PI when it was first released that gave it a low 16s quarter mile time
>> and 112mph top speed (I don't remember the 0-60 time).
>
>Really? So it was as quick over the quarter mile as an XU1 Torana? A car
>that was both lighter and more powerful than the 2500pi?

Nice try. You're no doubt referring to the limited production
Bathurst XU1, a factory special and race winner that came out four
years after the PI. A mate had one and it was indeed quicker than the
PI, provided it stayed on the bitumen. Noisy and harsh riding it
would've also been a hopeless rally car... Xeno's mate's PI would've
pissed all over it in a rally environment. Mine also had a
competition licence and IIRC new sales were restricted to competition
licence holders. The standard production XU1 was an absolute slug.
>
>Yeah, sorry, but I'm not buying that. Not even close.

Who'd think otherwise?

>> However ex stock they were fitted with a rev limiter (evidenced by the 112
>> figure) which was easily disabled giving them a top speed of at least
>> 130 and considerably more acceleration.
>
>Just out of curiosity, how did a rev limiter make them accelerate
>slower? Did it cut in at 4000rpm or something?

The fact that the rev limiter cut in below max bhp revs probably had
something to do with it!
>
>> Toby claimed 140 for his modified Mk2 which is unsubstantiated
>
>Yeah, and to be honest Toby claimed *lots* of things.

*Honest* being the essential difference between him and you!
>
>> but I also knew a Mk 1 owner who was prosecuted for 130mph, supposedly timed
>> over a measured distance if the cops were telling the truth.
>
>And it's not like such stories ever get talked up, right?

I didn't go to court with him if that's what you mean but I did know
both him and the PI well enough to believe it!

>If you looked at a magazine road test for a ZC "T code" Fairlane you'll
>see that they list the top speed at something like 113 miles per hour,
>which is utterly ridiculous. Anyone who has driven on of the things can
>tell you that they had no trouble at all winding the speedo off the
>clock, due to the fact that it had *exactly* the same mechanical package
>as an XW GT which could push the speedo to 135mph and the Fairlane was
>exactly the same car with an extra 30kg on board.

Knowing nothing about the Fairlane I'm even tempted to believe you
where thousands of others wouldn't.

>Years ago you could hire a day at Calder park to do testing. Back in the
>day you could pay 20 bucks or so and have access to the track for a day
>to do whatever you wanted. There were no facilities set up, no timing or
>safety equipment or staff and you would share the track with whoever
>else turned up on the day, but you could use it to do what you needed to do.
>
>On one such occasion I was there with some mates testing something or
>other and we noticed a small group of blokes with some new car, and one
>of them was Bill Tuckey (who I'm sure you know who he was). They were
>doing 5th wheel performance tests of this car which if memory serves was
>a turbo VL Commodore, with the only problem being that every time they
>did the fifth wheel either didn't work or fell off, and in the end they
>gave up "and went to the pub" as I overheard Tuckey state.
>
>In the end they had no reliable figures of any kind but rather just
>added whatever they felt like in the article to please the plebs which
>in my opinion summed up motoring journalists in a nutshell.
>
>Moral of the story is take whatever you read in magazines with a massive
>grain of salt.

Especially when it disagrees with your ever so humble opinion. :)
>
>>> As I said, I think you like to talk shit up and make excuses for the
>>> fact that your "Trumpy" was just another unreliable pommy shitbox like
>>> the rest of them :)
>>
>> From the master of bullshit! Almost every claim you've made on this
>> topic has been wrong, spun or exaggerated.. The most recent being
>> that the manufacturers of Triumph cars and bikes were connected.
>>
>> Then there's your original claim... *Thirdly, and probably most
>> comical of the lot, would be who the *fuck* "rallies* a Triumph 2500?
>> The fucking safety car would be quicker ." When in fact they were a
>> very successful rally car, even when they weren't backed by "works"
>> teams, which was most them. :)
>
>Riiight. So all those Triumph 2500pi's that were so fantastically
>successful in the world's various rally events were completely stock and
>not prepared for competition duty in any way. Is that it?

You might need to ask Xeno's mate but I've never seen a factory works
team prepared PI or know anyone who's owned one. Dealership backing
(cars and bikes) is a close as I ever got.
>
>And you reckon *I'm* the master of bullshit :)

And you're still at it!

>> And this gem... *They made world conquering bikes in their day, but
>> their cars were hopeless.*. One can but assume you once rode a
>> Triumph motorcycle that wasn't fast enough to frighten you (unlike an
>> RD350 Yamaha with an engine smaller than my wife's ride-on mower).
>
>Yep. I found the RD350 to a cunt of a thing. Brutal 2 stroke power band
>on a chassis that was not much better than a Postie bike. Your mileage
>may vary, but I never thought much of them. But then again I was never
>much of a two stroke fan.

That's really strange since they were based on Yamaha's tr3 factory
racer (the one that dispatched the Manx Norton to the history books).
I always found mine equally at home on the street or the racetrack but
it certainly wasn't a touring bike. They were especially finicky to
tune so maybe yours had a sick engine and a bent frame!

>> Plus numerous assertions, and red herrings, about a pioneering fuel
>> injection system about which you obviously have NFI.
>
>Now now John. We all know what a foot stamping pissy pants you become
>when people don't buy what you say as if it came down from the mount
>written in stone :)

Pot, kettle! You being the one who spat the dummy when Paul Saccani
(sp) called your bluff.

>I made it *quite* clear that I have zero experience with the Lucas
>injection system, and I never made assertions about it. In fact, what I
>did was to ask you questions as to why it wouldn't run properly because
>I couldn't understand how something that "advanced" could be so
>ridiculously temperamental. I also couldn't understand how something you
>describe as being brilliant was worth ever owning given the fragility of
>them.

And disputed every answer you got. Nor were they particularly
temperamental or fragile, as you keep insisting in spite of your
admitted lack of experience.

>I suspected you were doing what a lot of people do in that you were
>talking them up to cover their brittleness, and blaming their
>unreliability on external things like "bad fuel". If that's your bag
>then it's fine with me, but after having my interest piqued I looked
>into them a little and found that the cars were indeed known to be
>problematic and your views weren't shared by many others.
>
>I found this page here to be a fairly objective read on the subject:
>
>> https://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/triumph-2000-2500-mk2/

Yep (no doubt written by a motoring journo), I read it and found
nothing to contradict anything I've said here!

>The long and short of it seems to be that the 2500pi was *never* a well
>sorted car that suffered from reliability issues over it's entire life,
>Triumph got sick of the injection system and reverted to carburetors
>because they could never make the thing run properly.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<16u9ey88xppka.hehgtzbm15df.dlg@40tude.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14716&group=aus.cars#14716

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: alv...@is.invalid (alvey)
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 11:39:44 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <16u9ey88xppka.hehgtzbm15df.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <7kbu7hhdbb5qv0kctlms3mvog96i4f0isp@4ax.com> <t5nd2j$p9b$1@dont-email.me> <uql08htt9hao4ao6b3jdjavke9fv0mn4bd@4ax.com> <t5ps1g$1oe$1@dont-email.me> <35318hdu6e03ciha7mgst1tbj3ui7bieei@4ax.com> <t5q9tj$l6n$1@dont-email.me> <vdu38h1iuioofe4nccotu8o87c8epu6qd3@4ax.com> <t5t9gs$1p0$1@dont-email.me> <jef165Fra8cU1@mid.individual.net> <v5p58hhtqm08igg6ttjgn4du7g37kg9h1e@4ax.com> <t5uqmt$h1p$1@dont-email.me> <cqb88hldcvqanrk28ufpjtfo4dk3iu4rfs@4ax.com> <t61lj2$9d4$1@dont-email.me> <deta8hhu683bbes4rsc65vdp1lbh61laaa@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="6f3e0a25ebd70d35d5a05d96fba10d3d";
logging-data="12276"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/F820U+A9pWTn3mgwN0CWi"
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.84
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+1UYvQaik5PeLIAS4g2MC4327no=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 220518-4, 19/5/2022), Outbound message
 by: alvey - Thu, 19 May 2022 01:39 UTC

On Thu, 19 May 2022 10:01:13 +1000, John_H wrote:

> Noddy wrote:

snip R rated massacre
>
> And you'll have absolutely none. Truth being in your attempt to
> undermine Xeno's credibility you've made a complete fool of yourself
> with you being the only one who can't see it (or maybe Daryl's still
> thinking about it)! :)

That's a keeper.
Although it's not just "attempting to undermine Xeno's credibility" where
the Fraudster has made a fool of himself. I would have put telling great
big lies as #1. Then there's being an abusive hypocrite & coward...
>
>>Just be thankful that this isn't facebook, as
>>you'd be swamped with friend requests from a bunch of spastics about now :)
>
> With this NG being the closest I ever get to social media. Pity it's
> been populated by shit slingers who're far more interested in scoring
> a direct hit than anything resembling informed discussion.

Yep. Loonsey, Deryl & Gumps should be ashamed of themselves...

alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<jelmk4F59i9U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14717&group=aus.cars#14717

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: dwalf...@westpine.com.au (Daryl)
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 11:59:29 +1000
Lines: 243
Message-ID: <jelmk4F59i9U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <7kbu7hhdbb5qv0kctlms3mvog96i4f0isp@4ax.com>
<t5nd2j$p9b$1@dont-email.me> <uql08htt9hao4ao6b3jdjavke9fv0mn4bd@4ax.com>
<t5ps1g$1oe$1@dont-email.me> <35318hdu6e03ciha7mgst1tbj3ui7bieei@4ax.com>
<t5q9tj$l6n$1@dont-email.me> <vdu38h1iuioofe4nccotu8o87c8epu6qd3@4ax.com>
<t5t9gs$1p0$1@dont-email.me> <jef165Fra8cU1@mid.individual.net>
<v5p58hhtqm08igg6ttjgn4du7g37kg9h1e@4ax.com> <t5uqmt$h1p$1@dont-email.me>
<cqb88hldcvqanrk28ufpjtfo4dk3iu4rfs@4ax.com> <t61lj2$9d4$1@dont-email.me>
<deta8hhu683bbes4rsc65vdp1lbh61laaa@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net utnv11YHLgVDueYLYG6sighzw7XMDsMReZFZ18pu4ep0WkYlI4
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bCBSVq9Y/iT/S6s5QRbkQNIH9gA=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <deta8hhu683bbes4rsc65vdp1lbh61laaa@4ax.com>
 by: Daryl - Thu, 19 May 2022 01:59 UTC

On 19/5/2022 10:01 am, John_H wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 18/05/2022 9:56 am, John_H wrote:
>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 17/05/2022 10:07 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In spite of Noddy's lack of regard for anything more complicated than
>>>>> an ancient F100 (or 1950s Triumph motorcycles) the Triumph PI was a
>>>>> brilliant performer in its day and one of the greatest joys of owning
>>>>> one was blowing knuckle draggers into weeds with what they perceived
>>>>> to be a pommy shitbox. :)
>>>>
>>>> ROTFL :)
>>>>
>>>> And yet according to all the figures I can find anywhere, this was a car
>>>> that managed a zero to 60 time of 11 seconds, and 18.5 seconds over the
>>>> quarter mile. Wow. I can just imagine the endless stream of cars like
>>>> Austin 1800's and HB Toranas you blew into the weeds with something as
>>>> powerful as that :)
>>>
>>> Now that's really is funny.
>>
>> Yeah, I though so as well.
>>
>>> Somewhere deep in my filing system is a "Wheels" road test for the Mk1
>>> PI when it was first released that gave it a low 16s quarter mile time
>>> and 112mph top speed (I don't remember the 0-60 time).
>>
>> Really? So it was as quick over the quarter mile as an XU1 Torana? A car
>> that was both lighter and more powerful than the 2500pi?
>
> Nice try. You're no doubt referring to the limited production
> Bathurst XU1, a factory special and race winner that came out four
> years after the PI. A mate had one and it was indeed quicker than the
> PI, provided it stayed on the bitumen. Noisy and harsh riding it
> would've also been a hopeless rally car... Xeno's mate's PI would've
> pissed all over it in a rally environment. Mine also had a
> competition licence and IIRC new sales were restricted to competition
> licence holders. The standard production XU1 was an absolute slug.
>>
>> Yeah, sorry, but I'm not buying that. Not even close.
>
> Who'd think otherwise?
>
>>> However ex stock they were fitted with a rev limiter (evidenced by the 112
>>> figure) which was easily disabled giving them a top speed of at least
>>> 130 and considerably more acceleration.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, how did a rev limiter make them accelerate
>> slower? Did it cut in at 4000rpm or something?
>
> The fact that the rev limiter cut in below max bhp revs probably had
> something to do with it!
>>
>>> Toby claimed 140 for his modified Mk2 which is unsubstantiated
>>
>> Yeah, and to be honest Toby claimed *lots* of things.
>
> *Honest* being the essential difference between him and you!
>>
>>> but I also knew a Mk 1 owner who was prosecuted for 130mph, supposedly timed
>>> over a measured distance if the cops were telling the truth.
>>
>> And it's not like such stories ever get talked up, right?
>
> I didn't go to court with him if that's what you mean but I did know
> both him and the PI well enough to believe it!
>
>> If you looked at a magazine road test for a ZC "T code" Fairlane you'll
>> see that they list the top speed at something like 113 miles per hour,
>> which is utterly ridiculous. Anyone who has driven on of the things can
>> tell you that they had no trouble at all winding the speedo off the
>> clock, due to the fact that it had *exactly* the same mechanical package
>> as an XW GT which could push the speedo to 135mph and the Fairlane was
>> exactly the same car with an extra 30kg on board.
>
> Knowing nothing about the Fairlane I'm even tempted to believe you
> where thousands of others wouldn't.
>
>> Years ago you could hire a day at Calder park to do testing. Back in the
>> day you could pay 20 bucks or so and have access to the track for a day
>> to do whatever you wanted. There were no facilities set up, no timing or
>> safety equipment or staff and you would share the track with whoever
>> else turned up on the day, but you could use it to do what you needed to do.
>>
>> On one such occasion I was there with some mates testing something or
>> other and we noticed a small group of blokes with some new car, and one
>> of them was Bill Tuckey (who I'm sure you know who he was). They were
>> doing 5th wheel performance tests of this car which if memory serves was
>> a turbo VL Commodore, with the only problem being that every time they
>> did the fifth wheel either didn't work or fell off, and in the end they
>> gave up "and went to the pub" as I overheard Tuckey state.
>>
>> In the end they had no reliable figures of any kind but rather just
>> added whatever they felt like in the article to please the plebs which
>> in my opinion summed up motoring journalists in a nutshell.
>>
>> Moral of the story is take whatever you read in magazines with a massive
>> grain of salt.
>
> Especially when it disagrees with your ever so humble opinion. :)
>>
>>>> As I said, I think you like to talk shit up and make excuses for the
>>>> fact that your "Trumpy" was just another unreliable pommy shitbox like
>>>> the rest of them :)
>>>
>>> From the master of bullshit! Almost every claim you've made on this
>>> topic has been wrong, spun or exaggerated.. The most recent being
>>> that the manufacturers of Triumph cars and bikes were connected.
>>>
>>> Then there's your original claim... *Thirdly, and probably most
>>> comical of the lot, would be who the *fuck* "rallies* a Triumph 2500?
>>> The fucking safety car would be quicker ." When in fact they were a
>>> very successful rally car, even when they weren't backed by "works"
>>> teams, which was most them. :)
>>
>> Riiight. So all those Triumph 2500pi's that were so fantastically
>> successful in the world's various rally events were completely stock and
>> not prepared for competition duty in any way. Is that it?
>
> You might need to ask Xeno's mate but I've never seen a factory works
> team prepared PI or know anyone who's owned one. Dealership backing
> (cars and bikes) is a close as I ever got.
>>
>> And you reckon *I'm* the master of bullshit :)
>
> And you're still at it!
>
>>> And this gem... *They made world conquering bikes in their day, but
>>> their cars were hopeless.*. One can but assume you once rode a
>>> Triumph motorcycle that wasn't fast enough to frighten you (unlike an
>>> RD350 Yamaha with an engine smaller than my wife's ride-on mower).
>>
>> Yep. I found the RD350 to a cunt of a thing. Brutal 2 stroke power band
>> on a chassis that was not much better than a Postie bike. Your mileage
>> may vary, but I never thought much of them. But then again I was never
>> much of a two stroke fan.
>
> That's really strange since they were based on Yamaha's tr3 factory
> racer (the one that dispatched the Manx Norton to the history books).
> I always found mine equally at home on the street or the racetrack but
> it certainly wasn't a touring bike. They were especially finicky to
> tune so maybe yours had a sick engine and a bent frame!
>
>>> Plus numerous assertions, and red herrings, about a pioneering fuel
>>> injection system about which you obviously have NFI.
>>
>> Now now John. We all know what a foot stamping pissy pants you become
>> when people don't buy what you say as if it came down from the mount
>> written in stone :)
>
> Pot, kettle! You being the one who spat the dummy when Paul Saccani
> (sp) called your bluff.
>
>> I made it *quite* clear that I have zero experience with the Lucas
>> injection system, and I never made assertions about it. In fact, what I
>> did was to ask you questions as to why it wouldn't run properly because
>> I couldn't understand how something that "advanced" could be so
>> ridiculously temperamental. I also couldn't understand how something you
>> describe as being brilliant was worth ever owning given the fragility of
>> them.
>
> And disputed every answer you got. Nor were they particularly
> temperamental or fragile, as you keep insisting in spite of your
> admitted lack of experience.
>
>> I suspected you were doing what a lot of people do in that you were
>> talking them up to cover their brittleness, and blaming their
>> unreliability on external things like "bad fuel". If that's your bag
>> then it's fine with me, but after having my interest piqued I looked
>> into them a little and found that the cars were indeed known to be
>> problematic and your views weren't shared by many others.
>>
>> I found this page here to be a fairly objective read on the subject:
>>
>>> https://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/triumph-2000-2500-mk2/
>
> Yep (no doubt written by a motoring journo), I read it and found
> nothing to contradict anything I've said here!
>
>> The long and short of it seems to be that the 2500pi was *never* a well
>> sorted car that suffered from reliability issues over it's entire life,
>> Triumph got sick of the injection system and reverted to carburetors
>> because they could never make the thing run properly.
>
> That's complete bullshit... you're reading into your own cite
> something that isn't there. They never reverted any of the PI models
> to carburettors. On reflection the Lucas system was dropped because
> it couldn't meet US emission standards... the US being a significant
> export market for the the TR6, which was dropped after 1974. All of
> the 2000, 2500TC models were also dropped from the lineup around the
> same time. Last performance Triumph to be develloped and marketed (by
> British Leyland) was the Dolomite Sprint which was also a very quick
> car while it ran but with which I've had no experience whatsoever.
> IMHO British Leyland were the ones who stuffed the entire British
> motor industry and I've always kept well away from anything they
> created..
>
>> If you object to that then that's fine with me, but that's my read of it
>> and it ties in with my belief that just about every British car of that
>> era was an unmitigated heap of shit that may have looked great on paper
>> but was a disaster in practice.
>>
>> You liked them, and that's all that matters, right?
>
> Sure I liked the two I've owned! I also thought the ony Fords I've
> ever owned (and my old man before me) were piles of junk. So what?


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<t649fd$ml6$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14719&group=aus.cars#14719

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: me...@home.com (Noddy)
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 12:19:23 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 319
Message-ID: <t649fd$ml6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <7kbu7hhdbb5qv0kctlms3mvog96i4f0isp@4ax.com>
<t5nd2j$p9b$1@dont-email.me> <uql08htt9hao4ao6b3jdjavke9fv0mn4bd@4ax.com>
<t5ps1g$1oe$1@dont-email.me> <35318hdu6e03ciha7mgst1tbj3ui7bieei@4ax.com>
<t5q9tj$l6n$1@dont-email.me> <vdu38h1iuioofe4nccotu8o87c8epu6qd3@4ax.com>
<t5t9gs$1p0$1@dont-email.me> <jef165Fra8cU1@mid.individual.net>
<v5p58hhtqm08igg6ttjgn4du7g37kg9h1e@4ax.com> <t5uqmt$h1p$1@dont-email.me>
<cqb88hldcvqanrk28ufpjtfo4dk3iu4rfs@4ax.com> <t61lj2$9d4$1@dont-email.me>
<deta8hhu683bbes4rsc65vdp1lbh61laaa@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 02:19:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="1b0d82a1c18ff30d246282dc0e76dc99";
logging-data="23206"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+sea/RZ2b+B3yQJwjeP2PR"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.7.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2MqvoSlfJtbrerv09+PVOHKTm9c=
In-Reply-To: <deta8hhu683bbes4rsc65vdp1lbh61laaa@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-AU
 by: Noddy - Thu, 19 May 2022 02:19 UTC

On 19/05/2022 10:01 am, John_H wrote:
> Noddy wrote:

>>> Somewhere deep in my filing system is a "Wheels" road test for
>>> the Mk1 PI when it was first released that gave it a low 16s
>>> quarter mile time and 112mph top speed (I don't remember the 0-60
>>> time).
>>
>> Really? So it was as quick over the quarter mile as an XU1 Torana?
>> A car that was both lighter and more powerful than the 2500pi?
>
> Nice try.

Nothing nice about it. It's reality.

> You're no doubt referring to the limited production Bathurst XU1, a
> factory special and race winner that came out four years after the
> PI.

Actually I was referring to the XU1 as a case in point of a car that
turned in 16 second quarter mile times irrespective of when it was made
or what it was made for, and how the Triumph 2500pi had no hope in hell
of being as quick despite what you remember some magazine article as
reporting.

> A mate had one and it was indeed quicker than the PI, provided it
> stayed on the bitumen. Noisy and harsh riding it would've also been
> a hopeless rally car... Xeno's mate's PI would've pissed all over it
> in a rally environment.

Riiight. Yeah, I don't think so. Sounds a hell of a lot like you're
talking out of your arse for the sake of it here. Either that or you're
not anywhere near as well informed as you like to make yourself out to be.

I would suggest you do some research. If you did you'd find that the GTR
XU1 Torana absolutely *dominated* the Australian Rally Championship in
the years it competed in the event, winning the title three years in
succession between 1971 and 1973. in '71 and '72 at the hands of Colin
Bond, and in '73 at the hands of Peter Lang. The only time a Triumph
2500pi managed to make it into the placings during those events was in
two rounds during the 1973 season where one finished down the ranks a
long way behind a XU1's.

I would think it would be reasonable in today's world to assume that if
the same field of cars was to be run today that history would indeed
repeat itself.

> Mine also had a competition licence and IIRC new sales were
> restricted to competition licence holders.

What? You needed a "competition licence" to buy a car that weighed
1250kg and made 135hp? That's a lower power to weight ratio of a
standard LJ Torana with a single stromberg 202 and a three on the tree.

What are you smoking? :)

> The standard production XU1 was an absolute slug.

Which tells me you've never been within cooee of one.

>> Yeah, sorry, but I'm not buying that. Not even close.
>
> Who'd think otherwise?

Clearly you, and the more you comment on the subject the more fanciful
your comments become.

>>> However ex stock they were fitted with a rev limiter (evidenced
>>> by the 112 figure) which was easily disabled giving them a top
>>> speed of at least 130 and considerably more acceleration.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, how did a rev limiter make them accelerate
>> slower? Did it cut in at 4000rpm or something?
>
> The fact that the rev limiter cut in below max bhp revs probably had
> something to do with it!

I see. So, the powers that be at Triumph put this rev limiter on because
they were concerned people without a "competition licence" were likely
to kill themselves with the massive amounts of power this thing had on
hand, or is it more likely that given the engine had an
uncounterweighted crankshaft that looked like something out of a Grey
motor they were worried people were going to blow it up?

>> Yeah, and to be honest Toby claimed *lots* of things.
>
> *Honest* being the essential difference between him and you!

Hahaha :)

Toby was the greatest tin foil hat wearing nutbag this group has ever
known :)

>> but I also knew a Mk 1 owner who was prosecuted for 130mph,
>> supposedly timed
>>> over a measured distance if the cops were telling the truth.
>>
>> And it's not like such stories ever get talked up, right?
>
> I didn't go to court with him if that's what you mean but I did know
> both him and the PI well enough to believe it!

I have no doubt that you do. People are often wont to believe whatever
they like if it reinforces their own theories.

>> Riiight. So all those Triumph 2500pi's that were so fantastically
>> successful in the world's various rally events were completely
>> stock and not prepared for competition duty in any way. Is that
>> it?
>
> You might need to ask Xeno's mate but I've never seen a factory
> works team prepared PI or know anyone who's owned one. Dealership
> backing (cars and bikes) is a close as I ever got.

Right. So, given that you *haven't* seen it, how is it that you're able
to speak with such authority either way? Is it a case of assuming that
something never existed because you personally haven't seen it?

>> Yep. I found the RD350 to a cunt of a thing. Brutal 2 stroke power
>> band on a chassis that was not much better than a Postie bike. Your
>> mileage may vary, but I never thought much of them. But then again
>> I was never much of a two stroke fan.
>
> That's really strange since they were based on Yamaha's tr3 factory
> racer (the one that dispatched the Manx Norton to the history
> books). I always found mine equally at home on the street or the
> racetrack but it certainly wasn't a touring bike. They were
> especially finicky to tune so maybe yours had a sick engine and a
> bent frame!

I never had one and never claimed to have. I only ever rode one that
belonged to a mate on a couple of occasions, and I was glad to hand it
back. As to it's condition it seemed perfectly fine to me, but I must
confess to not having carried out a detailed mechanical inspection
before hand.
>> Now now John. We all know what a foot stamping pissy pants you
>> become when people don't buy what you say as if it came down from
>> the mount written in stone :)
>
> Pot, kettle! You being the one who spat the dummy when Paul Saccani
> (sp) called your bluff.

I must have been sick the day he did that. When did that happen?

My "beef" with Paul, such as it was, was that I got absolutely sick to
fucking death of his bedside manner. He thought the sun shone out of his
arsehole and considered everyone else beneath him, and he just loved to
carry on as if he was the group's resident schoolmaster. Odd thing was
that despite all the carry on he used to go on with, he had no formal
automotive qualifications of any kind whatsoever (despite the ridiculous
claims of some around here :), yet he considered his opinions to be
flawless and everyone esle's who didn't agree with his to be flawed.

Strange guy. I met him a couple of times and he was *exactly* as I
imagined him to be. A bit of a fruitcake who thought he was the centre
of the universe and all things in it.

A bit like you, in fact. Just not as puritanical :)

>> I made it *quite* clear that I have zero experience with the Lucas
>> injection system, and I never made assertions about it. In fact,
>> what I did was to ask you questions as to why it wouldn't run
>> properly because I couldn't understand how something that
>> "advanced" could be so ridiculously temperamental. I also couldn't
>> understand how something you describe as being brilliant was worth
>> ever owning given the fragility of them.
>
> And disputed every answer you got.

That's right, because the answers made zero sense from *any* perspective
other than one of someone making excuses to cover the fact that the car,
and it's engine, was a lemon.

> Nor were they particularly temperamental or fragile, as you keep
> insisting in spite of your admitted lack of experience.

Yep, total lack of experience. And I'm very thankful of that. Then again
I have a total lack of experience when it comes to flying Spitfires, but
by all accounts it was a brilliant machine.

> I found this page here to be a fairly objective read on the subject:
>>
>>> https://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/triumph-2000-2500-mk2/
>
>>>
> Yep (no doubt written by a motoring journo), I read it and found
> nothing to contradict anything I've said here!

Strange. What I got from it was that not only was the injected engine
particularly troublesome, but the car itself wasn't the best handling
thing on the road.

>> The long and short of it seems to be that the 2500pi was *never* a
>> well sorted car that suffered from reliability issues over it's
>> entire life, Triumph got sick of the injection system and reverted
>> to carburetors because they could never make the thing run
>> properly.
>
> That's complete bullshit... you're reading into your own cite
> something that isn't there. They never reverted any of the PI
> models to carburettors.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<11lxf1sgooota.1sps0vjw4ve54$.dlg@40tude.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14720&group=aus.cars#14720

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: alv...@is.invalid (alvey)
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 12:29:31 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <11lxf1sgooota.1sps0vjw4ve54$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <7kbu7hhdbb5qv0kctlms3mvog96i4f0isp@4ax.com> <t5nd2j$p9b$1@dont-email.me> <uql08htt9hao4ao6b3jdjavke9fv0mn4bd@4ax.com> <t5ps1g$1oe$1@dont-email.me> <35318hdu6e03ciha7mgst1tbj3ui7bieei@4ax.com> <t5q9tj$l6n$1@dont-email.me> <vdu38h1iuioofe4nccotu8o87c8epu6qd3@4ax.com> <t5t9gs$1p0$1@dont-email.me> <jef165Fra8cU1@mid.individual.net> <v5p58hhtqm08igg6ttjgn4du7g37kg9h1e@4ax.com> <t5uqmt$h1p$1@dont-email.me> <cqb88hldcvqanrk28ufpjtfo4dk3iu4rfs@4ax.com> <t61lj2$9d4$1@dont-email.me> <deta8hhu683bbes4rsc65vdp1lbh61laaa@4ax.com> <jelmk4F59i9U1@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="6f3e0a25ebd70d35d5a05d96fba10d3d";
logging-data="29503"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+D56pNBvCxzRq1IrVyBDn/"
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.84
Cancel-Lock: sha1:reFBcRRo5p793yDAepe25UAlSS4=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 220518-4, 19/5/2022), Outbound message
 by: alvey - Thu, 19 May 2022 02:29 UTC

On Thu, 19 May 2022 11:59:29 +1000, Daryl wrote:

> Just staying out of other peoples arguments:-)

So why haven't you killfiled *both* sides Deryl?

alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<jelp5kF5np0U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14721&group=aus.cars#14721

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: xenol...@optusnet.com.au (Xeno)
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 12:42:58 +1000
Lines: 244
Message-ID: <jelp5kF5np0U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <7kbu7hhdbb5qv0kctlms3mvog96i4f0isp@4ax.com>
<t5nd2j$p9b$1@dont-email.me> <uql08htt9hao4ao6b3jdjavke9fv0mn4bd@4ax.com>
<t5ps1g$1oe$1@dont-email.me> <35318hdu6e03ciha7mgst1tbj3ui7bieei@4ax.com>
<t5q9tj$l6n$1@dont-email.me> <vdu38h1iuioofe4nccotu8o87c8epu6qd3@4ax.com>
<t5t9gs$1p0$1@dont-email.me> <jef165Fra8cU1@mid.individual.net>
<v5p58hhtqm08igg6ttjgn4du7g37kg9h1e@4ax.com> <t5uqmt$h1p$1@dont-email.me>
<cqb88hldcvqanrk28ufpjtfo4dk3iu4rfs@4ax.com> <t61lj2$9d4$1@dont-email.me>
<deta8hhu683bbes4rsc65vdp1lbh61laaa@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net OIKtrkpjQt1xf5T1GqNstgNqbplLa0+Ju1/fTEGAawNz6SJJu1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:u9lqlX3gyR8vNIE3Lt0fSiNSfyo=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Content-Language: en-AU
In-Reply-To: <deta8hhu683bbes4rsc65vdp1lbh61laaa@4ax.com>
 by: Xeno - Thu, 19 May 2022 02:42 UTC

On 19/5/2022 10:01 am, John_H wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 18/05/2022 9:56 am, John_H wrote:
>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 17/05/2022 10:07 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In spite of Noddy's lack of regard for anything more complicated than
>>>>> an ancient F100 (or 1950s Triumph motorcycles) the Triumph PI was a
>>>>> brilliant performer in its day and one of the greatest joys of owning
>>>>> one was blowing knuckle draggers into weeds with what they perceived
>>>>> to be a pommy shitbox. :)
>>>>
>>>> ROTFL :)
>>>>
>>>> And yet according to all the figures I can find anywhere, this was a car
>>>> that managed a zero to 60 time of 11 seconds, and 18.5 seconds over the
>>>> quarter mile. Wow. I can just imagine the endless stream of cars like
>>>> Austin 1800's and HB Toranas you blew into the weeds with something as
>>>> powerful as that :)
>>>
>>> Now that's really is funny.
>>
>> Yeah, I though so as well.
>>
>>> Somewhere deep in my filing system is a "Wheels" road test for the Mk1
>>> PI when it was first released that gave it a low 16s quarter mile time
>>> and 112mph top speed (I don't remember the 0-60 time).
>>
>> Really? So it was as quick over the quarter mile as an XU1 Torana? A car
>> that was both lighter and more powerful than the 2500pi?
>
> Nice try. You're no doubt referring to the limited production
> Bathurst XU1, a factory special and race winner that came out four
> years after the PI. A mate had one and it was indeed quicker than the
> PI, provided it stayed on the bitumen. Noisy and harsh riding it
> would've also been a hopeless rally car... Xeno's mate's PI would've
> pissed all over it in a rally environment. Mine also had a
> competition licence and IIRC new sales were restricted to competition
> licence holders. The standard production XU1 was an absolute slug.

Darren, master of comparing apples and oranges! And not even knowing it.
>>
>> Yeah, sorry, but I'm not buying that. Not even close.
>
> Who'd think otherwise?
>
>>> However ex stock they were fitted with a rev limiter (evidenced by the 112
>>> figure) which was easily disabled giving them a top speed of at least
>>> 130 and considerably more acceleration.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, how did a rev limiter make them accelerate
>> slower? Did it cut in at 4000rpm or something?
>
> The fact that the rev limiter cut in below max bhp revs probably had
> something to do with it!
>>
>>> Toby claimed 140 for his modified Mk2 which is unsubstantiated
>>
>> Yeah, and to be honest Toby claimed *lots* of things.
>
> *Honest* being the essential difference between him and you!

Whoa! Touché!!!!

>>
>>> but I also knew a Mk 1 owner who was prosecuted for 130mph, supposedly timed
>>> over a measured distance if the cops were telling the truth.
>>
>> And it's not like such stories ever get talked up, right?
>
> I didn't go to court with him if that's what you mean but I did know
> both him and the PI well enough to believe it!
>
>> If you looked at a magazine road test for a ZC "T code" Fairlane you'll
>> see that they list the top speed at something like 113 miles per hour,
>> which is utterly ridiculous. Anyone who has driven on of the things can
>> tell you that they had no trouble at all winding the speedo off the
>> clock, due to the fact that it had *exactly* the same mechanical package
>> as an XW GT which could push the speedo to 135mph and the Fairlane was
>> exactly the same car with an extra 30kg on board.
>
> Knowing nothing about the Fairlane I'm even tempted to believe you
> where thousands of others wouldn't.
>
>> Years ago you could hire a day at Calder park to do testing. Back in the
>> day you could pay 20 bucks or so and have access to the track for a day
>> to do whatever you wanted. There were no facilities set up, no timing or
>> safety equipment or staff and you would share the track with whoever
>> else turned up on the day, but you could use it to do what you needed to do.
>>
>> On one such occasion I was there with some mates testing something or
>> other and we noticed a small group of blokes with some new car, and one
>> of them was Bill Tuckey (who I'm sure you know who he was). They were
>> doing 5th wheel performance tests of this car which if memory serves was
>> a turbo VL Commodore, with the only problem being that every time they
>> did the fifth wheel either didn't work or fell off, and in the end they
>> gave up "and went to the pub" as I overheard Tuckey state.
>>
>> In the end they had no reliable figures of any kind but rather just
>> added whatever they felt like in the article to please the plebs which
>> in my opinion summed up motoring journalists in a nutshell.
>>
>> Moral of the story is take whatever you read in magazines with a massive
>> grain of salt.
>
> Especially when it disagrees with your ever so humble opinion. :)
>>
>>>> As I said, I think you like to talk shit up and make excuses for the
>>>> fact that your "Trumpy" was just another unreliable pommy shitbox like
>>>> the rest of them :)
>>>
>>> From the master of bullshit! Almost every claim you've made on this
>>> topic has been wrong, spun or exaggerated.. The most recent being
>>> that the manufacturers of Triumph cars and bikes were connected.
>>>
>>> Then there's your original claim... *Thirdly, and probably most
>>> comical of the lot, would be who the *fuck* "rallies* a Triumph 2500?
>>> The fucking safety car would be quicker ." When in fact they were a
>>> very successful rally car, even when they weren't backed by "works"
>>> teams, which was most them. :)
>>
>> Riiight. So all those Triumph 2500pi's that were so fantastically
>> successful in the world's various rally events were completely stock and
>> not prepared for competition duty in any way. Is that it?
>
> You might need to ask Xeno's mate but I've never seen a factory works
> team prepared PI or know anyone who's owned one. Dealership backing
> (cars and bikes) is a close as I ever got.
>>
>> And you reckon *I'm* the master of bullshit :)
>
> And you're still at it!

He is trying to perfect his technique!
>
>>> And this gem... *They made world conquering bikes in their day, but
>>> their cars were hopeless.*. One can but assume you once rode a
>>> Triumph motorcycle that wasn't fast enough to frighten you (unlike an
>>> RD350 Yamaha with an engine smaller than my wife's ride-on mower).
>>
>> Yep. I found the RD350 to a cunt of a thing. Brutal 2 stroke power band
>> on a chassis that was not much better than a Postie bike. Your mileage
>> may vary, but I never thought much of them. But then again I was never
>> much of a two stroke fan.
>
> That's really strange since they were based on Yamaha's tr3 factory
> racer (the one that dispatched the Manx Norton to the history books).
> I always found mine equally at home on the street or the racetrack but
> it certainly wasn't a touring bike. They were especially finicky to
> tune so maybe yours had a sick engine and a bent frame!
>
>>> Plus numerous assertions, and red herrings, about a pioneering fuel
>>> injection system about which you obviously have NFI.
>>
>> Now now John. We all know what a foot stamping pissy pants you become
>> when people don't buy what you say as if it came down from the mount
>> written in stone :)
>
> Pot, kettle! You being the one who spat the dummy when Paul Saccani
> (sp) called your bluff.

Oh, yes, I remember that well. That was sooo funny.
>
>> I made it *quite* clear that I have zero experience with the Lucas
>> injection system, and I never made assertions about it. In fact, what I
>> did was to ask you questions as to why it wouldn't run properly because
>> I couldn't understand how something that "advanced" could be so
>> ridiculously temperamental. I also couldn't understand how something you
>> describe as being brilliant was worth ever owning given the fragility of
>> them.
>
> And disputed every answer you got. Nor were they particularly
> temperamental or fragile, as you keep insisting in spite of your
> admitted lack of experience.
>
>> I suspected you were doing what a lot of people do in that you were
>> talking them up to cover their brittleness, and blaming their
>> unreliability on external things like "bad fuel". If that's your bag
>> then it's fine with me, but after having my interest piqued I looked
>> into them a little and found that the cars were indeed known to be
>> problematic and your views weren't shared by many others.
>>
>> I found this page here to be a fairly objective read on the subject:
>>
>>> https://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/triumph-2000-2500-mk2/
>
> Yep (no doubt written by a motoring journo), I read it and found
> nothing to contradict anything I've said here!


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<jemjlhFai1qU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14749&group=aus.cars#14749

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: xenol...@optusnet.com.au (Xeno)
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 20:15:07 +1000
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <jemjlhFai1qU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <7kbu7hhdbb5qv0kctlms3mvog96i4f0isp@4ax.com>
<t5nd2j$p9b$1@dont-email.me> <uql08htt9hao4ao6b3jdjavke9fv0mn4bd@4ax.com>
<t5ps1g$1oe$1@dont-email.me> <35318hdu6e03ciha7mgst1tbj3ui7bieei@4ax.com>
<t5q9tj$l6n$1@dont-email.me> <vdu38h1iuioofe4nccotu8o87c8epu6qd3@4ax.com>
<t5t9gs$1p0$1@dont-email.me> <jef165Fra8cU1@mid.individual.net>
<v5p58hhtqm08igg6ttjgn4du7g37kg9h1e@4ax.com> <t5uqmt$h1p$1@dont-email.me>
<cqb88hldcvqanrk28ufpjtfo4dk3iu4rfs@4ax.com> <t61lj2$9d4$1@dont-email.me>
<deta8hhu683bbes4rsc65vdp1lbh61laaa@4ax.com> <t649fd$ml6$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net yBT5A+sZScF7XfAFSdPQPwtIu7NDTVvjiFN127J86edLE1Hl4c
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Iu4B5BRRkaSm0cjcSHNNufRMdJo=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Content-Language: en-CA
In-Reply-To: <t649fd$ml6$1@dont-email.me>
 by: Xeno - Thu, 19 May 2022 10:15 UTC

On 19/5/2022 12:19 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 19/05/2022 10:01 am, John_H wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> Somewhere deep in my filing system is a "Wheels" road test for
>>>> the Mk1 PI when it was first released that gave it a low 16s
>>>> quarter mile time and 112mph top speed (I don't remember the 0-60
>>>> time).
>>>
>>> Really? So it was as quick over the quarter mile as an XU1 Torana?
>>> A car that was both lighter and more powerful than the 2500pi?
>>
>> Nice try.
>
> Nothing nice about it. It's reality.

Reality Darren? You have no concept of that word! You faked a complete
career in automotive, remember, 3 apprenticeships, 2 trade
qualifications, 20 plus years of business ownership and dog knows what
else.
>
<further bullshit denial snipped>

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<jemjp4Fai1qU2@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14750&group=aus.cars#14750

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: xenol...@optusnet.com.au (Xeno)
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 20:17:07 +1000
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <jemjp4Fai1qU2@mid.individual.net>
References: <7kbu7hhdbb5qv0kctlms3mvog96i4f0isp@4ax.com>
<t5nd2j$p9b$1@dont-email.me> <uql08htt9hao4ao6b3jdjavke9fv0mn4bd@4ax.com>
<t5ps1g$1oe$1@dont-email.me> <35318hdu6e03ciha7mgst1tbj3ui7bieei@4ax.com>
<t5q9tj$l6n$1@dont-email.me> <vdu38h1iuioofe4nccotu8o87c8epu6qd3@4ax.com>
<t5t9gs$1p0$1@dont-email.me> <jef165Fra8cU1@mid.individual.net>
<v5p58hhtqm08igg6ttjgn4du7g37kg9h1e@4ax.com> <t5uqmt$h1p$1@dont-email.me>
<cqb88hldcvqanrk28ufpjtfo4dk3iu4rfs@4ax.com> <t61lj2$9d4$1@dont-email.me>
<deta8hhu683bbes4rsc65vdp1lbh61laaa@4ax.com>
<jelmk4F59i9U1@mid.individual.net>
<11lxf1sgooota.1sps0vjw4ve54$.dlg@40tude.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net QMqLsKLIjs4NZgGt193hQAD8GS5X2LdkrFWNOKyeNRrEoqN3xO
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jbZgo8TuTQQUtP9y+kke3WIYX5w=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Content-Language: en-CA
In-Reply-To: <11lxf1sgooota.1sps0vjw4ve54$.dlg@40tude.net>
 by: Xeno - Thu, 19 May 2022 10:17 UTC

On 19/5/2022 12:29 pm, alvey wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 11:59:29 +1000, Daryl wrote:
>
>
>> Just staying out of other peoples arguments:-)
>
> So why haven't you killfiled *both* sides Deryl?
>
>
> alvey
>
You're addressing Daryl the hypocrite. You do realise that, don't you?

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<ltmd8h965k3p1t5k4oq4c52u5l8u55ntrd@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14772&group=aus.cars#14772

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: john4...@hotmail.com (John_H)
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 10:15:59 +1000
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <ltmd8h965k3p1t5k4oq4c52u5l8u55ntrd@4ax.com>
References: <uql08htt9hao4ao6b3jdjavke9fv0mn4bd@4ax.com> <t5ps1g$1oe$1@dont-email.me> <35318hdu6e03ciha7mgst1tbj3ui7bieei@4ax.com> <t5q9tj$l6n$1@dont-email.me> <vdu38h1iuioofe4nccotu8o87c8epu6qd3@4ax.com> <t5t9gs$1p0$1@dont-email.me> <jef165Fra8cU1@mid.individual.net> <v5p58hhtqm08igg6ttjgn4du7g37kg9h1e@4ax.com> <t5uqmt$h1p$1@dont-email.me> <cqb88hldcvqanrk28ufpjtfo4dk3iu4rfs@4ax.com> <t61lj2$9d4$1@dont-email.me> <deta8hhu683bbes4rsc65vdp1lbh61laaa@4ax.com> <t649fd$ml6$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 6/qrACy17VBEbgEzDiZXdAJWCV32rnR0q3RWQZNJpNIhEKP7pD
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BvrGlZ6nGdk/Gu6164qNVI7nbzU=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 220519-8, 5/20/2022), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
 by: John_H - Fri, 20 May 2022 00:15 UTC

Noddy wrote:
>On 19/05/2022 10:01 am, John_H wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>
<snip>

>> I found this page here to be a fairly objective read on the subject:
>>>
>>>> https://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/triumph-2000-2500-mk2/
>>
>>>>
>> Yep (no doubt written by a motoring journo), I read it and found
>> nothing to contradict anything I've said here!
>
>Strange. What I got from it was that not only was the injected engine
>particularly troublesome, but the car itself wasn't the best handling
>thing on the road.
>
>>> The long and short of it seems to be that the 2500pi was *never* a
>>> well sorted car that suffered from reliability issues over it's
>>> entire life, Triumph got sick of the injection system and reverted
>>> to carburetors because they could never make the thing run
>>> properly.
>> That's complete bullshit... you're reading into your own cite
>> something that isn't there. They never reverted any of the PI
>> models to carburettors.
>
>I'm not reading *anything* other than what was mentioned in the article.
>You must have missed this bit here:
>
>> The 2500TC and 2.5 PI were available concurrently for about a year,
>> but production of the expensive and troublesome injected engine
>> ceased in the early summer of 1975, leading to the deletion of both
>> the TR6 PI and 2.5 PI. The latter was replaced by a new 2500S model,
>> also carbureted, but with revised intake and exhaust manifolds and
>> bigger S.U. HS6 carburetors, giving 106 PS (78 kW) DIN and 139 lb-ft
>> (188 N-m) of torque.
>
>Despite your claims it flat out states that the 2500pi was indeed
>replaced with the carburetted 2500S model.
>
>Either they're wrong, or your are.

Yep, thought I was reading the history of the 2000, 2.5 PI and 2500C.
The 2500S doesn't belong in that group, which is probably why it went
under my radar. The former were STI / Leyland Motors models, the
2500S was British Leyland The bit you've quoted is certainly wrong
and merely demonstrates that if you google hard enough you can prove,
or disprove, anything

Last PI was sold here in 1974 whereas the 2500S was released in 1977
which hardly makes it a replacement for the 2.5 PI. The TR6 was
replaced by the shit awful TR7, another BL creation as was the Triumph
Stag generally regarded as a lemon along with the Leyland P76 of the
same era. The only genuine performance model from BL was the Dolomite
Sprint which went like the clappers but was notoriously unreliable.
One ran at Bathurst during the open era IIRC but probably never
finished.

PIs were in production for 7 years so it must've taken an awful long
time to work out they were troublesome and expensive to produce. Only
'74 model I had any experience with was a TR6 that was dramatically
detuned compared to previous models, which supported the story it was
an emission issue.

Last model sold as a Triumph was a rebadged Honda shortly before BL
dropped the name which now belongs to BMW AFAIK. Jaguar and Rover
went to Tata (India), MG went to China and a number of others went to
God.

None of which is relevant to your original claim... *Thirdly, and
probably most comical of the lot, would be who the *fuck*
"rallies" a Triumph 2500? The fucking safety car would be quicker :)*

Can't help wondering what the safety car may have been... do they even
have 'em at rallies?

--
John H

Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<8414a3dc-0b95-4efa-9219-c5fb944dd9ddn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14777&group=aus.cars#14777

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:2a87:b0:461:e7cf:6ec6 with SMTP id jr7-20020a0562142a8700b00461e7cf6ec6mr6319129qvb.82.1653007715638;
Thu, 19 May 2022 17:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:358:0:b0:2ff:2615:3d5d with SMTP id
85-20020a810358000000b002ff26153d5dmr7571288ywd.443.1653007715396; Thu, 19
May 2022 17:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 17:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ltmd8h965k3p1t5k4oq4c52u5l8u55ntrd@4ax.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=139.99.170.160; posting-account=cl7UNgoAAABznXmhqKVymUBeN7RgHVMZ
NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.99.170.160
References: <uql08htt9hao4ao6b3jdjavke9fv0mn4bd@4ax.com> <t5ps1g$1oe$1@dont-email.me>
<35318hdu6e03ciha7mgst1tbj3ui7bieei@4ax.com> <t5q9tj$l6n$1@dont-email.me>
<vdu38h1iuioofe4nccotu8o87c8epu6qd3@4ax.com> <t5t9gs$1p0$1@dont-email.me>
<jef165Fra8cU1@mid.individual.net> <v5p58hhtqm08igg6ttjgn4du7g37kg9h1e@4ax.com>
<t5uqmt$h1p$1@dont-email.me> <cqb88hldcvqanrk28ufpjtfo4dk3iu4rfs@4ax.com>
<t61lj2$9d4$1@dont-email.me> <deta8hhu683bbes4rsc65vdp1lbh61laaa@4ax.com>
<t649fd$ml6$1@dont-email.me> <ltmd8h965k3p1t5k4oq4c52u5l8u55ntrd@4ax.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <8414a3dc-0b95-4efa-9219-c5fb944dd9ddn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
From: johnhhhi...@gmail.com (jonz@ nothere.com)
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 00:48:35 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 5365
 by: jonz@ nothere.com - Fri, 20 May 2022 00:48 UTC

On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 10:16:04 UTC+10, John_H wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
> >On 19/05/2022 10:01 am, John_H wrote:
> >> Noddy wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> >> I found this page here to be a fairly objective read on the subject:
> >>>
> >>>> https://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/triumph-2000-2500-mk2/
> >>
> >>>>
> >> Yep (no doubt written by a motoring journo), I read it and found
> >> nothing to contradict anything I've said here!
> >
> >Strange. What I got from it was that not only was the injected engine
> >particularly troublesome, but the car itself wasn't the best handling
> >thing on the road.
> >
> >>> The long and short of it seems to be that the 2500pi was *never* a
> >>> well sorted car that suffered from reliability issues over it's
> >>> entire life, Triumph got sick of the injection system and reverted
> >>> to carburetors because they could never make the thing run
> >>> properly.
> >> That's complete bullshit... you're reading into your own cite
> >> something that isn't there. They never reverted any of the PI
> >> models to carburettors.
> >
> >I'm not reading *anything* other than what was mentioned in the article.
> >You must have missed this bit here:
> >
> >> The 2500TC and 2.5 PI were available concurrently for about a year,
> >> but production of the expensive and troublesome injected engine
> >> ceased in the early summer of 1975, leading to the deletion of both
> >> the TR6 PI and 2.5 PI. The latter was replaced by a new 2500S model,
> >> also carbureted, but with revised intake and exhaust manifolds and
> >> bigger S.U. HS6 carburetors, giving 106 PS (78 kW) DIN and 139 lb-ft
> >> (188 N-m) of torque.
> >
> >Despite your claims it flat out states that the 2500pi was indeed
> >replaced with the carburetted 2500S model.
> >
> >Either they're wrong, or your are.
> Yep, thought I was reading the history of the 2000, 2.5 PI and 2500C.
> The 2500S doesn't belong in that group, which is probably why it went
> under my radar. The former were STI / Leyland Motors models, the
> 2500S was British Leyland The bit you've quoted is certainly wrong
> and merely demonstrates that if you google hard enough you can prove,
> or disprove, anything
>
> Last PI was sold here in 1974 whereas the 2500S was released in 1977
> which hardly makes it a replacement for the 2.5 PI. The TR6 was
> replaced by the shit awful TR7, another BL creation as was the Triumph
> Stag generally regarded as a lemon along with the Leyland P76 of the
> same era. The only genuine performance model from BL was the Dolomite
> Sprint which went like the clappers but was notoriously unreliable.
> One ran at Bathurst during the open era IIRC but probably never
> finished.
>
> PIs were in production for 7 years so it must've taken an awful long
> time to work out they were troublesome and expensive to produce. Only
> '74 model I had any experience with was a TR6 that was dramatically
> detuned compared to previous models, which supported the story it was
> an emission issue.
>
> Last model sold as a Triumph was a rebadged Honda shortly before BL
> dropped the name which now belongs to BMW AFAIK. Jaguar and Rover
> went to Tata (India), MG went to China and a number of others went to
> God.
>
> None of which is relevant to your original claim... *Thirdly, and
> probably most comical of the lot, would be who the *fuck*
> "rallies" a Triumph 2500? The fucking safety car would be quicker :)*
>
> Can't help wondering what the safety car may have been... do they even
> have 'em at rallies?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The king is dead, long live the king...<chuckle>.
>
> --
> John H

Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<t66qch$d7u$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14786&group=aus.cars#14786

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: me...@home.com (Noddy)
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 11:20:13 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <t66qch$d7u$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uql08htt9hao4ao6b3jdjavke9fv0mn4bd@4ax.com>
<t5ps1g$1oe$1@dont-email.me> <35318hdu6e03ciha7mgst1tbj3ui7bieei@4ax.com>
<t5q9tj$l6n$1@dont-email.me> <vdu38h1iuioofe4nccotu8o87c8epu6qd3@4ax.com>
<t5t9gs$1p0$1@dont-email.me> <jef165Fra8cU1@mid.individual.net>
<v5p58hhtqm08igg6ttjgn4du7g37kg9h1e@4ax.com> <t5uqmt$h1p$1@dont-email.me>
<cqb88hldcvqanrk28ufpjtfo4dk3iu4rfs@4ax.com> <t61lj2$9d4$1@dont-email.me>
<deta8hhu683bbes4rsc65vdp1lbh61laaa@4ax.com> <t649fd$ml6$1@dont-email.me>
<ltmd8h965k3p1t5k4oq4c52u5l8u55ntrd@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 01:20:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b9a5b2d4d096ca5815b205fbc91e9f8e";
logging-data="13566"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+e9toMUnIbXR4xOMussoyC"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.7.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IgZagtjWfZ9Spcv6d5RLuzdC8pw=
In-Reply-To: <ltmd8h965k3p1t5k4oq4c52u5l8u55ntrd@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-AU
 by: Noddy - Fri, 20 May 2022 01:20 UTC

On 20/05/2022 10:15 am, John_H wrote:
> Noddy wrote:

>>> The 2500TC and 2.5 PI were available concurrently for about a year,
>>> but production of the expensive and troublesome injected engine
>>> ceased in the early summer of 1975, leading to the deletion of both
>>> the TR6 PI and 2.5 PI. The latter was replaced by a new 2500S model,
>>> also carbureted, but with revised intake and exhaust manifolds and
>>> bigger S.U. HS6 carburetors, giving 106 PS (78 kW) DIN and 139 lb-ft
>>> (188 N-m) of torque.
>>
>> Despite your claims it flat out states that the 2500pi was indeed
>> replaced with the carburetted 2500S model.
>>
>> Either they're wrong, or your are.
>
> Yep, thought I was reading the history of the 2000, 2.5 PI and 2500C.
> The 2500S doesn't belong in that group, which is probably why it went
> under my radar. The former were STI / Leyland Motors models, the
> 2500S was British Leyland The bit you've quoted is certainly wrong
> and merely demonstrates that if you google hard enough you can prove,
> or disprove, anything

Right. So I've seen that comment echoed in a couple of places now, but
according to you they're all wrong and you're right.

I see :)

> Last PI was sold here in 1974 whereas the 2500S was released in 1977
> which hardly makes it a replacement for the 2.5 PI.

Perhaps not in this country, but clearly in other parts of the world and
there may have been external forces that determined that.

> The TR6 was replaced by the shit awful TR7, another BL creation as was the Triumph
> Stag generally regarded as a lemon along with the Leyland P76 of the
> same era. The only genuine performance model from BL was the Dolomite
> Sprint which went like the clappers but was notoriously unreliable.
> One ran at Bathurst during the open era IIRC but probably never
> finished.

No idea, sorry. But I would not be the slightest bit surprised.

> PIs were in production for 7 years so it must've taken an awful long
> time to work out they were troublesome and expensive to produce.

That wouldn't surprise me in the slightest either. Jaguar made the XJ
series for many years, and for it's entire life it was an unreliable
heap of shit. The fact that they kept making it anyway tells you a lot
about the attitude of the British, and their unwillingness to accept
that they were wrong.

> Only '74 model I had any experience with was a TR6 that was dramatically
> detuned compared to previous models, which supported the story it was
> an emission issue.

As I said, given the troublesome nature of the Lucas system in a street
car capacity, I'm convinced that the "emissions" story was nothing but a
face saving exit strategy for Triumph. Not unless you're of the belief
that they were better at tuning carburetors than they were fuel
injection systems :)

> Last model sold as a Triumph was a rebadged Honda shortly before BL
> dropped the name which now belongs to BMW AFAIK. Jaguar and Rover
> went to Tata (India), MG went to China and a number of others went to
> God.

Was it based on a Honda Integra by any chance? Can't say I'm familiar
with the Honda based Triumph, but I know Rover did a variant of the late
80's Integra that was sold here in Australia with the only appreciable
difference being that the Rover "Integra" was a 4 door body that was
unique to them. I'm not sure if it was made by Honda as a "rebadge" or
if Rover made it themselves, but apart from having two extra doors it
was a Honda Integra for all intents and purposes.

I was working at the Honda dealership at the time they were around, and
it used to annoy the crap out their owners that we wouldn't service them.

> None of which is relevant to your original claim... *Thirdly, and
> probably most comical of the lot, would be who the *fuck*
> "rallies" a Triumph 2500? The fucking safety car would be quicker :)*

It was largely a tongue in cheek comment, but still. Had an XU1 been on
the track with Clasener's mate he wouldn't have been doing anything
other than playing catch up :)

> Can't help wondering what the safety car may have been... do they even
> have 'em at rallies?

Not sure. They probably have Ambulances, and they'd probably be quicker.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<jeoqb7FnfssU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14802&group=aus.cars#14802

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: use...@account.invalid (keithr0)
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 16:21:26 +1000
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <jeoqb7FnfssU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <jdujsrFn2jdU1@mid.individual.net> <t5f4bl$1qq$1@dont-email.me>
<t5fa4c$1h3$1@dont-email.me> <je0ph4F59jmU1@mid.individual.net>
<t5ffe9$rbf$2@dont-email.me> <je11suF6ofaU1@mid.individual.net>
<t5flol$2rh$1@dont-email.me> <7kbu7hhdbb5qv0kctlms3mvog96i4f0isp@4ax.com>
<t5nd2j$p9b$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net aGOvpXzS51xHYG8EI6+LyQSytUEYFhXXmrUbh0FTGQNZ43JprO
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iEM8oeqiBvHwPGurZGdbJM+PQ/0=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <t5nd2j$p9b$1@dont-email.me>
 by: keithr0 - Fri, 20 May 2022 06:21 UTC

On 14/05/2022 3:01 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 14/05/2022 2:25 pm, John_H wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>
>>> They were typical of most things with 4 wheels that Triumph made: Total
>>> heaps of shit. They made world conquering bikes in their day, but their
>>> cars were hopeless.
>> What day would that have been?  :))
>
> As far as bikes go? The 1950's were their big game changer with the
> Speed Twin. As far as cars go? Any time they made one :)

The engines were good, the frames and suspension were shit. Try and push
a 1950s sprung hub Speed Twin hard and you were taking your life in your
hands. The later swing arm models were better, but putting the engine in
a Norton frame was a much better idea.

>> I've own both Triumph cars and bikes and worked on heaps more of both
>> and the only half decent thing about their bikes was the relative
>> simplicity of the their B range vertical twin as compared to other
>> British makes.
>
> Many around the world would probably disagree with you, but then
> opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one.
>
>  Their gearboxes were designed to leak oil (they had no
>> seal on the selector shaft) and their frames were made of licorice
>> (Norton, among others, were way ahead of them).  Their only world
>> conquering effort I'm aware of was the Bonneville salt flat speed
>> record set in 1956 by a machine that bore no resemblance to a road
>> bike other than having two wheels.  They never got a look in at either
>> GP or TT racing and by the late 60s  jap road bikes were shitting all
>> over them in performance, handling and reliability.
>
> By the time the Japs got their stuff together they were shitting all
> over *everyone*. Not just the Trumpies.
>
>> By the early 80s the company was in receivership after which they
>> morphed into
>> something bearing no resemblance to anything that went before.
>
> Like almost every other British and American bike manufacturer you mean?
>
>> During the same era the the Triumph TR range were way ahead of
>> whatever competition they had at the time.  A TR2 broke the land speed
>> record for a production 2 litre car in 1953.  It competed in numerous
>> rallies and races (including LeMans) and even won the 1955 Moomba TT
>> in your home state.  Vic cops later used the TR3 as a highway pursuit
>> car.
>
> They used many cars. Including Mini Coopers, Mitsubishi Magna's, "Plain
> clothes" GT Falcons and Subaru's amongst them.
>
>> Factory TR4S entries won the team prize at LeMans in 1961
>> although you'd no doubt consider the Ferraris and Porsches that placed
>> ahead of them as heaps of shit as well!
>
> Some of them. Depends on exactly which models you're talking about :)
>
>> Triumph cars also had numerous international rally successes up until
>> the early 70s.
>
> Yeah, you mentioned that the other day, and to be quite honest it
> doesn't mean a hell of a lot unless you're deluded enough to think that
> factory "works" cars competing in a closed event have any semblance to
> what you see on the showroom floor.
>
> A case in point. The 1968 London to Sydney Marathon was one of the
> largest rally events ever staged anywhere in the world, and it attracted
> an impressive field of well known competitors ranging from big budget
> works teams to privateers in a host of different makes and models. It
> was a gruelling event that took it's toll on the equipment, and in the
> end it was won outright by Scottsman Andrew Cowan driving a Hillman
> Hunter the team prize was won by Ford Australia with their fleet of
> three XT GT Falcons ahead of Porsche and a few notable others.
>
> Do you think the Hillman Hunter or XT GT made great rally cars? I sure
> as shit don't but the results of that event suggest otherwise.
>
>
>> The only thing the cars had in common with Triumph bikes in the post
>> war era was the demise of both as a direct consequence of the collapse
>> of the British motor industry.  They were also entirely separate
>> companies for the whole of that period.
>
> That's a bit like saying Honda Bikes are built by a different company
> than Honda cars. They might be made in different factories run by a
> different management team, but at the end of the day they're both owned
> and operated by Honda.
>
>

Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days

<jep23aFot2tU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=14808&group=aus.cars#14808

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.cars
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: xenol...@optusnet.com.au (Xeno)
Newsgroups: aus.cars
Subject: Re: Had an interesting visitor the past few days
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 18:33:44 +1000
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <jep23aFot2tU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <uql08htt9hao4ao6b3jdjavke9fv0mn4bd@4ax.com>
<t5ps1g$1oe$1@dont-email.me> <35318hdu6e03ciha7mgst1tbj3ui7bieei@4ax.com>
<t5q9tj$l6n$1@dont-email.me> <vdu38h1iuioofe4nccotu8o87c8epu6qd3@4ax.com>
<t5t9gs$1p0$1@dont-email.me> <jef165Fra8cU1@mid.individual.net>
<v5p58hhtqm08igg6ttjgn4du7g37kg9h1e@4ax.com> <t5uqmt$h1p$1@dont-email.me>
<cqb88hldcvqanrk28ufpjtfo4dk3iu4rfs@4ax.com> <t61lj2$9d4$1@dont-email.me>
<deta8hhu683bbes4rsc65vdp1lbh61laaa@4ax.com> <t649fd$ml6$1@dont-email.me>
<ltmd8h965k3p1t5k4oq4c52u5l8u55ntrd@4ax.com> <t66qch$d7u$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net R2hjQeAMCcdLK1PRSMSsQQm0n8WflsbM8cNDEJQ61rXiFOnsWf
Cancel-Lock: sha1:W7BNJEIr/I0dg3zkKPcZvQsOEkA=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Content-Language: en-AU
In-Reply-To: <t66qch$d7u$1@dont-email.me>
 by: Xeno - Fri, 20 May 2022 08:33 UTC

On 20/5/2022 11:20 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 20/05/2022 10:15 am, John_H wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> The 2500TC and 2.5 PI were available concurrently for about a year,
>>>> but production of the expensive and troublesome injected engine
>>>> ceased in the early summer of 1975, leading to the deletion of both
>>>> the TR6 PI and 2.5 PI. The latter was replaced by a new 2500S model,
>>>> also carbureted, but with revised intake and exhaust manifolds and
>>>> bigger S.U. HS6 carburetors, giving 106 PS (78 kW) DIN and 139 lb-ft
>>>> (188 N-m) of torque.
>>>
>>> Despite your claims it flat out states that the 2500pi was indeed
>>> replaced with the carburetted 2500S model.
>>>
>>> Either they're wrong, or your are.
>>
>> Yep, thought I was reading the history of the 2000, 2.5 PI and 2500C.
>> The 2500S doesn't belong in that group, which is probably why it went
>> under my radar.  The former were STI / Leyland Motors models, the
>> 2500S was British Leyland   The bit you've quoted is certainly wrong
>> and merely demonstrates that if you google hard enough you can prove,
>> or disprove, anything
>
> Right. So I've seen that comment echoed in a couple of places now, but
> according to you they're all wrong and you're right.

A *comment* that is *echoed* in a couple of places does not make said
comment accurate or factual.
>
> I see :)

Really, you don't.
>
>> Last PI was sold here in 1974 whereas the 2500S was released in  1977
>> which hardly makes it a replacement for the 2.5 PI.
>
> Perhaps not in this country, but clearly in other parts of the world and
> there may have been external forces that determined that.
>
>> The TR6 was replaced by the shit awful TR7, another BL creation as was
>> the Triumph
>> Stag generally regarded as a lemon along with the Leyland P76 of the
>> same era.  The only genuine performance model from BL was the Dolomite
>> Sprint which went like the clappers but was notoriously unreliable.
>> One ran at Bathurst during the open era IIRC but probably never
>> finished.
>
> No idea, sorry. But I would not be the slightest bit surprised.

I'm sure you have no idea. The only true thing you've said thus far in
this thread.
>
>> PIs were in production for 7 years so it must've taken an awful long
>> time to work out they were troublesome and expensive to produce.
>
> That wouldn't surprise me in the slightest either. Jaguar made the XJ
> series for many years, and for it's entire life it was an unreliable
> heap of shit. The fact that they kept making it anyway tells you a lot
> about the attitude of the British, and their unwillingness to accept
> that they were wrong.
>
>> Only '74 model I had any experience with was a TR6 that was dramatically
>> detuned compared to previous models, which supported the story it was
>> an emission issue.
>
> As I said, given the troublesome nature of the Lucas system in a street
> car capacity, I'm convinced that the "emissions" story was nothing but a
> face saving exit strategy for Triumph. Not unless you're of the belief
> that they were better at tuning carburetors than they were fuel
> injection systems :)
>
>> Last model sold as a Triumph was a rebadged Honda shortly before BL
>> dropped the name which now belongs to BMW AFAIK.  Jaguar and Rover
>> went to Tata (India), MG went to China and a number of others went to
>> God.
>
> Was it based on a Honda Integra by any chance? Can't say I'm familiar
> with the Honda based Triumph, but I know Rover did a variant of the late
> 80's Integra that was sold here in Australia with the only appreciable
> difference being that the Rover "Integra" was a 4 door body that was
> unique to them. I'm not sure if it was made by Honda as a "rebadge" or
> if Rover made it themselves, but apart from having two extra doors it
> was a Honda Integra for all intents and purposes.
>
> I was working at the Honda dealership at the time they were around, and
> it used to annoy the crap out their owners that we wouldn't service them.

Washing cars in PD Darren?
>
>> None of which is relevant to your original claim...  *Thirdly, and
>> probably most comical of the lot, would be who the *fuck*
>> "rallies" a Triumph 2500? The fucking safety car would be quicker :)*
>
> It was largely a tongue in cheek comment, but still. Had an XU1 been on
> the track with Clasener's mate he wouldn't have been doing anything
> other than playing catch up :)
>
>> Can't help wondering what the safety car may have been... do they even
>> have 'em at rallies?
>
> Not sure. They probably have Ambulances, and they'd probably be quicker.
>
>

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Pages:123456789
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor