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)