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?

>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.

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)! :)

>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.

--
John H