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.

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.

> On reflection the Lucas system was dropped because
> it couldn't meet US emission standards...

You've mentioned this a number of times now, and I'm calling complete
bullshit.

I reckon you could go from here to Mars and not ever find an injection
system that would be *worse* than a carburetor when it came to emissions
output. Not unless that injection system was a complete dud and couldn't
be made to work properly which I suspect is *exactly* the case here.

I think Triumph tried as has as they could to make the thing work but
never could, and they eventually tired of it's issues and dropped it
citing "emissions output" as a face saving cover story.

There is no other explanation that makes sense.

>> 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?

So what indeed. As I said you strike me as the kind of fanatical pundit
who would look at the three things their car did really well and sing
it's praises while completely ignoring the 78 things it did badly.

>> 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)! :)

ROTFL :)

Xeno's credibility? You're talking about the bloke who masqueraded here
as a different identity who insists that is in fact a real person and
they are "friends".

The bloke who conveniently has a "friend" who just happens to be an
expert he can call on t=o back his own opinion on any subject you happen
to be talking about?

The bloke who claims he was a "trade teacher" but thinks you can
accurately simulate the feel of non boosted brakes by disconnecting the
vacuum supply of a boosted brake system?

The bloke who insists that theoretical maximum carburetor sizes are the
hard limit on engines and anything bigger won't work, despite being
given a plethora of examples to the contrary which he completely ignores?

The bloke who after bullshitting himself into a corner claimed that I
deleted posts as a completely nonsensical attempt to save face despite
it being physically impossible for me to ever do so?

The bloke who was responsible for talking *so* much shit around here
that the moron who now thinks of himself as his best friend and
protector had to investigate him for his ridiculous claims?

Is *that* the "credibility" you're talking about?

Hahahahahaaha :)

Thanks John, but if that's your idea of someone with "credibility" then
I'm *more* than happy to be a lone wolf.
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.

I'm not far behind you. This is the only group I post in, as unlike some
here by ego doesn't cry out for the kind of attention that comes from
being heard by thousands of people on many different subjects.

I'm happy to hang out here and watch the chest beaters make dicks of
themselves :)

> Pity it's been populated by shit slingers who're far more interested in
> scoring a direct hit than anything resembling informed discussion.

Let me know when you plan to start, because all you've done in this
thread is show everyone that you're more than capable of talking as much
rubbish as anyone else :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.