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!

Just opinion, which is all Darren has.
>
>> 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.
>

--
Xeno

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