On 22/05/2022 9:56 am, John_H wrote:
> Noddy wrote:

>>> 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.
>
> What comment was that?

The "comment" that said that the 2500pi was replaced by the carburetted
2500S. I've shown a link to a cite that mentioned that here, but I've
seen it mentioned in a number of places now.

>>> 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.
>
> I might be wrong about the release date as the model didn't interest
> me in the slightest since it was a British Leyland model which
> separated it from the pre-existing Triumph range.

Fair enough.

>>> 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.
>
> From 1969 until 1975 Jaguar were a division of BLMC who turned a lot
> of cars to shit before they went bust in 1975 and were nationalised by
> the British government. After which Jaguar was sold to Ford who
> probably made them even shittier. They actually made some great cars
> back when they were an independent company.

They did *some* things right in my opinion. Their suspension and brake
systems were great, and they had the sense to never play around with
automatic transmissions instead leaving that task for those who had
experience and knowledge.

>>> 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 :)
>
> Most mechanics were and plenty of 'em weren't very good at tuning
> carbies either... fortunately most carbs of the era only had idling
> adjustments. Formula 1 mechanics are obviously a smarter lot....
> http://www.lucasinjection.com/1973_lucas_ad2.jpg

I don't imagine most F1 mechanics got the gig because they were idiots.
That said, there is a world of difference between tuning an engine for
flat out competition use and regular everyday street driving.

The Lucas system worked exceptionally well on race engines that spent
most of their time above 6000rpm, but on a basic everyday street driver
it was apparently less than stellar.

> Regarding emissions. In response to Californian emission standards
> already in effect STI marketed a TR250 model in the US in 1968, which
> was a carburetted version of the TR5. It was around 30% down on power.
> The TR6 that followed underwent modifications to the throttle bodies
> and was successfully marketed in the US. Subsequent regulations in
> the US and elsewhere would've certainly resulted in non compliance as
> it didn't have the same degree of mixture control as compliant
> carburetted cars of that era. Nor did it have any compensation for
> altitude or atmospheric conditions as do modern EFI systems which are
> far, far more complicated.
>
> In fact it was a well proven system having been originally designed
> for the Rolls-Royce Merlln around the end of WW2 (AFAIK none fell out
> of the sky as a consequence). Other than being a radical departure
> from carburetors it was a relatively simple, performance orientated,
> system used on numerous competition engines. It was still in
> production in the 1980s until EFI caught up with it.

I'm aware of it's success in competition roles, and if the truth be told
it would be unjust to declare it as anything other than astonishingly
successful on the race track. But as I've mentioned before just because
something has an illustrious career in a competition role doesn't
automatically mean that it will translate well onto the street.

Triumph apparently learned that lesson well, and the fact that no one
else seemed interesting in trying for themselves seems to confirm that.

>>> 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.
>
> No idea, having no interest in anything British post 1975.

Fair enough. The car I'm talking about was this:

> https://www.aronline.co.uk/cars/rover/rover-416i-vitesse/

...

>> 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 :)
>
> Funny thing that. I knew owners of both a limited production Bathurst
> XU1 and a standard production XU1 GTR (both were inline sixes). The
> first was very quick and latter relatively slow... a bog stock 2.5 PI
> would've creamed it. It also had the worst sorted suspension I ever
> came across on a car of that era.

I think you may be getting your cars mixed up here.

As far as the LC and LJ versions of the Toranas go, there were two
distinctly different "performance" variants in each model series: The
Torana GTR, and the Torana GTR XU1. Both cars looked very similar
externally in that they had the same "sporty" paint colours, the same
black outs and racing stripes, the same wheels, the same bucket seat
interiors and sports instrumentation, but that's where the similarities
ended. Under the bonnet they were completely different beasts.

The "GTR" variant came with a very basic mechanical package that was
almost stock standard. The earlier LC variant came with a stock 161
cubic inch red motor with an Opal 4 speed, and the later LJ variant came
with a stock 202 and "Aussie" 4 speed. Both of these engines were as
"standard" as you'd find in any other car in the Holden range at the time.

The "XU1" version was completely different. In the LC variant they were
fitted with a 186S engine that ran a special head casting, high
compression pistons, special hydraulic cam, header exhaust system and
triple CD-150 Stromberg carburetors. The later LJ version was similarly
equipped with a 202 Red motor with the same features as the early
version, but the carburetors were increased in size to the CD-175
Strombies.

Both the GTR and GTR XU1 were off the showroom floor models available to
anyone who was prepared to plonk the money down to buy one, and there
wasn't really anything "limited" or "special" about them. However in
1972 and '73 Holden *did* build "Bathurst" versions of the LJ XU1 during
the months of July and August which added a bigger mechanical camshaft
and a slightly different head casting which pushed the power output to
around 215hp. A limited number of these "Bathurst specials" were built
to improve their chances on the various race tracks around the country,
and in fact Peter Brock won his first Bathurst race at the hands of one
prepped by the Holden Dealer Team in 1972.

Some of these Bathurst specials found their ways into the hands of
public, and I owned one as a daily driver in the 1980's which was a
lovely shade of "Chataeu Mauve" purple metallic.

It was exactly the same as this one here:

> https://www.shannons.com.au/club/enthusiasts/nag/garage/1972-holden-torana-gtr-xu-1/

They were a quick car in their day with a top speed of "fucked if I
know" as the speedo ran to 125mph and you could peg the needle at
7000rpm in top gear without any trouble.

Best time I ever got out of mine over the quarter mile was 14.9 seconds,
and it was bog stock as it left the factory other than with a splash of
Toluene in the tank to stop the thing pinging it's head off

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.