(first posted 10/11/2016) Quick quiz – what car has low production numbers, available convertible top, rack and pinion steering, a manual gearbox, an all aluminum V8 engine but somehow remains unknown to most classic car enthusiasts? The photo above gives a pretty strong hint that the answer is the delectable Triumph TR8. Given it has some real collector car chops why can one be picked up for the same price as a common MG B?
Any write-up on the TR8 has to begin with the TR7. Designed by British Leyand the TR7 was not a bad idea or design but its execution left a lot to be desired. The aim was to build a modern sports car for the 1970s that could replace the MG B as well as Triumph GT6 and TR6. British Leyland had both MG and Triumph under its corporate umbrella and gave them both a chance to design the next iteration of the British sports car. The MG camp came up with a proposal code-named ADO21 that featured a wedge shape and mid engine design. The Triumph side of the house went with a much more conventional approach dubbed ‘Bullet’ with a front engine and rear wheel drive. While the Datsun 240Z and Porsche 914 were selling quite well in the US, which was the primary target market, British Leyland’s market research showed that Americans really wanted something mechanically straight forward. The feedback indicated prospective buyers wanted a car that was easy to fix and maintain. A conventional design had the added benefit of being cheaper as well. Given this the Triumph concept was pursued and it would take MG a couple more decades to get a mid engine design to market with the MG F.
While the prototypes had been fitted with Triumph four and six cylinder engines as the design moved from a Triumph one to a British Leyland one the straight six was dropped in favor of Rover’s V8. Additionally the proposed open and close variants changed to closed only with the option of a targa top. The idea of a MG version was slowly dropped at the same time. MG would continue to sell its open top B but the new car would be positioned above it price wise. To justify the cost premium the styling was overhauled and trendy pop up lights were included. Sadly the targa option was dropped. The new car was still envisioned as a range of cars with an eight valve four cylinder as the base, the mid-range powered by the Dolomite’s 16-valve engine and the range topping V8. A 2+2 variant dubbed Lynx was pitched as a Ford Capri competitor but never materialized.
The final design for the TR7 ended up being a unibody with suspension consisting of MacPherson struts up front and a well located live rear axle at the rear. Steering featured a manual rack and pinion setup with braking duties handled by discs at the front and drums out back. Power was supplied by a SOHC 2.0L four cylinder engine with the cylinders tilted over at a 45 degree angle. While not technically startlingly it was appropriate choice as a base engine for the era. Unfortunately, emissions requirements limited North American cars to only 90hp and the five speed gearbox was not ready in time for the car’s launch so it made due with a Morris Marina derived four speed. The envisioned 16-valve and V8 engine upgrades were limited to a handful of prototype cars which meant the TR7 was slower in acceleration than the outgoing TR6.
Sales started off for the North American market only in 1975. Critics were a little bemused by the wedge styling but found the ride and handling to be very good. Additionally the refinement and comfort was a huge improvement over the older models. Overall the reviews were very positive but a desire for more power was evident. UK specification TR7s went on sale in 1976 with slightly higher powered engines and less intrusive bumpers. The TR7 was built at the Speke plant which was one of the newer factories but unfortunately labor relations were among the most tense. There were stories of sabotage, incompetent management, work stoppages were common and quality was low. These issues meant the planned upgrades could never be implemented. A much talked about ban on convertibles sold in the US failed to come to fruition so a drop top version was on the horizon.
Up to this point it could be argued that the Triumph TR7 was a fine chassis in search of a worthy engine. The slant four while reasonable as a base engine did not produce a lot power but critically head and head-gasket issues were becoming commonplace. Starting for the 1978 model year a few early pre-production V8 powered coupes were produced. Most of early run of 150 did not sport any badging and were sent to North American primarily for British Leyland employees and the press to review. Visually the eight cylinder model hardly differed with only dual exhaust tips, special 13″ alloy wheels and a newly bulged hood. Inside the tachometer displayed a 5,500 rather than 6,000 rpm redline. The hood sported a bulge which was quickly added to the regular TR7 and a Spider edition received the same alloy wheels.
Specification wise TR8s received upgraded braking and suspension as well as a more relaxed rear end ratio (3.08:1) and the addition of power steering. The gearbox was a 77-mm Rover sourced five speed manual that also found its way into the four cylinder TR7. A three speed automatic was optional for those who wanted it. What really transformed the TR8 was the all-aluminum 133hp 3,528cc V8 with twin Stromberg 175CDSET carburetors. California and 1981/1982 models received Bosch L-Jet fuel injection (with a Lucas ECU) that produced 148hp.
The Rover V8 really deserves its own write-up but we will briefly cover it here. The engine started life as a Buick 215cid V8 introduced for the 1961 model year. Design started on the ultra-light weight engine in the 1950s before thin wall casting techniques were perfected. Aluminum looked to be a way to reduce weight improving overall vehicle performance and fuel economy. These engines were available in a base 2bbl 155hp trim all the way up to a 4bbl 200hp high performance variant. In 1962 this engine powered Mickey Thompson’s ride for the 1962 Indianapolis 500. By 1963 the Buick 215cid had garnered a somewhat troublesome reputation mostly due to incompatible coolant being used with the aluminum engine. The American market had less interest in smaller capacity engines and iron thin wall casting technology had evolved so the aluminum engine was discontinued by GM. Long lived iron V8 and V6 engines carried on with a very closely related design.
Rover managing director Bill Martin-Hurst managed to secure the rights to this engine from GM after spotting it at a Mercury Marine workshop in the US. Rover was looking for a new top of the range engine as it had only four cylinders and an older, heavier inline six. Rover made great use of the V8 installing it in a wide variety of mainstream vehicles such as Rover saloons as well as Land Rovers and Range Rovers. It also powered a huge array of specialty vehicles over its life including TVRs and Morgans. Like the ubiquitous Chevrolet small block V8 the Rover V8 became the staple of British hot rod builders. Interestingly GM still built more engines of this design in three years than Rover/British Leyland did in the decades that followed.
Production moved to the Canley factory in Coventry where quality improved and a drop top version became available in 1979. Most felt the convertible styling was much improved over the ‘turret top’ of the coupe. Despite improvements to the body shell to strengthen it the convertible actually weighed less the fixed roof coupe. Lopping off the top and the addition of a smooth five speed gearbox had transformed the TR7. All official, production TR8s were convertibles and had subtle badges to go along with the telltale dual exhausts.
After being officially launched, although only in the US and Canada, the TR8 received rave reviews. It was a bit of a throw back at a time when other manufacturers were downsizing engines. Triumph combined a modern and refined chassis with a V8 engine that featured a distinctly muscle car exhaust rumble. Motor Trend awarded it Import Car of the Year for 1980. Car & Driver featured a TR8 on its August 1980 cover and proclaimed it as ‘Nothing less than the reinvention of the sports car’.
The TR8 was not a cheap car however so sales never really took off. British Leyland while having success with racing the TR8 could not capitalize on it as it could not afford to properly advertise the TR8. Unfavorable currency conversion rates added to the headache. Roughly 2815 TR8s were sold including the prototype cars. TR7 V8 conversions remain popular especially in the UK and Australia where they missed out on the factory V8 car.
While the early TR7s had plenty of problems with quality the tail end of production cars were actually quite well built. The undersized four speed gearboxes and rear axles were gone. The production line was transferred to ex-Rover plant Solihull where labor relations stabilized. You can generally tell where a TR7 was made by the badge on the nose. Assuming the car has original paint the early Speke built cars have a decal with TR7 (or TR8) spelled out. This changed to a wreath with the word Triumph in the middle for the cars built in the Canley factory and a small black badge for the Solihull cars. The later cars also commonly have very nice metallic paint work but unfortunately lost the wacky tartan seats in the move to Solihull. The quality of the earliest cars along with the head-gasket and bolt issues of the slant four engine give the TR7 a reputation of being unreliable to this day. That is rather unfortunate as the later cars were quite well built and the head bolt concerns can be sorted with modern techniques.
The last of the TR8s were sold in Canada as 1982 models and it remains the last mainstream British roadster offered in North America. In the UK Triumph finished out its remaining days selling the Acclaim, a version the Honda Ballede (Civic). For the next several years TVR made excellent business selling wedge shaped cars powered by Rover V8 engines.
Given the TR8’s collector car resume of excellent handling, light weight, powerful engine, and rarity why has it not gained in value like some others? Parts availability remains excellent as the Rover V8 bits are easy to come by and body parts can be sourced from the much more common TR7. Maybe it is the lack of visual difference between it and the TR7? A set of 15” rims and some fat fender flares probably would have helped but the common look has not held back the Sunbeam Tiger versus the lower performing Alpine. Perhaps it is the poor reputation of the early TR7s or the fact that most people have no idea that the TR8 even exists. For those wanting to modify for higher performance the earlier carburetor TR8 is likely the first choice while the fuel injected cars are the better bet for an owner who wants the best performance from an original car.
In the era of six figure Porsche 911s the TR8 remains a classic car bargain. While it is the highest performing factory Triumph its values lag behind the earlier TR cars. In fact, pricing is similar to the much more common and lower performance MG B. For the same money I know I would choose the V8 rumble and relaxed cruising of a five speed gearbox.
I liked the look of them still, I did read a book on the car and I couldn’t believe how much the union brought down their own downfall and the reputation of the car. That blue TR8 is parked in front of a Canadian Tire.
Hah! That’s funny, I doubt you can get any TR8 parts at C-T.
One can only wonder what would have happened if they’d come out with this right off the bat, the design has aged better than the rubber bumper MGB.
The whole “destroy the company and build a workers’ paradise in the ashes” plan didn’t really work out.
Yes – Canadian Tire. The only TR8 I’ve seen outside of a car show in many, many years. Had a very ugly nose bra on the front.
Wow, the CC effect is working perfectly. On Sunday afternoon, I was getting out of my car in the driveway when a bright yellow TR-7 convertible drove past. As it went past me, I heard the unmistakable sound of a V8 engine as the car climbed a small incline. That was no TR-7, said I.
I wonder why the fixed roof coupe (with the oddly shaped window frames on the doors) was the original choice. It struck me that a convertible with a removable hardtop and frameless side glass might have solved a lot of what held this car back at first.
I did not like the looks of the car at all when it came out. I have started to come around on the convertibles, though I still prefer the earlier generation of British sports cars. However, the closed coupe is still just a no in my book.
I wonder why the fixed roof coupe (with the oddly shaped window frames on the doors) was the original choice.
The expectation of US roof strength standards lead to more than one odd design. The AMC Pacer was also designed for roof strength standards that never materialized.
The TR7’s roofline did not put me off as much as the wedge profile. I didn’t like it then and I don’t like it now, even though that rising beltline seems to have taken over the styling departments of several automakers. BL celebrated the wedge profile, the early TV ads having the TR7 being driven into a wedge shaped garage.
Michelotti had produced increasingly attractive models for Triumph for years, the Mk IV Spit, Mk III GT6 and Stag all being wonderfully clean, contemporary examples. Only thing I can think of was that Harris Mann, being in house, was cheaper than paying royalties to Miichelotti.
Michelotti did design a later British sports car, the Reliant Scimitar SS1, which is a different take on the basically wedge profile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliant_Scimitar_SS1
I’ve read reports that this wasn’t a Triumph design, but rather a British Leyland design that was put into production with the Triumph badge. And have always tended to believe it, as this car was a complete departurn from any sports cars Triumph had introduced before.
Just going back to a solid rear axle, and Triumph was virtually synonymous with IRS between the Herald, Vitesse, Spitfire, GT6(?), TR-5/250 and TR-6, was enough to have me suspicious that this design was more Austin than Triumph.
I’ve read reports that this wasn’t a Triumph design, but rather a British Leyland design that was put into production with the Triumph badge.
From what I read, it appears that BL had consolidated styling departments, and Mann was in charge.
As I look at the listing of Triumph models on Wiki, it is apparent management had decreed an end to Triumph in favor of MG as the Civic derived Acclaim was the last for the marque. That being the case, it is reasonable to surmise that the TR7, from the outset, was designed to be cheap, utilizing the greater BL parts bin to get to market with minimum investment to grub a last few pounds from the Triumph name before it was euthanized. This approach also fit with the official excuse of market research indicating Americans want cheap, simple cars, which flies in the face of the numbers of Civics, Accords, Fiat X 1/9s and VW Dashers/Rabbits/Sciroccos I saw on the street in the mid/late 70s.
The Spit’s IRS was no engineering tour de force either.
As stated above it definitely started as a Triumph design premise but was quickly taken over by British Leyland.
The TR6 has independent suspension yes but it featured the complexity of an independent set up with the unsprung weight of a live axle …
The Rover SD1 features live axle while its predecessor has IRS. Spen King was in charge of both designs (TR7 and SD1) and favored a really well designed and located live axle over a so-so IRS. The short, wide TR7 handles quite well – better than the any of the early cars.
Triumph was definitely favored over MG in the early 70s as there was a number of ex-Triumph members in BL’s management. The TR7 was not designed as a swan song cash grab for the brand.
The Rover P6 had de Dion rear suspension, which literally paired the complexity of independent rear suspension with a solid axle. The differential was mounted to the body while the wheels were attached directly to one another by a sliding de Dion tube acting just as a solid axle mounted on trailing arms would. The live axle of the SD1 was likely a far better solution for a sedan that would be used for transportation. It picked up a bit of unsprung weight and lost a mess of complexity.
Regarding the safety standards, the federal roof crush standard (FMVSS 216) that was initially enacted would have effectively outlawed convertibles when it took effect (Sep. 1, 1973). However, before it went into effect, the standard failed a court challenge; a federal court agreed that outlawing a specific type of vehicle exceeded the authority granted by the underlying statute.
This did not result in the standard being rescinded or canceled its entirety, but by the time it went into effect, it had been revised to add an explicit exemption for convertibles. However, by the time that was sorted out, most manufacturers had long since assumed the convertible was a dead duck so far as the U.S. was concerned and made other plans regarding future products.
The TR7/TR8 ended up suffering from this because (a) they ended up being outsold by the MGB, which was not at all the plan, and (b) when BL did decide to offer a convertible, it was at a disadvantage because the TR7 structure had not been designed for convertible duty. (Turning a fixed-roof monocoque into a convertible that’s more rigid than flavored gelatin dessert is tough if it hasn’t been engineered with that in mind.)
I disagree about the convertible being at a disadvantage from a design point of view, as it was derived from the coupe. This would normally be the case, but the drop top TR7/8 was actually lighter than the coupe, and in no way was compromised as a result.
I think the TR8 suffers from the negative halo effect of the TR7 being perceived as “not a real British Sports car” like the MGB or the TR6. The delayed release of the convertible and the 5 speed didn’t help and the US 4 cylinder models probably should have had the Sprint engine form the start and possibly Bosch K-Jetronic fuel injection. 16 valves and fuel injection in the mid 70s was race car stuff and would have helped sales even with a hard top. The V8 and Sprint engined coupes were also very successful rally cars and marketing that could have led to a proto WRX image. I’d certainly consider one if I could find it and had the cash to hand.
The problem with the TR7 was that it seemed to be something between a Spitfire and a TR6, rather than a true TR6 replacement. On paper it appeared to be a step backward technically. Coming with the ungainly coupe body only at the start further broke the connection with the TR badge – TRs were open cars. Maybe it should have been called something else, and then we wouldn’t have seen it as unworthy? The emissionised tune we got in Australia led to Wheels calling it a two-seater sedan! Somehow I’ve never been able to take them seriously since reading that.
Then Leyland imploded, and I don’t think we ever got the TR8 officially.
Question answered, more questions pop up.
So a friend I had in college had one of these pre-production TR8’s. His was not a coupe and he bought his while doing a tour with the Air Force in Lakenheath and shipped it back. I remember it did not have any markings. He said the guy he bought it from told him it was a pre-production TR-7 with the 8 cylinder from the factory and that he bought it from someone from Leyland. Holy-cow, that car crossed the ocean three times? It always struck me as weird that it was a left hand drive car bought in the UK.
There were a few converted TR7-V8 cars built in the UK for testing. Some potentially could be convertibles. The left hand drive of your friend’s is curious. The prototypes are hard to nail down. Even production numbers vary from source to source. Its somewhere between 2700-2900.
I remember seeing actually quite a few TR-8s around here, Tigard/Portland area back in the day. We all know that the Brits could screw up a wet dream, but why, why, did they have to put those pesky, leaky, SU type carburetors on such a gem of a engine? Even the Mazda rotary got a proper down draft 4bbl carb. Those dual carbs were not “mechanically straightforward” enough for the North American market.
It is a very popular swap to replace the Zenith Strombergs with a 4bbl.
The early, non-emissions “constant velocity” (ie ZS and SU style) carbs are very simple and elegant in there operation. You still see them more recently on motorbikes where emissions are not as big a concern.
The Japanese did indeed embrace the CV carb design; and they did it without separate float bowls or oil dampened slides, at least on their bikes. ( Honey, did you check the oil in the carbs?). I will never understand the Brits hard-on for CV type carbs. Ever. Especially on a V8. Toyota did use the SU design on some of their cars, however, late 60’s, early 70’s, not sold in N/A. 6R-B, 7R-B, 8R-B engines.
I prefer the term Constant Depression to describe SU carburetors.
It is still possible to find Edelbrock 4bbl manifolds at large automotive swap meets. I drove both the SU and later injected versions in Tucson in the 80’s. The fuel injected version had quite a bit more power. The only real complaint was the foot well was narrow making it hard to heel and toe.
Edelbrock still makes 4bbl manifolds for the Buick/Rover engines, #2198, right out of their 2016 catalog. 🙂
I would have liked to see the TR8 continue. Modern electronics would have improved the output on the V8 and the cabin was quite roomy. The O series engine could have replaced the Triumph engine or perhaps in a reversal, Triumph could have acquired some of the Saab developments of the four. Remember Saab got it up to 258hp out of a 2.3 liter turbo version. Would have been interesting to see if an 80s line softening would have been as effective as the restyle of the also wedge Lotus Espirit in 1987. There should always be room in the market for an affordable English sports car.
Good point about potential developments for the four. I guess the Saab developments show what can be accomplished with that engine when freed from Leyland bureaucratic interference. Just tie up them bureaucrats and let the engineers go!
But I never understood why the TR7, supposedly a sports car, wasn’t launched with Triumph’s best four, the 16 valve Dolomite Sprint engine. Couldn’t they make enough of them to satisfy demand? That would’ve made a better sports car engine than the tame sedan-tune 2 litre.
A co-worker of mine bought a TR7 new. His wore the laurel wreath insignia, implying Canley construction.
Gary noticed every time he took a corner a bit hot, he heard a bang in the left rear of the car. The dealer proclaimed all was well. The noise continued, so he started pulling down the interior trim in that rear corner for a look see. He discovered that the inner wheelwell stamping had never been welded to the outer fender/wheel arch stamping and the noise he was hearing was the two stampings shifting against eachother as the car body deformed. The dealer proclaimed the lack of welding was not a “defect in materials and workmanship”, thus not covered under warranty. BL agreed with the dealer. Discussions continued for some time, and, eventually, the welding job begun in England was finished in Michigan.
Gary went on to accumulate, second hand, a 7 couple and an 8 roadster. There were a group of TR7s and 8s at the Gilmore’s English show last summer. I looked to see if Gary was one of the exhibitors but his Triumphs were not among those present.
I have a hard time coming up with a more textbook example of “defect in materials and workmanship” than this. It amazes me how dealers and manufacturers try to ignore the plain meaning of their warranty language. I had a similar argument with a local Ford dealer. My 94 Club Wagon (which the dealership owned for the first year of its life as a rental) was built without a power lock actuator in the rear door. After setting the alarm off several times by opening the unlocked door that should have been locked, I complained that the power lock wasn’t working. The dealer tried to say that this was not a defect in materials and workmanship. Mr. Lawyer here was not giving up on the point and the dealer agreed to take care of it as a “service adjustment”, whatever that is.
Mr. Lawyer here
That is the key difference. Even if most people could read all the fine print in the warranty without their eyes glazing over, by the time they retain a lawyer to prosecute their case, it would have been cheaper to cut their losses and trade in the POS on something else.
My Dad had a 2010 Honda Odyssey who’s alarm was going off at all hours. He took it to a Honda Dealer who inspected it. It needed a new wiring harness. The dealer’s service manager said “I recommend that you trade it in immediately, but not here.”
I guess the dealer didn’t know he was trying to cheat a lawyer! Whoops!
These horror stories sound like a great opening to an old Monty Python sketch: “Hello, BL customer service? My new TR7 just exploded in my driveway!”
“That’s not a fault, sir; it’s our ‘Instant-On Heater’ feature. They all do that eventually.”
My uncle Mal bought a brand-new TR7. He brought it over to our house to show it off. He was playing with the headlights – up-down-up-down, etc. By about the 4th pull, we could all smell the distinctive odor of melting electrical insulation, and the dashboard wiring harness was melting on to his lap.
He had it towed back to the dealer and demanded his money back.
The next week, he showed up in his brand-new VW Scirocco.
The next week, he showed up in his brand-new VW Scirocco.
A coworker of mine had one of those too. Between the TR7 and the Scirocco, I felt pretty good about my Renault.
I’ve never owned a TR7, but my ’77 Scirocco was the most troublesome car I’ve owned. And I’ve had two Alfas, a water cooled Vanagon, and a Vega …
Top Gear rips on BL, and the TR7, praises the TR8 and points out what a bargain they are now.
Also a quick glimpse of the Lynx prototype, looking quite a bit like a Lotus Eclat, considered before things started to go wrong in the executive thinking department.
Thanks for the link, very enjoyable. If only they’d used the Lynx body…..
As the former owner of 1980 TR8 convertible, I would agree these were very fun and fast sports cars (especially from the end of the Malaise Era), only let down by the poor British Leyland build quality. I bought mine new in 1982 from the MD/Triumph/Jaguar dealer in Rapid City, South Dalota. He had several left over TR8 models on his showroom floor, including the rare coupe models (only 200 TR8 production coupes were made). Due to the weakness of the US Dollar and the strength of the British Pound, these cars were too expensive for the sports car market of those times. Unlike most Britsh cars, it had the best heater and air conditioning of any Britsh car I have ever owned. That car was fast (faster than a stock 1980 Corvette) and smooth with plenty of V8 torque. My car had the federal emissions package, so it came with the dual sidedraft Stromberg carbs instead of the Bosch/Lucas fuel injection. Handling was great. The power steering on the TR8 was much quicker than the steering on the TR7, and took some getting accustomed to. The 5 speed trans was smoth and quick shifting, only let down by an overly long shift lever. A coomon cure was to cut 3 inches out of it and rethread it for the shift knob. Clearly, the TR8 was a mixture of parts bin enginering by British Leyland, which makes most parts readily available from British car sources. The engine itself was pretty bulletproof, as shown by the thousands of Range Rovers which used it.
Around 65,000 miles the car started having the usual Britsh car “nervous breakdown.” First the water pump had to be replaced, then a few months later the power steering rack had to be rebuilt, and then the alternator went bad; all within the space of 5,000 miles. At that point I sold the car, but still have fond memories of blasting down back roads with it on warm summer evenings with the top down.
The shape of things to come indeed. I vividly remember the TV commercials of the TR7 driving into a wedge-shaped cardboard garage to make the point. And sure enough right after that came the Lotus Esprit and Aston Martin Lagonda. A great marketing campaign and PR effort too. Everyone was writing about the car.
I love reading comments on car sites from guys who used to own the model and go over the horror story of owning it. The worst I ever read was about the TR8. Still what a cool design that still looks very attractive and modern. Not too big not too small.
Enjoyed the write up thank you David.
That wedge garage probably did more to put this on my 13 year old radar than anything else. “The Shape of Things to Come” was a rather brilliant campaign.
That wedge garage probably did more to put this on my 13 year old radar than anything else. “The Shape of Things to Come” was a rather brilliant campaign.
People really bought into that ad campaign. My TR7 owning coworker showed off his latest acquisition for his Triumph from the halls of Vilém B. Haan, a wedge shaped TR7 logo key fob.
Maybe the wedge garage should have been a factory option? 🙂
I need to correct something. I said I read bad things about owing a TR8. What I remember reading was for the Triumph Stag V8.
I never owned one, but did at least drive a new one back in the day. Solid rear axle and ride were deal killers. Always found the X1/9 to be a far superior car.
Here’s my ’81…
Nice write-up and photos.
I owned a 1980 TR7, but always wanted a TR8. I think this statement from the write-up is right on: “While the early TR7s had plenty of problems with quality the tail end of production cars were actually quite well built.” But a bad reputation is hard to overcome, and improvements came too late to save either the TR7 or TR8.
Despite the TR7’s reputation, my late-built model was a good car. I put many trouble-free miles on it while having great fun driving it all over the Smokey Mountains near where I lived at the time. It was a great autocrosser too. Owned many cars from Acura to Volvo, but my TR7 is one of the few that I would like to have back. A more powerful TR8 would be even better.
My only real question today is why GM didn’t put the aluminum V8 on ice, instead of selling it. Yes hindsight is 20/20, but that engine in the Vega/Monza/Skyhawk, in say ’75 would have made the Japanese really take notice; the Japanese, at least here,(USA) had no all aluminum engines, let alone a small V8 that got decent gas mileage… As a fan of the 215, maybe I am biased….
why GM didn’t put the aluminum V8 on ice, instead of selling it.
At the time, engines were growing ever larger, so they probably did not see any use for such a small V8 as an inline six was cheaper and could provide enough power. They probably had other uses for the plant space the equipment was occupying, so the two options for the line were sale and scrap. The other small engines of the early 60s went away too. Buick probably considered itself exceptionally lucky to be able to buy the V6 back from AMC.
Even more troublesome is why did GM need to buy back the V6 and fail to ever put out another good small displacement V6? The company that could develop a new engine family every year or two in the ’50s had declined to become one that couldn’t develop anything worthwhile from scratch in a remarkably short period of years.
Architecturally, the smaller Buick V-8s (the Buick 300/340/350) were direct derivatives of the aluminum engine, initially with aluminum heads on an iron block, then all iron. So, from Buick’s perspective, it didn’t really go away — it just evolved in a direction more in keeping with the division’s needs. The aluminum engine had been a massive headache for Buick on a manufacturing level and racked up substantial warranty costs to boot. Thinwall iron casting was narrowing the weight gap quite a bit (the all-iron 300 was 70-ish pounds lighter than a Chevy 327) and cost much less.
Pontiac had only bought the aluminum V-8 because senior management said they had to and Oldsmobile went their own way because they were looking to replace and update all their V-8s. As I recall, the Olds 330/350 and the 400/425/455 differ mainly in deck height, so there was a lot of manufacturing commonality — which was probably a bunch cheaper than buying short blocks from Buick.
The Toyota V-series engine in the Century was a smallish all-aluminum V-8 — in 1975, I think it was about 3.4 liters — but it was also almost totally irrelevant from a commercial standpoint. It was much too expensive to run for Japanese buyers and at that point I don’t think Toyota could have sold enough of them abroad to be worth building more than a handful at a time. Likewise the iron-block V-8 in the Nissan President. Even a 2.8-liter six was high-roller stuff in Japan, so none of the local automakers had much reason to develop anything much bigger.
A Vega/Monza/Skyhawk would have been a fantastic package but very pricey. Although the Vega Cosworth wasn’t cheap either.
Well, I was pretty harsh about the P1800 earlier today, but this (TR8 convertible version) is a car that seemed desirable at the time and only looks better now, though to be honest it had really fallen of my radar for the last 20 years or so. I’ll have to start checking Hemmings and EBay to see if prices are really that low. And unfortunately, it’s new enough that I’d still have to deal with California emissions. I wonder if the full powertrain swap from a 5 speed Defender or early Disco would be CARB legal?
Excellent article. Its interesting they went with the Rover V8, and forgot about the Triumph Stag V8, which was a completely different and far inferior design.
I knew this was a low production model but did not realize it was this low. Twenty years ago a friend bought a TR8 convertible that someone had butchered. The Rover V8 was gone and an greasy old Chevy 350 was in its place. I thought this was insane. The huge lump of iron ruined the car. It was nose heavy, awful handling and had too-short gearing. All its best features were gone. It disappeared in a few months, because my friend found the car to be useless and a complete failure as a project.
The Stag V-8 wasn’t inferior in terms of performance, but in reliability, well… My understanding is that BL was pretty eager to be rid of the Stag engine by then for both the obvious reasons and on some practical manufacturing grounds.
It was quite telling that they didn’t use Triumph’s own V8 in the TR8. 🙂
I agree the TR8 was a worthy sports car then and now if you can find one and a source of parts.
The TR 7 never really impressed me as my roommate bought one new in 1978. Somehow it got through a few central BC winters and proved to be a very comfortable highway car as we found out during a nine hour drive one summer into Alberta. The guy really had to rev it to reach highway speed. He made the car survive well into the early eighties and gave up repairing it by 1986 when he sold it. I have to agree with someone earlier who said it didn’t seem to fit as a successor to the TR6. Perhaps because it was a little “too out there” in its styling.
What sort of modern techniques could be used to overcome the TR7 head & head bolt problems? It was sometimes impossible to remove the head, well, other than chiseling it off bit by bit.
Could a block from a later Saab be used?
The owner’s club has a tool called the “Head Honcho” that is used to remove the head.
http://www.triumphwedgeowners.org/tr7-head-honcho-in-action.html
The Saab blocks are not interchangeable. Likely easier to swap in a V6 engine which is reasonably common.
Very nice writeup. Lots of folks remember the TR7, since it got a huge advertising push when it premiered. But you had to be a car buff to know that the TR8 followed later. Collectability is correlated with fond memories (which is why people pay ridiculous prices for Mustangs and GTOs). For the most part, people have no memory at all of the TR8.
I also think the collectability of the TR7 and TR8 is hurt by their once-futuristic styling. The wedge-shape trend was short lived, and people shopping for old cars are looking for classic styling themes, not oddball styling detours.
I didn’t know until recently that the “Shape of Things to Come” tag line was taken from the title of an H.G. Wells book, in which he outlined his idea of a future utopia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shape_of_Things_to_Come
A friend of mine bought one of these, a ’79, and it was a disaster in many ways. First, it was too small for him, he was a huge guy and he was never comfortable in it. Second, the trans had some issue constantly, and then he had a spun bearing. After it was fixed, he sold it as soon as he could and bought the first ’82 Trans Am I saw in person, black with the flat wheel covers. He kept that for a long time, and then sold it and bought a yellow 2002 Trans Am which he nearly killed himself in the first month he had it. When it began to have problems around 2012, he bought his current car, a 2012 Yellow Jacket Challenger SRT.
Nice piece David. Neat summary of what was a Triumph engineered car clothed in an Austin-Morris body. The Lynx has always struck me as a missing link in the BL armoury, really taking the fight to the Capri and Scirocco.
In the UK, the TR8 never really came to market, and most that are around are actually conversions of TR7s.
Within the home market, it was disadvantaged by the engine, which at 3.5 litres was considered large for the car, profligate with its fuel and arguably not consistent with its role as a traditional roadster in a sharp 1970s suit.
That’s before you factor in the TR7 link – if you ever need a surrogate for BL in the 1970s, with its reputation for industrial strife, poor quality, incorrect (as concluded by non-experts in some cases) product planning and unattractive styling (subjective of course) then you could pick either the Allegro or the TR7 without challenge. It was also, by the time the V8 came, getting a bit older in the market than we may have realised. Some of these issues applied to the convertible as well.
Nice summary of the TR7/TR8 saga–seems like they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by skipping the 4-cyl version altogether, especially if the MGB was to become the “bargain” car. And while the closed-roof versions have a certain 70’s charm (in profile I see similarities with the Porsche 914) the open-top version is a legitimately good-looking car. There is a tuner whose name I cannot recall at the moment who’s made a name upgrading the TR7/8 with more modern nose caps (using Volvo 480 indicators, among other things) and upgraded wheel/tire packages and flared fenders. Plus, presumably, more power. It’s a good look.
The green hatchback in the second article photo–is that the Lynx prototype? Look very closely at it, and a 1986 Accord Hatchback will appear before your eyes.
Yes, the green car is the Lynx prototype.
The TR7 was originally supposed to replace both the TR6 and the MGB, since during the development of the TR7, it appeared convertibles would be outlawed in the U.S. by the 1974 model year. Even when that turned out not to be the case, BL hoped to have the TR7 ready soon enough to avoid needing to make the TR6 and MGB compatible with U.S. bumper standards, although obviously that didn’t happen either. Making the V-8 standard would have been too expensive and too thirsty for a lot of intended buyers, and the fact that people kept buying the late big-bumper MGB emphasizes that a lot of customers were not all that interested in performance per se.
I have an extremely rare RHD TR8 PED. Only 39 were built in 1981 and were to European specification. The emissions gear was found in a box in the boot (trunk to you Americans). What a fantastic car with great performance and handling that catches the eye even though it is now 40 years of age.
What an absolute shame this car didn’t get a fair go by BL management and the British government.
The car you’re showing us here is certainly unusual. Whatever the rest of its specifications, it does not have a European-specification lighting system. The amber front and red rear side marker light/reflector units are called for by only the US and Canadian regulations. Side markers are allowed elsewhere in the world, but under European specs if they’re present they have to be amber front and rear unless the rear one is built into a multifunction lamp cluster, then it may be red. Also, there are no side turn signal repeaters, which weren’t required in all countries using EU-spec vehicles in 1981, but enough of them that their absence (especially with the presence of the US-type side markers) raises questions.
Hey, I know! This is the special model made for US rural mail carriers! 🤓
The PED was built for US service personnel and diplomats serving in Europe & the UK with the intention to ship the car to the US on completion of their duty. This explains the issues raised by Daniel Stern above.
The emissions gear wasn’t fitted but was included in a box in the boot for fitment once the car arrived in the US.
This particular car was bought to Australia in 1991 where it still resides.
Very funny that B-L’s ads so strongly featured a font that I associate with Atari.
In the context of the time, maybe it was deemed a sneaky, cool way to associate the car with the technology of video games.
One of BL’s express goals with the TR7 was to make it LOOK futuristic without needing to BE futuristic, so basically, yeah (although video games were not yet a thing when it was developed and were only starting to become a thing when the TR8 arrived).
One correction – the fuel injection system is not a K system – it looks more like an L-Jet. The Bosch D system came first, then K & L. The D system is a speed density system that infers the airflow through the engine by measuring manifold pressure/vacuum & engine speed. The L and K system use mass airflow metering but the K system does not use electronically triggered injectors. The K system uses a continuous spray of fuel at varying pressures to control the total amount of fuel injected, the D & L systems use pulsed injectors with constant pressure, varying the duration of time the injector is open to control the amount of fuel injected. Looking at pictures of these TR8 systems online, the electronically controlled pulsed injectors are clearly visible as well as the airflow meter.
Good catch — it’s L-Jetronic, with mass airflow metering (Luft) rather than MAP (Druck).
Thank you both. Updated.
They put the V8 in the MG B, too, some years earlier (MG C). I can’t remember if it came to the US. I wonder how sales compared.
It did not come to North America unfortunately. Supplies of the V8 engine were limited so they prioritized the higher margin cars is the story I have heard.
The short-lived MGC had the 2.9-liter C-series six, which was different from the later MGB GT V8, which had the 3.5-liter Buick/Rover V-8. (The MGC did come to North America, although it didn’t sell well.)
One of the dilemmas BL faced in the seventies is that there was a lot of internal demand for the V-8, more than they had the production capacity to accommodate.