There is no easy way to write this, but I just don’t care for Triumph roadsters. Britain made dozens of sporty soft-tops back in the ‘50s and ‘60s – one might say that was one of the British car industry’s strong suits. And that’s the issue: if it were only Triumph and a couple other options, things might be different. But competing with Sunbeam, MG, Austin-Healey, Jaguar, Daimler, Morgan, AC, Lotus and a number of others, the TRs of any number fails to crack my personal top ten.
Well almost. If one TR were to make it to tenth place, it would be TR number 3. Number 2, with that gaping maw, looks half-finished. Not keen on the TR4/TR5, with their ineffectual IRS; same for ‘60s Spitfires’ dodgy swing axle. Pass on the staid-looking TR6, hard pass on Sad Lady of the Leylands TR7… And let’s not mention the Stag (oops!).
Point is, the TR3 is perhaps the sole model fielded by Standard-Defeat in the mid-to-late ‘50s that has stood the test of time. It managed to strike a rather pleasing balance between the rough and ready immediate post-war drop-top and the attempts at sophistication that ended up ruining British carmakers in general and roadsters in particular in the ‘60s and ‘70s.
Triumph’s own IRS is a decent example of said bungling sophistication – as is a certain V8-powered two-door that shall remain nameless (Stag, re-oops). I always preferred Triumph’s ‘60s saloons: the Herald/Vitesse and especially the 2000/2500. But back in the ‘50s, when Standard were still trying to play the alpha marque role, the best car named Triumph was the swoopy roadster we’re looking into presently.
I love the wire wheels, the minimal bumpers, the turn signals tacked on as an afterthought to that pointy rear end. I also love the fact that it still has a crank starter hole in the grille. I know, some Citroëns kept theirs for eons as well – into the ‘80s, in fact. But the 2CV or the GS were not sexy 2-litre sports cars.
They only made about 13,000 of these “narrow grille” series 1 cars before a facelift in late 1957 gave the Triumph roadster a new face – well, more of a new mouth. It changed the car’s physiognomy more than facelifts usually do. On balance, the pre-facelift version wins for me – just by a nose…
Triumph installed disc brakes in their TR3 starting in 1956 – a highly commendable improvement, and one that showed a taste for innovation. On the other hand, the TR3 made it all the way to 1962 without a synchronized first gear, which must make city driving more difficult than it would be in, say, a Porsche 356 or an Alfa 1900, which had more modern gearboxes. But still far better than the Moss mess used in contemporary Jags.
My favourite bit of the TR3 is that sumptuous interior, which still has a prewar feel. The lack of walnut burl (thanks for sparing us that cliché, Mr Standard-Triumph), the giant steering wheel and in tiny gearstick, the sensible layout… It sure looks like a snug place to sit. Fundamentally close to the ground, but head on cloud nine.
Although as quintessentially British as a mug of milky tea on a rainy Sunday afternoon, our TR lacks the social pretensions of some of the other vehicles I’ve encountered here. You might have recognized the backdrop as being identical to several other British beauties caught over the past couple of years – notably the Bristols, as well as a number of Rolls-Royces and Bentleys. A blue collar little red roadster? Not quite, but no-nonsense and ready to shake your fillings loose on a twisty mountain road near you.
Related posts:
Vintage SCI Review: 1957 Triumph TR-3 – Disc Braked!, by PN
Curbside Classic: 1959 Triumph TR3A: My Favorite ’50’s Sportscar, by Longrooffan
COAL: 1962 Triumph TR3B – Nonsense and Sensibility, by Retro Jerry
CC Outtake: A Couple Of Tasty Treats, by Chris O’Bryant
This reminds me of my teenage years, I lived in Dakar for some time and I always kept my eyes open for old or unusual cars. One time I heard a rumour about an old British sportscar rusting away in an industrial area. It took me a few days of searching but I found it, it turned out to be a MGA coupe with the roof cut off. The owner sadly refused to sell it to me, he already had it for a long time and wanted to restore it someday even though there was no way to get any parts for it. It was missing the engine and the body was quite rusty faded red. I was really sad, I had a Chevrolet 250 inline 6 engine in my backyard or I could have easily gotten a Ford 302 or Rover 3.5 v8 for it to make my own African frankenstein rat rod but it sadly wasn’t meant to be. I wonder where it is now, the salty ocean air likely didn’t do it any good.
I agree that the TR3 epitomizes the brand in the best way, although I rather like the TR4 too.
By the way, only some of the later TR4s had the IRS, and it seemed to be pretty well reviewed. Th US importer got Triumph to keep making non-IRS TR4s for the US as it was cheaper and the market was so competitive here.
The MGB didn’t get a syncro first gear until 1968.
The TRs, from the very beginning, simply offered more performance fr the buck than the very popular MGs. Hence their popularity, but they were a bit roarty and crude.
The experience of sitting in one of these with that very low-cut door is something quite different and memorable.
The big Triumph TR series roadsters were always homely to slightly challenging styling wise compared to some of the competition. I do love the interior as well. A good friend of mine is always reminding me that you can’t see the outside when driving.
The Spitfire is absolutely lovely in my opinion and given the modest engine output the swing axles suspension should not be feared in updated MkIV or 1500 form.
The saw one of these the other day. The owner was telling me his first car show after a nuts and bolts restoration was in Vancouver which required a long drive through the mountains. He got stuck in a snow storm. People keep slowing down to take photos which caused even more mucky snow to be thrown at his newly painted car.
Crude is an understatement .
They used tractor engines .
On the flip side they did and still do look fantastic .
An old friend of mine still has his “Blue Meanie” and God alone knows how many miles it has at this point .
The Porsche 356 box with first gear synchro was weak to say the least .
I briefly had and greatly enjoyed a TR4a when it was less than 10 years old – the frame was bent but we had a blast in it anyway .
-Nate
They dont use a tractor engine there are some internals that will swap over from a Ferguson engine but thats all,
the engine is from the Standard Vanguard sedan with a few performance tweeks, great looking cars that with some simple fettling went like hell.
My favourite TR as well.
“ineffectual irs” my sainted rear end! From the Triumph 2000 through PI & 2500S sedans, through Spitfires & Stag to its blatant imitation by Porsche and later Holden, Triumph’s Aluminium alloy semi-trailing arm was a paragon of performance, maintenance and simplicity of set-up. I never owned a TR2, 3 or 4, or any proud user of Standard Triumph’s brilliant, versatile, rustically rugged wet sleeve four that lit up Mulsanne Straight nigh on 7 decades since, (forgive me, Gerard Manley Hopkins) whose sheer plod makes plough down sillion shine in thousands of beloved Fergie greys – Ferguson Tractors. My fave TR is the tough TR2, with its cutaway doors, simple lines and open mouth: no pansified nonfunctional frippery like chrome grilles and (Fangio forbid) wind-up windows!
When I wanted an open British two seater back in 1994, I dismissed the TR2/3 because of the low doors and lack of side windows. Of course, there are the screens which can be mounted into the doors but this is not really practical. Maybe for others living in warmer climate countries, not so here in the Netherlands.
I love the wind up windows in my non-IRS TR4, up on the motorways and down on the country roads.
For me, the TR4 is best. That big steering wheel and clear instruments on a simple metal dash!
“Shake your fillings loose” is the line that best describes these models. A friend had a TR3-B (pretty sure) and it was definitely a challenge to drive.
I got all bristled-up when I read your opening gambit, a gambit I might add that was clearly a sure case of click-bait click-baitery if ever there was such a thing – yes, I know, as to the second, there wasn’t, but presto, there is now, hereby trademarked – but then I read the actual text thereunder (a dull and tedious task in this age of speedy headline-created total knowledge aquirementry). And having thus spent precious clock-movements, I realized you were not talking of the TR3, and so, like, yeah. Can’t really argue, lad.
The rest do indeed have the flaws you attribute to them – the gapy TR2, the unstunning TR4, the outright yawner that is the TR6 – and it leaves only the 3 as a goody.
And I’ve got to confess (I’m Catholic) that even that last one has always been a bit more dramatic than necessarily beautiful, what with the Marty Feldman front and the middle slash that makes it look like it might fold up on you on a big bump.
I’m sure driving one changes the perspective, as I’m sure there’s much fun to be had, provided one avoids anything larger than large hairs on the road surface.
And also, I think it’s mean to imply that the TR prefix refers to “tractor-related”, so I won’t, but if I did, I have trademarked that too, so pay-per-use, please.