The TR-6 was a quick and fairly cheap way to get a bit more life out of the venerable TR series that dated back to 1953 (TR-2). It involved new front and rear end styling by Michelotti, Karmann, but except for wider wheels and a front anti-roll bar, it was essentially the same as the TR-5 (TR-250 in the US).
R&T and plenty of Triumph fans had been hoping for an all-new Triumph roadster, but that was not to be yet, and when it arrived, in the form of the controversially-styled TR-7, it was in the form of a coupe, not a roadster. That suddenly made the TR-6 look a lot better, and it came to be seen as a fitting end of the line of the true TR family.
The TR-6 continued to use the same carbureted version of the 2.5 six as the TR-250, whereas the European version had the significantly zippier fuel injected engine as in the TR-5. The reason was that the Lucas mechanical FI was not precise enough in its metering to meet US emission standards. Now that’s a role reversal; typically FI facilitated that role, not hampered it. The result was that the European version had a zippy 150 hp while the US version made do with 104 hp. Bummer.
But R&T noted that the US version’s output “doesn’t keep the TR-6’s performance from being pleasant”. The 1/4 mile was absolved in 17.9, 0-60 in 10.7, and it hit a top speed of 109 mph. Not bad for the times, and enough to make it entertaining, especially with the top down, which makes every sports car feel about 50% faster.
The combination of the anti-roll bar, wider wheels and beefy Michelin X gave the TR-6 significantly enhanced high speed stability and “bite”. The IRS, which had to be shoehorned into a frame that was designed for a live axle, had some limitations, especially on rebound, as the frame rails actually ran underneath the suspension! The brakes also benefited from the fatter tires.
The body’s “vintage” roots meant that its interior was quite narrow, as were the seats. The traditional British dash with instruments set into the slab of wood was of course appreciated.
In summation, if the qualities of a traditional British sports car appealed, the TR-6 was then an appealing candidate.
Related reading:
Curbside Classic: Triumph TR6 – Last Call
Vintage R&T Road Test: 1967 Triumph TR-250 – Where’s Our TR-5?
I liked my TR6 sort of a more comfortable TR3 It suffered from smog controls, just too slow to rev up. Also watch out for the rear end chassis mounts, I had to have mine welded up.
For anyone who’s curious about the Lucas injection system used in the TR5 PI and TR6 PI, this site has most anything you might want to know:
https://www.lucasinjection.com
The most desirable Triumph available, and I’ve always kinda wanted one. Never badly enough to bite on the rare occasions that one became available, and when the time, place, money and car did finally come together . . . . so did a Porsche 924S. Which I went with. No regrets.
That was the right choice. A 924S is probably my ultimate grail car.
A useful improvement upon the old car which should have done a reasonable job of keeping the car competitive, only to be made practically irrelevant 9 months later when the 240Z arrived and quite frankly embarrassed everything that was remotely close in price and intended character. Things like perceived quality and style were debatable depending on who you asked; the performance figures and workmanship very much were not. Looking back, it’s rather amazing how effectively that car demonstrated that style is not always greater than substance at this end of the market, and I think it singlehandedly wiped out whatever casual tolerance anyone had left for the typical shortcomings of the British sports car barring absolutists dead set on believing those were the experience.
“. . . a roadster top that’s easy to put up and down.” That in itself was atypical of British roadsters.
It was probably particularly easy for guys who were experienced with Spridget MK1 and MK2 tops or Morgan tops.
I have the February, 1969 Car and Driver test of the Triumph TR6 in front of me. They were full of praise for the car, saying it was much improved over the unspectacular TR250. They also mentioned that their test car was super-tuned for its role as their demonstrator. Their acceleration times were considerably better than R&Ts, although their quarter mile trap speed was only one mile per hour higher.
I tend to think of Road & Track as being the anglophile magazine while Car and Driver’s greatest loyalty was to Detroit in the ’60 and early ’70s. The tests of this particular car do not support my theory.
The new front and rear styling was not by Michelotti. It was by Karmann. Michelotti designed the TR4, not the TR6.
Oops; my bad. Fixed now. Thanks.
Having owned a TR3A, this was my dream car for several years, I still wouldn’t turn one down after all these years (tho I doubt I can afford one in the excellent condition it would need to be in).
Having owned a somewhat tired 280Z I have never considered the TR cars and the Z cars all that comparable. In my mind it’s like saying the TR6 and a Jaguar XKE are comparable.
If nothing else, the Z cars were much more reliable than any Triumph ever ” dreamed ” of being. Perhaps the ultimate car would have been a Z car with a roadster top?
After 37 years of ownership I have zero regrets owning a timeless icon like my TR6.
It has soul that modern 4 wheeled electronic devices could only dream of.
Cheers.
After 23 years of ownership, I still love my TR-6! Yes the cockpit is cramped – smaller than an MG Midget, and yes my MG-Bs offer more room and are more comfortable to drive, the TR-6 is still real brute, fun to drive and beautiful to look at