Talk:Triumph TR6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Replica[edit]

Regarding the replica section, the company mentioned doesn't make a TR6 replica, it makes a GT6 replica (which is a completely different model). This section isn't accurate and doesn't apply to the TR6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.33.46 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermarket[edit]

I removed the material about aftermarket swap and tuning since this is about a product from Triumph, rather than about what you could do with your Triumph. Toddst1 06:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Styling[edit]

The styling was produced by Karmann, of Osnabrück, Germany. "Karmann Ghia" was a car produced by VW, as it was styled by Ghia of Turin & built by Karmann (as were many low volume VWs; earlier Golf convertible, Corrado, Sciroco Mk1 & 2). The reason Karmann styled & not Michelotti, as for most previous Triumphs, was that Karmann were approached to make the tooling but as Michelotti was busy on other projects, they also quoted to style it as well.
LewisR (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It perhaps should be mentioned that the REASON the nose and tail of the TR5/TR250 was altered to create the TR6 was in response to new US DOT regulations. The headlights, for example, were required to be located at the front corners of the car so that oncoming vehicles at night would not be misled to thinking the car was narrower than it truly was. And the new regulations required that visibility of taillights had to be increased, which affected not only the TR5/TR250 but also the GT6, Spitfire, Jaguar E-type, and numerous other cars that had relatively small taillights up to that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.16.114 (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spam links[edit]

Depositing spam links here

See WP:EL and WP:NOT . Links need to add value to the article not the linker. Toddst1 (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TR6 fuel tank capacity[edit]

There was a factual error concerning the fuel tank capacity. I tried to correct it (capcity is 43 litres or 11.4 U.S. gallons), but apparently messed up the reference (Triumph Handbook). If someone knows how to fix it, please do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcneece (talk • contribs) 13:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Camm with a C and not the German K.[edit]

The German Kamm espoused that a car should maintain its maximum section all the way to the rear where it should be cut off, somewhat like a trade van or station wagon. The transition from roof and sides to the rear of all of Kamm's designs feature a large rounded radius. Such designs encourage the re-attachment of the vortex that forms behind the car and produce high drag. For a later 2 seater BMW hardtop coupé he had modified his design part way to a fastback but the roof at the rear was still substantially above the cars waistline. This is known as a Kammback (one word) - a poor effort at a Fastback which has a roof line that tapers down to the waistline.

Sir Sidney Camm determined that the rear of a car should taper from maximum section to a point. The angle of the taper being such that the airflow didn't separate in to turbulent flow. As such a taper would be very long he advised it should be truncated and the rear transom deeply recessed with the body panels forming a sharp edged extension around the perimeter. This prevents the re-attachment of the vortex that forms behind the car. Any such recessed transom became known as Camm tail (2 words).

Does anyone believe the TR6 150bhp figure?[edit]

I have seen this reported variously as 145bhp, 150bhp, and so on, but owners who have had their cars tested, and restorers who tune them, reckon never to have seen a standard injected car achieve more than 130bhp, while 110 to 115 at the crank is normal. See http://www.tr-register.co.uk/forums/index.php?/topic/15712-horse-power/, for example.

If so, this might explain why Triumph foresaw no problem in giving the successor TR7 half a Stag engine. The slant-four's 105 or so bhp - which is about 2/3rds of the bhp of a Stag 3-litre V8, off 2/3rds of its displacement - might in fact be broadly the same as what a 2.5i engine really produced, as opposed to what it was claimed to produce. The TR7 was also 3% lighter than a TR6, so between this and the not dissimilar BHP, the two cars should have been quite similar in performance. There is some evidence that they were. Eg http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/triumph-0-60-mph-times/ has the 2.1 TR4A, the 2.5i TR6 and the 2.0 TR7 respectively doing 0 to 60 in 10.3, 10.6 and 11.2 seconds.

This is somewhat speculative, and of course if the 2.5's BHP were overstated, so might the Stag and TR7 engines' output also have been. The same source as above shows the 3.5-litre TR8 doing 0 to 60 in 8.4 seconds, which is about the same as is often claimed for the TR6. That also looks odd because you then have a 2.5i engine with 150bhp in the TR6 achieving performance similar to a later engine that had 40% more displacement but also only about 150bhp. It seems likelier that the 2.5's output was simply overstated.

I'm not sure this point belongs in the article but thought it worth bringing up. 89.207.1.20 (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a more general issue, though the Triumph 2.5 engine with its infamous "pioneering" fuel injection may be an extreme case. When I quote a power output figure in a wiki-car entry I (1) try always to include a source citation and (2) tend to add the adjective "published" or "claimed" or a phrase such as "the manufacturer quoted a power output of ...". But I suppose you might say that disclosed a nasty cynical streak on my part.
Once you get to the 1960s and beyond there are clearer standards but you still get all the different "standards" over whether you test the engine stripped of power reducing exhaust and accessories on a bench to maximise the value (SAE) or after you've added the muffler and other accessories which reduce the power available to turn the driving wheels (DIN). With apologies for my doubtlessly simplistic understanding of an inherently complex set of variables.
A few years ago I was working a lot on passenger car articles from the 1930s I was amazed how many cars with engines of around 2-litres managed exactly 100 bhp (according to their manufacturers and published sources which presumably had simply copied the figure). I think the truth is that every car is different. Another thought: the manufacturing tolerances on all sorts of components on English cars in the 1970s seem to have been greater than you'd have found on a Volkswagen or Mercedes, so I guess you'd expect a wider variation in performance between individual cars coming out of Birmingham or Coventry than out of Stuttgart or Wolfsburg. And that pioneering Lucas fuel injection which Triumph later gave up on had its own issues. But don't just pick on Triumph. A TR6 tested today is likely to be >40 years old. If not solicitously preserved with parts replaced as necessary, it will be well down on power compared to where it was 40 years ago. But I would respectfully submit that the same would go for a Rolls-Royce, Mercedes-Benz or Cadillac. But my own more specific recommendations for wiki-contributions would be (1) to include sources for quoted power outputs and (2) use the adjective "published" or "claimed" to highlight the element of uncertainty over any standardised power output figure. Regards Charles01 (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, from those links, the engines being talked about that give only 115bhp or so are indeed 50-year-old engines that have been meticulously rebuilt and tweaked and then the owners have had them on a dynamometer to find out what difference it has all made. If you've had an engine balanced top and bottom, maybe gas flowed, maybe ported, maybe blue printed and you've uprated the exhaust, you'd expect an improvement over the standard output. Probably it comes as a bit of a surprise to find you've turned 115bhp into 130bhp and have nowhere else to go to get to the claimed 150bhp.

There is probably nothing worth saying that's Triumph-specific, so your approach / fixes make sense to me. It is an interesting conjecture though whether the 2.5i's actual power output (that couldn't easily be 'fessed up to) made Triumph think downgrading the next TR's engine to a 2-litre wouldn't matter. The real power to weight ratio would have been near enough the same.

An interesting data point here is that Lotus got 144bhp out of a carburetted 2-litre slant-four for the Jensen Healey by giving it 16 valves at much the same time as Triumph got 110 or so out of their 8-valve slant four. I don't know what the 16-valve version of Triumph's slant-four was good for offhand, but it all points to the 2.5i being outclassed in actuality by smaller engines.Tirailleur (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What the 16-valve version of the 2-litre Triumph slant-4 gave is an interesting question with no simple answer. It was originally specified at 135 bhp and Spen King is quoted saying he "went away on holiday and came back to find an engine running on the bed giving 150 bhp at the first build." However, suposedly due to manufacturing issues, its spec in the Dolomite Sprint was reduced to 127 bhp.Graham.Fountain | Talk 13:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Triumph_TR6&oldid=1205765381"