Ask the Car People.SM


Triumph TR-8 - READ ONLY

35 messages,  Last post on Dec 20, 2001 at 8:46 PM

You are in the Classic Cars - Archived Discussions Forum.

This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost In The Town Hall... discussion.

What is this discussion about? Convertible

Messages Page 4 of 4

#26 of 35 by speedshift

Dec 18, 2001 (2:32 pm)

No, a small block Buick would be one of the dumber swaps but I mention it because the layout should be similar to the aluminum V8 and because some people think there's no substitute for cubic inches.
 
Not too many people know or care about this but the Buick 300/340/350 was based on the old Buick 215 aluminum V8 used in Rovers and the TR-8. The '64 300 even had aluminum heads and intake manifold, and the 300/340 had the same bore and valve sizes as the 215. None of these engines were stemwinders.

#27 of 35 TR7/* Daily Driver? by carphoto

Dec 18, 2001 (3:55 pm)

Well I'm probably the TR7 guy Speedy mentioned. So could a TR7/8 be a good all weather daily driver? Depends on what you're willing to put up with. I live in So. Cal. so I can't comment on sleet or snow (thank God!) but it does occasionally monsoon here. If the weather seals that go up the door pillars to the top of the windscreen aren't in good shape then you'll get water leaks where the windscreen door and top meet. Also the top has to be installed properly so the door glass seals along the top right. My biggest complaint are the windshield wipers. I've been playing with mine off and on and I've never been happy with them. They're just too slow. As with most converts, the visibility with the top up isn't too good.
 
Reliability is a relative term. My TR7 was a one owner, dealer maintained, 26k mile car when I bought it in 1995. From then until October this year (blew the head gasket, surprise!) it has been very reliable, the starter motor went out when my wife was at the market about a year after we got it and it tempoarily stranded me when a wire in the distributor got pinched under the cap but that was it. My neighbors M-B has died more than that. The one I have is a 1980 Spider which was a special edition trim package. Being a California car it has Bosch L-Jetronic fuel injection. I specifically went looking for a fuel injected car because they have far less smog equipment. Most 1980 California TR7s and all 1981 US spec cars were fuel injected. FI make the car pretty reliable and almost all the parts are available from Bosch. Understand, I have four other British cars (3 Triumphs and a thing called a Doretti) a garage full of tools and a nice work area. I like working on the stupid things so I am willing to put up with a lot. If you are like me then a TR7 could be a reliable daily driver. I know people who use their's a lot and enjoy them. The same goes pretty much with TR8s, they have their own set of problems.
 
In short, a good TR7 can be an enjoyable car especially on nice weekends. If you want a reliable convertible look at used Miatas. If you decide you want a TR7, get the best one you can find, it's real easy to buy a car for $1200 and spent $6000 on it. It's smarter to spend $3000 on a car that needs very little. TR7s will never be a classic in the same way as a TR3. TR8s will always be worth more than a comparable TR7 but still won't be worth a lot.
 
Since people were talking about TR7 head gaskets here's what I know about that. Stacking gaskets is a no no. There are thicker head gaskets available. The problem with the head design is that the head bolts and studs are not parallel. If you have to shave the head more than about 10 thou then the holes in the head won't line up with the ones in the block then you use the thick head gasket or get a new head. The trick with TR7s is to replace the head bolts and studs. The factory pieces were too soft and stretched, so the factory sent out a bulletin to retorque them every 5k miles. So they stretched some more until torqueing didn't help. You can get replacement head bolts and studs from ARP that are far superior. There is a guy who races a TR7 in SCCA that solved all his head problems by using the ARP hardware.
 
Hope this helps.

#28 of 35 One thing by im_brentwood

Dec 18, 2001 (11:58 pm)

Everything I have read on them says how prone to rust they are..
 
I'd reconsider using one heavily in the white fluffy stuff.
 
Bill

#29 of 35 White fluffy stuff vs. TR7/8 by ndance

Dec 19, 2001 (12:06 am)

I suppose it depends on the modifications...

http://users.pgen.net/tony.jackson/rally.htm

Of course, if your last name isn't Buffum you may be out of luck.

#31 of 35 by speedshift

Dec 19, 2001 (10:28 pm)

Anyone interested in the BOP/Rover V8 and its similarity to the later Buick 300/340/350 (probably a small but select group) should check out these sites:

http://bilbat.fp.execpc.com/aluminum.htm

http://www.rover-V8.co.uk/jetfire.htm

I got out '62 Olds and '66 Buick shop manuals to compare the 215 V8 with the Buick 300/340 V8 and 225 V6. It's amazing how much mileage has been pulled out of one fairly marginal design. The Rover V8, GM's corporate 3.8 and even the Buick small block that lasted from '64 until I guess the '80s.

#32 of 35 by Mr_Shiftright HOST

Dec 20, 2001 (9:43 am)

It's amazing to me that such a mediocre engine as the 215 had such a long life. Probably originally its size helped it to survive, but it was never a very efficient or powerful engine, and it ate gas. I suspect the 340 weighs more even though it is in the same family?
 
A TR8 doesn't need even more weight in the nose. Then you end up with a very ornery "steer by gas pedal" type of car, which is scary in the corners.

#33 of 35 by speedshift

Dec 20, 2001 (11:18 am)

I could maybe see a Buick 350 in something that could use more cubic inches like a Land Rover but I hear you, with a sportscar balance is more important than power. Doesn't sound like anyone's done it so there must be a reason.
 
I don't know the 300-up engine weights but the block is a little taller than the 215, the crank is beefier and if it's like the 3.8, there's excess material in the block because it was originally designed to be cast in aluminum.
 
One site says Rover completely redesigned the oiling system a few years ago, which had been one of the big drawbacks. It also says the heads were redesigned around '86 but they're still not the greatest. That would probably explain the lack of efficiency, unless there's something else going on like internal friction or poor manifolding. Maybe it's the whole package.

#34 of 35 215's by ndance

Dec 20, 2001 (12:40 pm)

Seems to me that since a V8 short block is a V8 short block (assuming you're not turning 8000 rpm all the time) that the 215 could be respectable if somebody tooled up a decent head and intake manifold design. With all the advancements in CNC, casting, etc in small batches, I'll bet that's not such a goofy concept.
 
The trick then would be finding reasonably rebuildable blocks and reciprocating parts. My assumption is that most BOP 215's have had ditch water used in them rather than anti-freeze with the attendant corrosion.
 
Just out of curiousity...who builds the lightest and/or smallest external dimension V8?

#35 of 35 by speedshift

Dec 20, 2001 (8:46 pm)

Who would you get to do the design work, now that Smokey is gone?

Messages Page 4 of 4

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement