Last post on Mar 12, 2006 at 10:00 PM
You are in the Classic Cars
What is this discussion about?
#5 of 24 The hits just keep on coming. How about $13,600+?
Mar 16, 2003 (5:23 pm)
Hard for me to justify paying these kinds of dollars for only two seats when I can get a nice, mid-60's, domestic land yacht for the same (or less) money.
With only two seats, my wife and I couldn't take our kids. Wait. That might be a GOOD thing.
Mar 16, 2003 (6:06 pm)
I always wanted one of these. For some reason, I just really liked them. Of course, if I got one, it would hate driving it after the novelty wore off, but damn they look cool.
Reminds me of my last house. Guy up the street was restoring a TR6 in his garage. Had it down to the bare chassis(on a dolly). Literally everything was off the car, down to the last nut and bolt. Still remember the day he was sandblasting the chassis. Too bad I moved before I saw the finished product, but it must have been immaculate, and probably much better the new.
Mar 17, 2003 (7:45 pm)
Does this mean you just purchased this vehicle?
#9 of 24 Nope!
Mar 17, 2003 (8:53 pm)
Believe me, when I get my car, you will know in no uncertain terms. Assuming I have a mountain top from which to shout by then (ah Edmunds, we're sorry we don't fit into your business strategy).
I was just considering other possibilities and have always like TR6's. Thought it might be fun being able to shift my own gears on a nice Spring day.
But, for $13,000 to $14,000, I can get a very nice full-size, luxury convertible with way more seating room and a "real" trunk.
#10 of 24 Triumph comparisons......
Mar 18, 2003 (9:36 pm)
Parm, I thought you might appreciate some input from an ex-Triumph driver.
My first sports car was a '66 solid axle TR-4A but I spent a lot of time behind the wheel of my brother's TR-250 so I can tell you a little bit about those cars which were mechanically identical to the TR-6.
There's no doubt in my mind that a solid axle car will out handle any of the IRS TRs on a smooth road. The IRS design was a compromised one than allowed quite a bit of squat under acceleration and had a reputation for poor handling on wet pavement. In this respect it was similar to BMW 2002s and 320is for I think the same reasons having to do with the dreaded semi-trailing arm rear suspension.
The Triumph 200cc six is a wicked smooth, torquey engine that really suits the character of the cars and sounds good too.
The "big" TRs, TR-6 included are not the great handlers for 60s sportscars. For sheer tossability an MGB or Fiat 124 Spider were superior on twisty roads. TR-6s were great comfortable cruisers and didn't even require troublesome electric overdrives to go distances comfortably.
TR-6 strong points-- Excellent brakes, smooth ride, strong gearbox
good coachwork less rust prone than TR-4/250.
Electrics a big improvement over TR-4
(alternator v generator).
TR-6 weak points-- Excessive squat and ragged on-limit handling,
Poor top-sealing against weather, plastic
rear windows. Fussy Stromberg carbs.
I hope this helps you. I'll be glad to answer any questions you might have. I'll see you in that other classic forum you are looking into.
Mar 19, 2003 (5:43 am)
Are the Smiths gauges in TR-6s from the same company that produced those of the Volvo P1800s?
Mar 19, 2003 (8:43 am)
God I hope not. One thing you'll often see on a P1800 is a row of dead gauges.
#13 of 24 AFAIK they're the same company....
Mar 21, 2003 (5:19 pm)
IIRC P1800s were assembled in the UK by Jensen which would encourage British parts. I don't recall any gauges ever failing on my TR-4 tho my brother's tach went in his TR-250. I've still got it in a box somewhere.
#14 of 24 I don't see much resemblance
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
Mar 21, 2003 (6:17 pm)
The TR6 gauges don't look anything like these, especially those barometer type gauges the most troublesome) between the speedo and tach.
But they could be the same manufacturer, I don't recall.
Anyway, they are notorious for failing on the P1800.