The Triumph 2000 / 2500 / 2·5 Register Forum

David Withers wrote:

scooters wrote:I for one struggle to understand the 'modernising' trend. <snip> However I equally have little patience with the originality before everything else stance. OK for a classic that comes out the garage twice a year for polish and shows but not for a classic used as a daily driver.

I'm in that same camp. My 1972 ex-PI has some parts (engine, wheels, etc) from a 1975 Triumph 2500S so is not original, but EFI for example would be totally out of place for me.

My son showed me a page on Facebook for enthusiasts of the Triumph 2000 range, where fitting EFI was recommended so as to "go modern". But what's the point? If the owner of a classic Triumph aspires to "go modern", why doesn't he sell his Triumph and actually buy a "modern"?

I can't understand why some owners don't enjoy running their Triumphs more-or-less as they were run in the 1970s. That's what classic motoring should be about, not trying in vain to make their old car emulate a 21st century model.

Good point David....................
Basically don't fix what ain't broken.............

englishbull wrote:

David Withers wrote:

scooters wrote:I for one struggle to understand the 'modernising' trend. <snip> However I equally have little patience with the originality before everything else stance. OK for a classic that comes out the garage twice a year for polish and shows but not for a classic used as a daily driver.

I'm in that same camp. My 1972 ex-PI has some parts (engine, wheels, etc) from a 1975 Triumph 2500S so is not original, but EFI for example would be totally out of place for me.

My son showed me a page on Facebook for enthusiasts of the Triumph 2000 range, where fitting EFI was recommended so as to "go modern". But what's the point? If the owner of a classic Triumph aspires to "go modern", why doesn't he sell his Triumph and actually buy a "modern"?

I can't understand why some owners don't enjoy running their Triumphs more-or-less as they were run in the 1970s. That's what classic motoring should be about, not trying in vain to make their old car emulate a 21st century model.

Good point David....................
Basically don't fix what ain't broken.............

Ah yes David but do you drive your 2500 EVERYDAY come rain or shine on a 50 mile round trip into Perth city? My twin SU's were giving me about 21-23mpg and the megasquirt EFI which I have built from mostly PI components and a few bits of junkyard EFI + newly bought connectors now gives me 30-32mpg commuting and high 30's low 40's on a run.

I have had NO reliability issues with it. The only service item is the fuel filter - plugs stay immaculate and oil stays clean. The ability to fine tune the advance curve so it gives maximum torque and economy with no pinking is a revelation as is the Wideband oxygen sensor giving closed loop feedback to maintain the correct AFR. And I can tune it from the passenger seat in real time for free - it is a wonderful home mechanic toy!

I refuse to drive a modern everyday and consider thoughtful modifications to simply be a continuation of the hobby. I still get a full 1970's experience with visibility a modern car would kill but with more sensible fuel economy. FWIW for I also have fully analogue Stag, 2500PI estate and my Mk1 PI.

I guess it depends what you consider a "modern" experience.

*Driving* my EFI'ed car is exactly the same experience as before I EFI'ed it except it has a bit more go and drives with all the potential the 6 pot engine has to offer.

*Working* on it, plugging in a laptop, is a bit more of a 21st century experience however.

What difference is there? It's all under the bonnet. It starts a bit easier, goes a bit better, stops less for petrol. All of those are aspirations of any petrol head no matter what era the car is.

Some very good arguments there, Andy, but I'm surprised that you prefer the Triumph to a modern car as the daily driver. My own Triumph was my daily driver for many years, and I loved it as such, but its place is now taken by a Rover 75 CDTi which gives 47 mpg in mixed motoring, has more power and torque, and has many other benefits that have come with time (in the same way that the Triumph benefits from the electric starter and independent suspension that early cars didn't have).

If I had your skills, I could probably devise ways to fit my Triumph with climate control, electric windows, heated seats and all the other accutriments of a "modern", but that would totally spoil the '1970s' experience. Likewise, the 1926 Morris Oxford that I'm restoring with a friend would be ruined if I were to fit it with 'Triumph era' disc brakes or alloy wheels.

So, EFI on a classic Triumph is still not for me, but "each to his own" of course, and I do understand your pleasure in devising and controlling the EFI. I remember well driving a lorry fitted with an in-development diesel engine having EFI, controlled to my instructions via a laptop computer on the passenger's lap. That was my first experience of torque and power characteristics being adjustable on the move and I'd love to be able to do it in my (modern) car! Incidentally, James, that was back in late-1980s or early-1990s, not the 21st century.

p.s. What I would like is for you, Andy, to devise a way of giving my Rover the clear vision of the Triumph! The two cars are poles apart in that respect, the Rover being one of the worst cars I have known for visibility from the driver's position, as well as quite claustrophobic for rear seat passengers.

If I had the spare $$$ and time I'd be going EFI for sure.

For me a lot of the modernising is for safety reasons. I like brakes that pull a vehicle up in a hurry, tyres that grip and don't mind some spirited cornering or wet roads, a car that doesn't won't to roll over off the road at the sight of a corner! Mine has also been my daily drive for about four months and has only just been retired from that role. I enjoyed driving it daily- but always had nagging doubt in the back of my head "What if I'm in an accident?"; I doubt the old 2500 (or my body) would stand a chance of surviving in a serious accident with a modern vehicle. I never liked having to transport my 4yo daughter in the back of it.

The brakes did actually save me one day. A truck driver decided he didn't have to give way to me, pulling out in front of me- I just managed to pull up and avoid going under the side of his tray. $1000 well spent.

Oh yeah, you can buy aftermarket off the shelf climate control kits for older vehicles. No need to reinvent the wheel yourself.

David Withers wrote:Some very good arguments there, Andy, but I'm surprised that you prefer the Triumph to a modern car as the daily driver. My own Triumph was my daily driver for many years, and I loved it as such, but its place is now taken by a Rover 75 CDTi which gives 47 mpg in mixed motoring, has more power and torque, and has many other benefits that have come with time (in the same way that the Triumph benefits from the electric starter and independent suspension that early cars didn't have).

If I had your skills, I could probably devise ways to fit my Triumph with climate control, electric windows, heated seats and all the other accutriments of a "modern", but that would totally spoil the '1970s' experience. Likewise, the 1926 Morris Oxford that I'm restoring with a friend would be ruined if I were to fit it with 'Triumph era' disc brakes or alloy wheels.

So, EFI on a classic Triumph is still not for me, but "each to his own" of course, and I do understand your pleasure in devising and controlling the EFI. I remember well driving a lorry fitted with an in-development diesel engine having EFI, controlled to my instructions via a laptop computer on the passenger's lap. That was my first experience of torque and power characteristics being adjustable on the move and I'd love to be able to do it in my (modern) car! Incidentally, James, that was back in late-1980s or early-1990s, not the 21st century.

p.s. What I would like is for you, Andy, to devise a way of giving my Rover the clear vision of the Triumph! The two cars are poles apart in that respect, the Rover being one of the worst cars I have known for visibility from the driver's position, as well as quite claustrophobic for rear seat passengers.

My daily drive is commuting to work - my "modern" is my fair wife's LR Discovery TD5 - which I drive generally on long trips and weekends with the family although the Triumph still gets used a lot especially if using the trailer as reversing with the LR and a small trailer is a trial.

I have obviously made a choice to use a classic as a daily drive - one helped massively by the climate of WA - rust simply isn't an issue - heat is a problem but I cope without aircon - quarterlights have their uses! I accept I am "odd" in using an old car everyday but its amusing seeing modern cars come on the market, become unloved and then bangers in say a 10-15 year period whilst my old 2500 just keeps going.

I do drive modern cars as hire cars in the UK and Canada and rarely better 45mpg in the UK in Turbo diesels and the SUV's in Canada were shocking compared to our manual TD5. I am fairly ascetic in my taste of cars - gadgets aren't my thing - the driving pleasure is the key + the ability to see out of the car as you mention is very important.

Modern cars generally seem so detached from the road - too quiet - controls too soft/overassisted - handling is generally good but detached too.

I do have XJS seats , vented discs with 4 pot calipers and excellent Bridgestone rubber equivalent to modern sports car rubber. This helps give a feeling of safety and agility on the road without detracting from the experience.

Hello all,

until I changed occupation and now work from home, I used my Triumph every day (16 miles a day for work) and never felt that it was lacking, summer and winter. (Prior to the Triumph I did exactly the same when I had my Aston Martin DB5, a great car in the snow incidentally.)
To be honest I never worked out my fuel consumption, as I offset that against depreciation of a modern. I just think that it is an anachronism to jump decades of technology and fit them to my Triumph. I know David (Murcod) had problems with his brakes but I am happy with the standard brakes albeit that they are MK2 rather than MK 1 as original. I have dozens of modifications, mostly incorporating Mk 2 bits, e.g wipers (But relocated to L.H. drive specification to eliminate the blind spot on the R.H. top of the screen), mildly modified P.I. engine, stiffer springs and Koni dampers, down to a simple lever so I can close the bonnet from either side. It has been totally reliable whatever the weather but it was a full rebuild and everything works as it should.

incidentally, I worked in maintenance engineering most of my life and often if something wasn't working as it should, there was a call to modify it. However, so many times it was found that there were defects and it wasn't working as originally designed, correct that and the need for modification went away?

Alec

Interesting topic and all have good viewpoints.
I have never owned a car that I haven't "modified". It's what I enjoy. I have had my MK1 for over 20 years now and at the moment it's running 2ltr engine, o/d, 3.45 diff, Mk2 brakes, 15x7 minilites, triple strombergs, 4 x lucas spotlights etc. All of which are not to "modern. I love driving it any chance I can get even though it is slow, noisy, cold and thirsty.
I am planning another car however. A Mk2 Estate which will have modern seats, EFI, and as many concessions to modern, safe reliable motoring as I can get.
In essence the one done the old way and one done the modern way.

Steve

Of all the things to modernise on a triumph saloon, is the suspension a big priority? They're not bad for handling and very comfy !
I'd have thought safety (ABS/ air bags even??) would ne on the list- but if I was going to spend time & dosh on a comprehensive modernisation, I would actually start with the engine. I'm currently converting a Stag to use 2500 engine, for reliability and easier maintenence (I know my limits!) and economy. I don't mention more power.. not too interested in that.

<insert claims of 30mpg from a stag engine here>

I had also considered...

Diesel something-or-other -> 45MPG ? Potential canal-boat feel though
BMW engine & box -> better economy, maybe more power, but fuel injection & installation = bit beyond me at the moment.
Mazda MX-5 Engine & Box -> didn't look into this too much as economy isn't that good anyway, but power on recent ones is comparable

Other upgrades would be ..
ABS (you can achieve this by not bleeding the braking system, haha)
Better seats, or uprated standard ones (firmer, ability to adjust lumbar support. Real leather.)
Electric hood (I read an article about this using a wiper motor. Wonder how it turned out !)

And then obviously a Capri body kit nailed to the side, stick-on tinted windows, a MASSIVE spoiler on the boot, 1" wheel spacers, blue LEDs mounted underneath for that pool of light under the car at night, LEDs all around the indicators, designer mats and a Satnav mounted on the dashboard so that I can't see anything else. Oh, and a funky mock leatherette (ie, fake vinyl = crappy plastic) steering wheel. And a Snooker/Pool ball gear lever knob.

One visit to the git dept of Halfords should sort that lot out. There. "Modernised".

I have always had elderly cars as my daily drivers, but have contrived to chose ones that appeal to me rather than just any old banger.
In my younger days cost was an important factor - my first car in 1966 was a Triumph Mayflower which cost £10, my second a Triumph Roadster 1800 which cost £45. I kept that for 10 years, often using it for work.
More recently we had a rather scruffy Triumph Mk1 2000, which was a second everyday family car for 10 years. I have also used a series LandRover as an everyday car, a Saab 96, and several Volvo 240s.

Now we have 3 cars, variously used regularly for different purposes:

A much nicer Triumph 2000, for fun (me) and everyday second car (wife)
Volvo 240 with LPG conversion (me, for commuting)
LandRover Series II (me) for towing, winter roads, summer jaunts with the canvas rolled up.
I love the smooth sloppy ride of the Volvo, the effortless but slightly sporty quiet of the Triumph, and the noisy bumpiness of the LandRover.

Each has its own very different character, and I love them all. But I wouldn't want to upgrade any of them, any more than I want to upgrade old sash windows with plastic units, or grass with paving blocks.
The only things I think are worth upgrading are seat belts (on a vehicle that didn't have any) and radio (if done discretely).