1972 TRIUMPH STAG | MATHEWSONS CLASSIC CARS | 1 & 2 OCTOBER 2021
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 окт 2024
- 1972 TRIUMPH STAG | MATHEWSONS CLASSIC CARS | 1 & 2 OCTOBER 2021
📖 Full Catalogue: www.mathewsons...
📞 Register to Bid by Telephone/Commission: www.mathewsons...
🖥️ Register to Bid Online: www.i-bidder.c...
Not for me, I love the Stag and the original V8, problems as well ,many of the original problems have since been sorted, you wouldn't buy a 1976 Omega mechanical watch,then take out the original workings and replace it an Omega quartz movement.... sacrilege, not only that you instantly lose all originality!
I totally agree
Yes, IMO, they should have also offered the 2.5 Triumph engine too.
Ford offered 1.3, 1.6, 2.0 2.8 & 3.0 in the Capri (and 2.3 elsewhere), so Triumph shouldn't have limited their engine choice.
cant buy the knowledge great.. hope the kids learning and have the passion brilliant
The stag was originally designed to take the cast iron straight 6 2.5 litre engine. The Rover engine had 2 problems for Triumph: 1 . it wasnt a triumph engine(politics) 2. the rover V8 was too light for the chassis design. So for engine transplants, the obvious transplant is the original straight 6 which the stag prototypes had or the ford V6 essex engine which is also about the right weight.. Both these trandplant engines will run all day whatever the weather with little or no issues whatsoever. In fact, if you look into a triumph 2.5 TC engine bay and compare it to a stag with a 2.5 straight 6 transplant, the engine bays look identical!
Wrong, wrong wrong. The initial design was a 2.5 V8 with fuel injection. And how can an engine be too light for a chassis - all that needs is a change of spring rates! There are plenty of RV8 Stags that run and handle pretty well, as do other engine conversions although many were not converted well. But surprise surprise, the ones with the highest market values are the ones with original engines!
@@chrisspain7776 I have seen one of the original prototypes: The car was originally designed with the straight 6. saying wrong numerous times doesnt make you right. If you dont understand about corner weights you wont understand about engines being too light. Just engage brain before you argue for the sake of it. The 2.5 V8 came after the straight 6 prototype.
@@geofwassell Original may have been fitted with a 6 because the 8 was not ready but it was not designed for a 6.
@@chrisspain7776 Oh dear... the stag was designed by Giovani Michelotti who quite literally took a triumph 6 cylinder saloon from Triumphs production line and modified it into a grand tourer. There was no V8 involved with the design at all. This explains why the straight 6 engine will immediately drop straight into any stag engine bay. An early fix came when Triumph added the T bar instead of strengthening the chassis via a castelated interim inner sill as seen in the MGB roadster or extensive ribbing in the propshaft tunnel which would have cost extensive retooling. Triumph also did away with the headlamp visors of the Michelotti design.The V8 was one of Triumph's later bodge ups when they realised that their straight 6 engines wouldn't pass the US emmission regs. The whole cars suspension, gearbox, geometry and brakes were designed around the triumph 6 cylinder saloons which is why the Rover V8 apart from being a non triumph engine ( and therefore denting the pride of Standard Triumphs management) was too light. Costello had similar considerations when he used the rover V8 in his V8 MGBs except for the fact that in Costellos case, the old 1800cc 4 culinder B series engine was a comparable weight with the Rover V8 and therefore the whole idea was more do-able...in fact a lot more do-able than putting an Austin Westminster straight 6 heavy engine into the MGC ( again this engine didnt suit the suspension, the geometry and running gear of the MGB since it was too heavy meaning that MGB 1.8s and 3.5s will be a lot more pleasant to drive than the MGC.
A good example of how BL came so close to nailing it. A great looking car. But that original Triumph engine was a wrongun. And as Mr M says here, they already had the bombproof ex Buick V8 that went into everything, and is now a routine conversion for the Stag. So close BL....but so far.
Rover & Triumph were seperate companies when the Stag was being developed, so it didn't have access to the 3.5 V8 when it was being designed.
@@lewis72 True that.
its lost 30 p cent of its value with mondeo engine in it mite as well put taxi sign on top y bother stag engines are sorted now how can it b more powerfull with 2 less pistons
The sierra cosworth was much more powerful and only had 4 cylinders
@@gurneyslade9901 Cosworth were a racing team.
More components in an 8 cylinder engine and more internal friction.
@@MrLeeflemwell that engine about 110 hp if thatstags 147
@@tanglewood777 I'm sure it's a little more than that. I could be wrong.
The Ford V6 is not more powerful than the Stag V8. Getting it serviced/repaired is not easy with the wrong engine fitted unless you do it yourself.
The Ford V6 produces 260 bhp and is much more powerful than the Stag V8 at about 160 bhp
@@gurneyslade9901 You got both wrong. How much horsepower does a 1969 Ford Capri have?
Its 6 cylinder, overhead valve naturally aspirated engine has 2 valves per cylinder and a capacity of 3 litres. It produces power and torque figures of 128 bhp (130 PS/95 kW) at 5200 rpm and 235 Nm (173 lbft/24 kgm) at 3000 rpm respectively.
The 1970 Triumph Stag has 147 PS / 145 bhp / 108 kW.
@@chrisspain7776 ... but less weight than the V8! So it might _feel_ ... a bit more brisk
@@utubecomment21 Only 50 lbs weight difference, so the extra power more than compensates for that extra 50 lb weight disadvantage, oh and that sound difference ! sod any performance difference, just listen to that V8 burble....heavenly 👍
@@gurneyslade9901 not it didnt a stock ford v6 of this period would produce around 133 bhp which ford v6 are you speaking of? not the one in this stagggggg
Strait Six. Stick this in it! ruclips.net/video/m53RjI6xFaE/видео.html
A lot of people say the Stag should have had the Rover V8 from the outset. However these people fail in chronology as Rover didn't even have the rights to it when the Stag development started. When they did get the rights, there simply wasn't enough production capacity to fuel the needs of the projected 15.000 units per year Stag production - let alone the fact that Rover and Triumph were by then still not under the same mother company.
They Stag engine programme could easily have been canned in favour of the Rover V8 but I doubt that there was much will from Triumph to use and and much will from Rover to supply it.
I imagine that they still considered each other rivals at that point and so would have had little interest in doing what would have been best for the overall product and company.
In hindsight, IMO, they should have offered the Stag with the Rover V8, the Stag V8 and the 2500 Triumph I6, offering it at different specs. and prices.
I do wonder if the Jag V12 would have fitted it in !
@@lewis72 Regarding canning the engine in favour of the RV8, not really. By the time Rover had V8 production in sufficient numbers to supply Triumph, the Stag engine was pretty much developed and the cars in production/on sale. It was already delayed for sale for around 2 years. Getting the RV8 fitted would have delayed even longer. It simply wasn't an option from the outset. Further along in the life of the Stag it was viable, but that didn't happen due to the rival issue you point out.
@@triumphstagdriver
I don't think that wouldn't have taken much to have integrated the Rover V8 into the Stag.
Anyway, as I said else, it was a shame that they didn't offer it with 2.5, 3.0 & 3.5 lire engines.
The Capri was offered with 1.3, 1.6, 2.0, 2.3 & 2.8/3.0 engines.
The elephant in the room was Corporate politics during the critical development stages, namely, Rover being absorbed by Leyland Motors in 1966 ( to join Triumph) and Leyland Motors amalgamation with BMC in 1967 to form British Leyland Motor Corporation and the management being shuffled like a pack of cards… A recipe for chaos that was properly lived out
@@triumphstagdriver Yes, some of your points are correct. However the straight 6 engine was already developed and would slot straight in since the engine bay of the stag was designed around the strainght 6. However the development of the 3 litre V8 wasnt complete. It had marginal water pump, oil pump, cooling galleries, coolant flow, cooling air flow from the front grille and marginal distributor all stretched from a 4 cylinder ( apart from the cooling air which the grille was desined for the straight 6 and remained unchanged.
Could of put a rolls royce v⁸ in it
Ford v8 would have been perfect
Out of an unreliable frying pan, into another unreliable frying pan. Everyone screams; "American V8", but they're a lot of hit and misses, mostly misses ... Rover/Buick3.5 included. I wouldn't stand the Rover 3.5 next to the Toyota/Lexus UZ1 and call the Rover V8 reliable!
Should be both cheaper and more reliable with the V6 Ford engine.
Worth a lot less though.
@@lewis72 yeah but cheaper to buy and massively more reliable.
@@MrLeeflemwell
If they're worth a lot less they will be cheaper to buy !
Each to their own I guess but that Ford V6 engine is a bit of a ferrous donkey, isn't it ?
@@lewis72 maybe, but it functions reliably.
@@lewis72 sadly, it's not 1978 anymore!
Nonsense.
load of crap put a decent rad and waterless coolant and these stags go on forever and don't overheat the rover v8 is amazing don't get me wrong but these engines get a lot of crap because people don't know how to look after them
stick a tesla motor in it that's the future for these old motors sad...
I don't think that'll be the case. I know it's the fashion to do it, but there will be oil burners 'til long past you and I have kicked the bucket!