Page 1 of 1

Triumph 52 years old ...only 20 miles on the clock

Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 7:05 pm
by ravstar13

Re: Triumph 52 years old ...only 20 miles on the clock

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:38 pm
by hillbilly30
My mate was the auctioneer, From what I understand it wasn't in the condition you would expect/hope, not well stored! Still made daft money though, £13k irrc

Re: Triumph 52 years old ...only 20 miles on the clock

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:16 pm
by DanThe
It will still need a rebuild

Re: Triumph 52 years old ...only 20 miles on the clock

Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 8:30 pm
by pacerpete
DanThe wrote:It will still need a rebuild

The sorry spastics needed a rebuild at three years old, ask Trevor ! :)

Re: Triumph 52 years old ...only 20 miles on the clock

Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:27 pm
by DanThe
If they made it to 3 years! My uncle bought a spitfire brand new in the 70's and drove to Greece in it at less than a month old, various stops along the way for repairs, the forking propshaft even fell off! :mad:

Re: Triumph 52 years old ...only 20 miles on the clock

Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:47 pm
by Andyboy
Indeed. Folk forget/don't know how rubbish Bristish stuff was - Triumphs were easily the worst.


"You'll never believe this Jim, but that Datsun 180B of mine I bought last month has started every time".


Seven years later.........



"It's gettting a bit rusty, but apart from a battery, that 180B of mine never broke down. I'm getting another"


Etc.

Re: Triumph 52 years old ...only 20 miles on the clock

Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:36 pm
by DanThe
I remember one of the old boys I used to work with telling me about a new BL car (cant remember exactly which) that belonged to a big company they did service work for coming in for a check over, it was pulling to one side under braking, the cooonts had only fitted disc brakes to one side and drums to the other on the factory line :D