RE: Awesome Chevy-engined Triumph Stag for sale
Discussion
Wacky Racer said:
Not for me, I'm afraid,
A mis-mash of parts on a body that was fairly attractive in the early 70's, but nothing special now. The original car proved to be a bit of a disaster with an unreliable V8 lump, BL should have put their Rover (ex Buick) V8 engine in it in retrospect.
Agreed. The body was nothing special back in the 70s. 50 years later, it's no prettier. I've never seen the appeal. And it's not retrospect to suggest the Rover 3528cc Buick V8 should have gone in it. BL, Rover and Triumph knew it at the time. But stupid rivalry between Triumph and Rover (even though they were by now both part of BL) meant it didn't happen. So Triumph spend a fortune designing their own flawed 3.0 V8 while down the road, the Rover factory had thousands of their V8s waiting to go into cars. A mis-mash of parts on a body that was fairly attractive in the early 70's, but nothing special now. The original car proved to be a bit of a disaster with an unreliable V8 lump, BL should have put their Rover (ex Buick) V8 engine in it in retrospect.
Utter madness.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Wacky Racer said:
Not for me, I'm afraid,
A mis-mash of parts on a body that was fairly attractive in the early 70's, but nothing special now. The original car proved to be a bit of a disaster with an unreliable V8 lump, BL should have put their Rover (ex Buick) V8 engine in it in retrospect.
Agreed. The body was nothing special back in the 70s. 50 years later, it's no prettier. I've never seen the appeal. And it's not retrospect to suggest the Rover 3528cc Buick V8 should have gone in it. BL, Rover and Triumph knew it at the time. But stupid rivalry between Triumph and Rover (even though they were by now both part of BL) meant it didn't happen. So Triumph spend a fortune designing their own flawed 3.0 V8 while down the road, the Rover factory had thousands of their V8s waiting to go into cars. A mis-mash of parts on a body that was fairly attractive in the early 70's, but nothing special now. The original car proved to be a bit of a disaster with an unreliable V8 lump, BL should have put their Rover (ex Buick) V8 engine in it in retrospect.
Utter madness.
For one Rover didn't have 1000's of the V8 waiting to go into cars in the late 60's when the Stag was in development, which was one of several reasons why after trial fitting the RV8's during development Triumph continued with their own V8.
No available suitable manual 'box for the RV8 at the time was another, and Triumph wanted to sell it as a manual as well as auto.
The RV8 is physically bigger, and would have needed considerable re-work of the design to accommodate it, at the time the RV8 was trialed in the pre-production Stag's (as anyone that has retro-fitted a RV8 has found out)
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Agreed. The body was nothing special back in the 70s. 50 years later, it's no prettier. I've never seen the appeal. And it's not retrospect to suggest the Rover 3528cc Buick V8 should have gone in it. BL, Rover and Triumph knew it at the time. But stupid rivalry between Triumph and Rover (even though they were by now both part of BL) meant it didn't happen. So Triumph spend a fortune designing their own flawed 3.0 V8 while down the road, the Rover factory had thousands of their V8s waiting to go into cars.
Utter madness.
It's a matter of taste but I recall that in period the Stag's styling was almost universally liked - it had the trademark Michelotti look which also worked well in other triumphs . I think the distinctive rollover bar was more about structural integrity than safety but was considered very cool at the time. Utter madness.
And yes , they could have put the Rover V8 in it , but now BL is long dead shouldn't we celebrate its bonkers diversity ? A woofly V8 in the Stag , another in the P5B, another in the Daimler 250 and , for a time , a bigger 4.5 in the Majestic Major. A damn sight more interesting, if less logical, than the VAG Turbo 4 powering nearly every damn car in the group .
runnerbean 14 said:
It's not British, I admit, but I currently own and enjoy a ten-year-old Teutonic 2-seater open sports car/GT with a 4.7 litre twin-turbo DI V8 that gives 435 bhp as standard and can be chipped for circa £200 to 509 bhp and >600 lb ft of torques. The only reason I haven't bothered to do so is that it's plenty fast enough already.
It's almost all aluminium so won't rust, unlike this Stag and it's got a folding metal roof so my laptop can't easily be stolen from it. Best of all, it cost <£20,000 as this particular model seems to be a well-kept secret. All of which means that, much as I'd like to buy British I wouldn't bother with the Stag.
And there we have it!! The mandatory post on every classic car thread, explaining how a car that was launched 55 years ago is functionally inferior to one that is 10 years old - who'd have thought it....It's almost all aluminium so won't rust, unlike this Stag and it's got a folding metal roof so my laptop can't easily be stolen from it. Best of all, it cost <£20,000 as this particular model seems to be a well-kept secret. All of which means that, much as I'd like to buy British I wouldn't bother with the Stag.
AMGSee55 said:
runnerbean 14 said:
It's not British, I admit, but I currently own and enjoy a ten-year-old Teutonic 2-seater open sports car/GT with a 4.7 litre twin-turbo DI V8 that gives 435 bhp as standard and can be chipped for circa £200 to 509 bhp and >600 lb ft of torques. The only reason I haven't bothered to do so is that it's plenty fast enough already.
It's almost all aluminium so won't rust, unlike this Stag and it's got a folding metal roof so my laptop can't easily be stolen from it. Best of all, it cost <£20,000 as this particular model seems to be a well-kept secret. All of which means that, much as I'd like to buy British I wouldn't bother with the Stag.
And there we have it!! The mandatory post on every classic car thread, explaining how a car that was launched 55 years ago is functionally inferior to one that is 10 years old - who'd have thought it....It's almost all aluminium so won't rust, unlike this Stag and it's got a folding metal roof so my laptop can't easily be stolen from it. Best of all, it cost <£20,000 as this particular model seems to be a well-kept secret. All of which means that, much as I'd like to buy British I wouldn't bother with the Stag.
runnerbean 14 said:
It's not British, I admit, but I currently own and enjoy a ten-year-old Teutonic 2-seater open sports car/GT with a 4.7 litre twin-turbo DI V8 that gives 435 bhp as standard and can be chipped for circa £200 to 509 bhp and >600 lb ft of torques. The only reason I haven't bothered to do so is that it's plenty fast enough already.
It's almost all aluminium so won't rust, unlike this Stag and it's got a folding metal roof so my laptop can't easily be stolen from it. Best of all, it cost <£20,000 as this particular model seems to be a well-kept secret. All of which means that, much as I'd like to buy British I wouldn't bother with the Stag.
But that isn't the point! It's almost all aluminium so won't rust, unlike this Stag and it's got a folding metal roof so my laptop can't easily be stolen from it. Best of all, it cost <£20,000 as this particular model seems to be a well-kept secret. All of which means that, much as I'd like to buy British I wouldn't bother with the Stag.
This is about a 70s car when a 4 seater convertible was pretty unique.
I've got a 2005 German saloon with a 3 litre straight 6 producing 258bhp that cost me less than £4K five years ago and was also sold as a Convertible, but is also totally irrelevant!
Good luck when your folding metal roof goes wrong.
Some people seem to think if you’re into cars, its all about BHP, 0 – 60 MPH and V max etc; well I’m sorry to inform you children, those things do not define you as a petrol head.
Some of the best cars ever built were not that quick and that includes competition cars, their iconic status stems from them being able to do more with less.
As for the original Stag a beautiful piece of design, the engineering was not as bad as detractors would have you believe, a testament to how good it was is how many are still on the road.
As for this one, it’s a no from me, a big part of the Stag’s appeal is the lovely woofle at low speeds; yes kids, cars can sound good even if they’re not bouncing of the rev limiter.
Some of the best cars ever built were not that quick and that includes competition cars, their iconic status stems from them being able to do more with less.
As for the original Stag a beautiful piece of design, the engineering was not as bad as detractors would have you believe, a testament to how good it was is how many are still on the road.
As for this one, it’s a no from me, a big part of the Stag’s appeal is the lovely woofle at low speeds; yes kids, cars can sound good even if they’re not bouncing of the rev limiter.
RSstuff said:
Looks, noise, name, they had the lot. Just a pity they're not very fast. My old man had one 40 years ago, I think he sold it back to the garage when it started going expensively wrong.
I think they got almost everything right, apart from reliability! In the context of the early 70s when a typical family car was a MK3 Cortina that might manage about 90mph flat out or maybe 100 if it was a 2 litre, a 120ish Stag was a fast car.
I had a 1973 Rover 3500S in 1979 and still remember having a traffic light Grand Prix with a Stag. There was nothing in it, but two V8s was a pretty rare soundtrack in the UK in those days!
runnerbean 14 said:
Best of all, it cost <£20,000 as this particular model seems to be a well-kept secret. All of which means that, much as I'd like to buy British I wouldn't bother with the Stag.
A used SL is far from a well-kept secret. SLs have always been notorious for extreme depreciation.
Nobody looking to buy this Stag would be considering a 10-year-old SL, in the same way that nobody looking at a 10-year-old SL would also be looking at a 50-year-old Stag.
It's a bizarre comparison and your comment just seems very much like you want people to know you have an SL.
I'd wager that anyone looking for an engaging driving experience would much prefer this Stag over a modern SL.
Whilst I wouldn't want this car and haven't driven it (or any Stag), I imagine it's much more fun to drive than the SL - a car which I have driven, was looking to buy, and walked away from after being underwhelmed.
Mr Tidy said:
I think they got almost everything right, apart from reliability!
In the context of the early 70s when a typical family car was a MK3 Cortina that might manage about 90mph flat out or maybe 100 if it was a 2 litre, a 120ish Stag was a fast car.
Had to google it, apparently 115mph was the top speed. And from what I've read not using the right anti freeze and changing it regularly contributed to the sludging up and over heating. Plus a rattle at start up meant new timing chains were probably over due. I remember my old mans Stag felt like a quite a special car, with the hard and soft top, and the great V8 noise. I'd probably buy a good Stag today, if I didn't already have too many cars.In the context of the early 70s when a typical family car was a MK3 Cortina that might manage about 90mph flat out or maybe 100 if it was a 2 litre, a 120ish Stag was a fast car.
RSstuff said:
Mr Tidy said:
I think they got almost everything right, apart from reliability!
In the context of the early 70s when a typical family car was a MK3 Cortina that might manage about 90mph flat out or maybe 100 if it was a 2 litre, a 120ish Stag was a fast car.
Had to google it, apparently 115mph was the top speed. And from what I've read not using the right anti freeze and changing it regularly contributed to the sludging up and over heating. Plus a rattle at start up meant new timing chains were probably over due. I remember my old mans Stag felt like a quite a special car, with the hard and soft top, and the great V8 noise. I'd probably buy a good Stag today, if I didn't already have too many cars.In the context of the early 70s when a typical family car was a MK3 Cortina that might manage about 90mph flat out or maybe 100 if it was a 2 litre, a 120ish Stag was a fast car.
The right anti-freeze all year was essential because of the alloy heads, but possibly even more so with the Rover V8s because they had an alloy block as well. And needed frequent oil changes to keep the hydraulic valve lifters working.
Surely N+1 is the right number?
I wonder how many of these engines failed while still being looked after by the dealerships. I’m guessing not many.
Back then, it was extremely common for people to do their own servicing. So anything requiring a strict regime of anything would be vulnerable once it entered the s/h market.
Back then, it was extremely common for people to do their own servicing. So anything requiring a strict regime of anything would be vulnerable once it entered the s/h market.
Master Bean said:
carinaman said:
Is the comparison with an SLK55?
SL500. swisstoni said:
I wonder how many of these engines failed while still being looked after by the dealerships. I’m guessing not many.
Back then, it was extremely common for people to do their own servicing. So anything requiring a strict regime of anything would be vulnerable once it entered the s/h market.
Yes ...but the sort of chaps who bought a new , or newish Stag would almost invariably get their local dealer to look after their car . Doing one's own servicing took away valuable time which could be spent on the golf course . Back then, it was extremely common for people to do their own servicing. So anything requiring a strict regime of anything would be vulnerable once it entered the s/h market.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff