Auction catalogue copywriters.
Discussion
Yes yes....I meant auction.............but I digress.
What a job this must be - for barefaced lies, you need to have a background in politics.
I give you a description of one of BMC's biggest steaming turds:
"Revered then and cherished today, the Austin 3-Litre is an icon of its time: remembered for sweeping through Westminster and now seen at many regional shows via the support of a large Austin Club network, this surely is one of Britain’s most loved luxury saloons"
....righto.
http://classicscentral.co.uk/lot-52-1970-austin-3-...
What a job this must be - for barefaced lies, you need to have a background in politics.
I give you a description of one of BMC's biggest steaming turds:
"Revered then and cherished today, the Austin 3-Litre is an icon of its time: remembered for sweeping through Westminster and now seen at many regional shows via the support of a large Austin Club network, this surely is one of Britain’s most loved luxury saloons"
....righto.
http://classicscentral.co.uk/lot-52-1970-austin-3-...
Edited by iSore on Tuesday 10th May 19:59
sim16v said:
It might have had mechanical restoration, but it does look rough!
I laugh when I go to my local restoration place.
They have some proper classics in, a Stratos, Fulvia Zagato, E Type and other "proper" classics, and an Austin Princess that someone has spent a small fortune on!
Not a proper classic?
POORCARDEALER said:
Auction catalogues.....Its what they dont put in the decription you have to wory about
Indeed. Litterered with nonsense like 'motor car' , 'provenance', 'requires light recommissioning' (in other words it's f
ked) and 'patina'.There is probably more sharp practice in this end of the car market than anywhere else. £4-6000 for a heap like an Austin 3 litre? They were crap when they were new! Very good banger racer though.
iSore said:
Yes yes....I meant auction.............but I digress.
What a job this must be - for barefaced lies, you need to have a background in politics.
I give you a description of one of BMC's biggest steaming turds:
"Revered then and cherished today, the Austin 3-Litre is an icon of its time: remembered for sweeping through Westminster and now seen at many regional shows via the support of a large Austin Club network, this surely is one of Britain’s most loved luxury saloons"
....righto.
http://classicscentral.co.uk/lot-52-1970-austin-3-...
Not that I'm disagreeing with the description. But peoples perceptions are not always correct. And it's amazing how people will claim something was always rubbish, just because they don't like it.What a job this must be - for barefaced lies, you need to have a background in politics.
I give you a description of one of BMC's biggest steaming turds:
"Revered then and cherished today, the Austin 3-Litre is an icon of its time: remembered for sweeping through Westminster and now seen at many regional shows via the support of a large Austin Club network, this surely is one of Britain’s most loved luxury saloons"
....righto.
http://classicscentral.co.uk/lot-52-1970-austin-3-...
Edited by iSore on Tuesday 10th May 19:59
And I have experience of this first hand. I've been a Triumph TR7 owner continually since 1999. And you wouldn't believe the number of people who, even today will tell you how rubbish they always where, slated by the press, a sales flop and ruined Triumph.
Yet factual evidence and the truth would tell a very different story.
The TR7 - if you got one of the better made ones - was alright. They drive okay and had quite a few good points. The convertible was a decent effort and it's one of those cars that could have been a real success. There was a bog standard one on the steel wheels at the NEC last year, a real minter in Inca yellow. Time has certainly been kind to them.
That Austin though was undeniably st. To make a 3 litre saloon that was slower than the 1800S was quite a feat. Even Issigonis thought it was junk and refused to be photographed with it. Apparently it was roomy and rode well, but when you consider the opposition (Triumph 2000, Rover 3500) then it's a miracle they sold more than 12.
Look at the BMW 2800 and XJ6 to see what a big car should have been like in 1968! Those Austin turds weren't that cheap either.
That Austin though was undeniably s
t. To make a 3 litre saloon that was slower than the 1800S was quite a feat. Even Issigonis thought it was junk and refused to be photographed with it. Apparently it was roomy and rode well, but when you consider the opposition (Triumph 2000, Rover 3500) then it's a miracle they sold more than 12. Look at the BMW 2800 and XJ6 to see what a big car should have been like in 1968! Those Austin turds weren't that cheap either.
300bhp/ton said:
And I have experience of this first hand. I've been a Triumph TR7 owner continually since 1999. And you wouldn't believe the number of people who, even today will tell you how rubbish they always where, slated by the press, a sales flop and ruined Triumph.
Yet factual evidence and the truth would tell a very different story.
I think the TR7 was one of those cars who's looks overshadowed its performance - people expected it to be high performance car, when in reality its wasn't really any quicker than a Ford Cortina. The TR7 with a V8 was a much better prospect - Tony Ponds run at the Manx rally in one is a fave https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T1mkj9uiqwYet factual evidence and the truth would tell a very different story.
I quite liked them, one of my dads corporals had one and would often be dispatched him to collect me from primary school in it, gave me instant cool points.
Pickled said:
Brilliant, that really was the golden age of rallying. If only BL had built the TR8 for the UK market. :-(It was a safe handling car and with 140-150 bhp it would have been a cracking thing.
iSore said:
That's an A135 Sheerline. He may have referred to the 18/22 Wedge Princess - I have a secret* liking for these. A black 2200 HLS - ooof. Who can write the most ridiculous auction blurb? Shall we have a competition?
Sorry you are so wrong!
That is a Vanden Plas DS7. Very different to the Sheerline.
They only made approx 160 of them. Now very rare and a fab car to drive - same engine as a Jensen 541!
Sorry you are so wrong!
That is a Vanden Plas DS7. Very different to the Sheerline.
They only made approx 160 of them. Now very rare and a fab car to drive - same engine as a Jensen 541!
iSore said:
Brilliant, that really was the golden age of rallying. If only BL had built the TR8 for the UK market. :-(
It was a safe handling car and with 140-150 bhp it would have been a cracking thing.
They did build a small number of TR8's for the UK market. They built two batches of 9 TR8 DHC's making 18 UK market cars in total.It was a safe handling car and with 140-150 bhp it would have been a cracking thing.
I'm lucky to own some quite special cars including number 1 of the 18 TR8 DHC's and I can confirm it is a brilliant car to drive, I absolutely love it and I am in no doubt has production not been stopped they would have been a huge hit and we would all look at the TR7 a bit differently as a result.
RobinSherwood said:
They did build a small number of TR8's for the UK market. They built two batches of 9 TR8 DHC's making 18 UK market cars in total.
I'm lucky to own some quite special cars including number 1 of the 18 TR8 DHC's and I can confirm it is a brilliant car to drive, I absolutely love it and I am in no doubt has production not been stopped they would have been a huge hit and we would all look at the TR7 a bit differently as a result.
Well, we wouldn't would we, we'd be saying the TR7 was crap until they dropped in the V8 and the TR8 was great. I'm lucky to own some quite special cars including number 1 of the 18 TR8 DHC's and I can confirm it is a brilliant car to drive, I absolutely love it and I am in no doubt has production not been stopped they would have been a huge hit and we would all look at the TR7 a bit differently as a result.
BTW I don't think the TR7 is crap.
Pickled said:
300bhp/ton said:
And I have experience of this first hand. I've been a Triumph TR7 owner continually since 1999. And you wouldn't believe the number of people who, even today will tell you how rubbish they always where, slated by the press, a sales flop and ruined Triumph.
Yet factual evidence and the truth would tell a very different story.
I think the TR7 was one of those cars who's looks overshadowed its performance - people expected it to be high performance car, when in reality its wasn't really any quicker than a Ford Cortina. The TR7 with a V8 was a much better prospect - Tony Ponds run at the Manx rally in one is a fave https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T1mkj9uiqwYet factual evidence and the truth would tell a very different story.
I quite liked them, one of my dads corporals had one and would often be dispatched him to collect me from primary school in it, gave me instant cool points.
The trouble with the Sprint engine was that BL weren't really capable of building them to the required standard, not in big numbers anyway. The Japanese could have managed it but BL's stty old tooling and slapdash assembly meant they were not robust enough - the ingredients were there but....
The SOPHC was a low revving plodder and quite reliable as a result. But like a Pinto really.
tty old tooling and slapdash assembly meant they were not robust enough - the ingredients were there but....The SOPHC was a low revving plodder and quite reliable as a result. But like a Pinto really.
iSore said:
The trouble with the Sprint engine was that BL weren't really capable of building them to the required standard, not in big numbers anyway. The Japanese could have managed it but BL's stty old tooling and slapdash assembly meant they were not robust enough - the ingredients were there but....
The SOPHC was a low revving plodder and quite reliable as a result. But like a Pinto really.
that's true but launching the TR7 with the engine it did have rather than one or both of the 2 arguably 'better' engines in the parts bin ( sprint or rover v8) didn;t help especially as it was a leap in styling and originally launched only as a tin top ... tty old tooling and slapdash assembly meant they were not robust enough - the ingredients were there but....The SOPHC was a low revving plodder and quite reliable as a result. But like a Pinto really.
mph1977 said:
that's true but launching the TR7 with the engine it did have rather than one or both of the 2 arguably 'better' engines in the parts bin ( sprint or rover v8) didn;t help especially as it was a leap in styling and originally launched only as a tin top ...
Triumph had a couple of their own engines they could have used - the 2.5 straight six or even the V8 out of the StagPickled said:
Triumph had a couple of their own engines they could have used - the 2.5 straight six or even the V8 out of the Stag
But both were on the chopping block in 1975 though. The straight six (probably the best engine Triumph made) was about to be phased out and I imagine BL couldn't wait to see the back of the Stag unit! Launched in 1975 with a Rover V8 the TR7/8 would be been a real hit. There was certainly room for both a 2.0 and a 3.5 but maybe the Rover SD1 took all of the production capacity? Pickled said:
mph1977 said:
that's true but launching the TR7 with the engine it did have rather than one or both of the 2 arguably 'better' engines in the parts bin ( sprint or rover v8) didn;t help especially as it was a leap in styling and originally launched only as a tin top ...
Triumph had a couple of their own engines they could have used - the 2.5 straight six or even the V8 out of the Stagwould a straight 6 even fit in the TR7 ? ( and remember BLs other efforts at shoehorning inappropriately diomesnioned assemblies into vehicles at that time )
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff