Can a Stag be used as a daily driver?

[gruffalo]

I had a Stag for about 5 years in the mid 80's and it was my only car.

I did around 12,000 miles a year in it and over the 5 years I had the following repairs to do.

3 differentials needed to be replaced
1 auto box rebuild
4 full engine rebuilds normally because of falling oil pressure and a full set of timing chains each time were very much needed.
1 distributor rebuild
2 drive shaft failures
1 steering rack
2 water pumps
Both sills replaced, a bugger of a job because they go behind the front wing.

When it was going well it was lovely, but the constant bills were crippling.

In the end it was so rusty and due another engine rebuild that I broke it for parts and replaced it with a Rover SD1 Vitesse.

I would have another Stag but as a toy.

[Yertis]

gruffalo said:

I had a Stag for about 5 years in the mid 80's and it was my only car.

I did around 12,000 miles a year in it.

I would have another Stag.

There, that's much better.

[gruffalo]

Yertis said:

gruffalo said:

I had a Stag for about 5 years in the mid 80's and it was my only car.

I did around 12,000 miles a year in it.

I would have another Stag.

There, that's much better.

Yes, but unfortunately not realistic from my experience.

Unfortunately mine was just too fragile even with things like the Saab Turbo oil pump, thermostatically controlled oil cooler and the crank hardened after each regrind the engine just couldn't cope with the wear and tear.

[iSore]

Here's the thing. I ran a series of cheap Alfas (Alfetta GT Coupe, Giulietta, Alfasud etc) and whilst the rust was 'an issue', the one thing they never did was present you with never ending mechanical dramas. Tough as old boots because they were so well designed and meticulously built using high quality parts. The twin cam in particular could take an astonishing amount of abuse.

I'd only have a Stag with a BMW rear suspension and a properly fitted Rover V8, and sod the purists. A car is no good if it can't be relied on and you're constantly monitoring the gauges and warning lights.

[anonymous-user]

Plinth said:

...
Get my local garage to remove the Triumph engine (which I would sell) and fit a 3.9 Rover V8 with fuel injection.

...

Huge error! Most people stopped making that mistake years ago.

Get a Stag with a sorted Triumph engine. NB - a sorted one. If you find an affordable and otherwise good Stag with an RV8, get a proper Triumph engine put into it. Sell the RV8 to a Rangey or SD1 or TVR person.

Nowt wrong with an RV8, but nowt wrong with a sorted Triumph V8 either. NB: I said sorted - again. Also, that engine has the correct weight for the balance of the car.

Almost any well maintained classic car can be a daily driver. I ran a Jensen Interceptor as a daily in 2003, and another one as a daily in 2010-2012, and again for a bit in 2013. Some petrol was bought. I have also run old Lotuses and old Lancias as dailies, and that has been OK.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 24th April 12:57

[anonymous-user]

exitwound said:

Mark A S said:

Question, would not having to use your “Classic” as a daily not take the shine off the passion you have for it ???

IMO, if you have a classic you need a fairly modern ish run-around to help keep the spark alive.

Very wrong.. Unless you bought the car just as an investment garage queen. Using a classic on a daily basis raises your driving enjoyment to a much higher level that my words cannot depict for you.

My colleague surprised us all by selling his modern Berlingo and buying a '71 MGB GT. This has been his daily for the last five years and its running better than ever, yes it has a few more marks on it but that's life and its called patina.

Road salt and rust? That's why God gave us the jetwash. Older cars took a bit of tlc, that today we have forgotten how to do..

The old fashioned term was "being a motorist". Rediscover that and you'll open up a whole new world and wonder why you took so long to do it!

I agree with all of this (OK, shame about the MGB, but, whatevs).

My modern car (an 04 Jaguar X Type 3 litre V6 AWD Estate with the rare unrusty sills option) sits unused and gets shat on by pigeons. Not because frocked up Mondeo. Because modern. Therefore because boring.

My current daily is my Dolomite Sprirt, and when that is next broken I will switch to my Rover SD1, and when that is next broken I will see if my XJS has been fixed by then, and so on.

[exitwound]

This is my 3 times a week daily.. No rust issues unless you count brake and fuel pipes. It has a clamshell bonnet so access to everything is excellent. No service issues, parts no problem and reasonably priced. 1.5cubic metres of rear storage so I can get two peoples luggage in there for a weeks holiday and still remove the roof and stow it.

L98 motor, so very simple.. 0-60 in 5, 32mpg, £170 fully comp for 8k miles, £235 tax, sounds awesome with straight pipes and an excellent and simple, responsive car to tinker with if that's your bag.

Downsides, image, fun in the wet (learn to drive rwd without aids), but then smokey tyre 345torks remind you that driving can be fun without breaking your bank or your heart..

Ive stripped out the AIR pump, AC, cruise, radio, spare wheel and can etc in a bid to save a bit of weight, so far about 150lbs..

Edited by exitwound on Monday 24th April 16:29

[uk66fastback]

Yertis said:

gruffalo said:

I had a Stag for about 5 years in the mid 80's and it was my only car.

I did around 12,000 miles a year in it.

I would have another Stag.

There, that's much better.

I had a Stag for about two years in the mid 80's and it was my only car.

I did 2000 miles in three months and for the vast majority of the remaining time it was either in the garage being fixed - usual HG problem - or undergoing engine work of some kind.

I would have another Stag.

Would I hell

[300bhp/ton]

battered said:

I thought the original V8 did eventually get the fundamental faults fixed though? Rather like the K series, as sold it's a crap engine, but a K with a working head gasket and associated parts is very good indeed.

Yet there are still likely tens if not hundreds of thousands of K-Series engines in use daily... completely unmodified. Really this story is as BS now as in past times FFS.

And was first in production in 1988!

[300bhp/ton]

Plinth said:

Get my local garage to remove the Triumph engine (which I would sell) and fit a 3.9 Rover V8 with fuel injection.

I love RV8's, I own two at the moment. But swapping the Triumph V8 for one is just bonkers and largely defeats the purpose of wanting/owning a Stag in the first place.

[anonymous-user]

This, all day long. OK, had the corporate politics been otherwise, the Stag would always have had the RV8, but in the real world the car was built around the Double-Dolomite V8, and its handling is based on that. Just get a Double-Dolomite V8 that works. Same as a Single-Dolomite Slant 4. Rubbish when its rubbish, fab when its fab. Avoid buying a rubbish one. Buy a fab one.

[iSore]

Breadvan72 said:

Get a Stag with a sorted Triumph engine. NB - a sorted one. If you find an affordable and otherwise good Stag with an RV8, get a proper Triumph engine put into it. Sell the RV8 to a Rangey or SD1 or TVR person.

Nowt wrong with an RV8, but nowt wrong with a sorted Triumph V8 either. NB: I said sorted - again. Also, that engine has the correct weight for the balance of the car.

I've heard - and read - about sorted Stag engines. The basic design was/is so badly flawed that even a sorted one will still need endless maintenance.
It was a nice car on paper, but no thanks. For the money and effort involved, an R107 Merc SL is a rather better idea and it was beyond all doubt a better car anyway.

[300bhp/ton]

iSore said:

I've heard - and read - about sorted Stag engines. The basic design was/is so badly flawed that even a sorted one will still need endless maintenance.
It was a nice car on paper, but no thanks. For the money and effort involved, an R107 Merc SL is a rather better idea and it was beyond all doubt a better car anyway.

The Stag V8 is based on the slant 4 Triumph engine. Which also has the finger pointed at it from time to time. But like the V8 they are perfectly good engines for the most part. Remember the same engine was also used in the Saab turbo for many years, with the most major change being how the gearbox was attached to it.

[iSore]

300bhp/ton said:

The Stag V8 is based on the slant 4 Triumph engine. Which also has the finger pointed at it from time to time. But like the V8 they are perfectly good engines for the most part. Remember the same engine was also used in the Saab turbo for many years, with the most major change being how the gearbox was attached to it.

No it wasn't. The warranty claims on the 1709 cc Triumph slant four were so numerous that by 1971, Saab took this underdeveloped, poorly made stcrate and completely redeveloped it for launch in the mid seventies. The Saab slant four as first seen in the 99 Combi EMS was a superb engine, having very few common parts and being built by the Swedes and not disenfranchised Brummies.

Saab started using the Triumph unit in 67/8, and Triumph first used it in 1972 with the first Dolomite.

Look at a proper engine - the Alfa V6, Volkswagen EA827 - then look at all this Triumph stuff. To me, it's just crap. Then look at other BL engines - the dull but strong O Series, the 2000/2200 Rover unit............all good solid engines. And the one engine Triumph designed for the Rover SD1...the 2300/2600? That ended well!

[iSore]

Btw I'm not being a miserable old bd (much) and like to see a Mimosa Sprint or a white Mark 1 Stag with red trim and the stainless wheel covers (no pin stripes either). But I take all 'they weren't that bad' claims with a large pinch of salt.

[Plinth]

300bhp/ton said:

Plinth said:

Get my local garage to remove the Triumph engine (which I would sell) and fit a 3.9 Rover V8 with fuel injection.

I love RV8's, I own two at the moment. But swapping the Triumph V8 for one is just bonkers and largely defeats the purpose of wanting/owning a Stag in the first place.

It might seem bonkers (I sort of agree...) but the Rover V8 in question would be lifted from my Disco, which after 14 years in my ownership is running superbly.
The main reason is that it prefer the sound of the Rover V8 to the Triumph.
So, if I decide to buy a Stag (and they are still pretty cheap), why not have it sounding how I like?
This would also mean there is a space in the front of the Disco for a 5.7 Chevy, which is something I have been wanting to do for ages.

[300bhp/ton]

iSore said:

No it wasn't. The warranty claims on the 1709 cc Triumph slant four were so numerous that by 1971, Saab took this underdeveloped, poorly made stcrate and completely redeveloped it for launch in the mid seventies. The Saab slant four as first seen in the 99 Combi EMS was a superb engine, having very few common parts and being built by the Swedes and not disenfranchised Brummies.

Saab started using the Triumph unit in 67/8, and Triumph first used it in 1972 with the first Dolomite.

Look at a proper engine - the Alfa V6, Volkswagen EA827 - then look at all this Triumph stuff. To me, it's just crap. Then look at other BL engines - the dull but strong O Series, the 2000/2200 Rover unit............all good solid engines. And the one engine Triumph designed for the Rover SD1...the 2300/2600? That ended well!

Warranty claims don't tell the whole truth though. For example one problem with the slant 4 was a warped head. However in lots of cases this was due to people running water rather than coolant, which in turn caused sludge due to the alloy head in the waterways, reducing water circulation. Uncaring owners would then cook the engine warping the head.

Running proper coolant however makes this a non issue. And common sense would say, don't cook an engine, pull over.

As for the Saab engine. Yes everyone loves to claim how rubbish the Triumph one was. The reality is there really is very little different between the engines despite what protesters would like to claim.

Having a different part number or an ever so slightly different spec of the same component (i.e. So it can be called different) is hardly the basis to claim the engines are not largely the same thing.

[anonymous-user]

iSore said:

... And the one engine Triumph designed for the Rover SD1...the 2300/2600? That ended well!

Lack of money, lack of development, many other problems. The straight six Triumph engine for the SD1 was potentially a BMW beater, but it was never finished off or developed properly. Take that engine, de-snag it (esp the cambox oil supply problem), fuel inject it, add a second OHC, and take it on into the 90s.

Come and have a drive of my SD1 2600SE and see if you think it has a rubbish engine.

[iSore]

Breadvan72 said:

Lack of money, lack of development, many other problems. The straight six Triumph engine for the SD1 was potentially a BMW beater, but it was never finished off or developed properly. Take that engine, de-snag it (esp the cambox oil supply problem), fuel inject it, add a second OHC, and take it on into the 90s.

Come and have a drive of my SD1 2600SE and see if you think it has a rubbish engine.

It was a good unit, held back by BL. And that one, fatal flaw - the oil pressure monitor valve. At top end rebuilds, many BL mechanics threw it in the bin after which the engine would run forever bar the odd head gasket.

LJKS was a fan and preferred it to the 3500 - the valve gear on the 2300/2600 was similar to the Sprint motor and the block had lots of meat - a 3.0 24v single cam version could have neatly replaced the V8. As you say, it had potential.

[iSore]

300bhp/ton said:

Warranty claims don't tell the whole truth though. For example one problem with the slant 4 was a warped head. However in lots of cases this was due to people running water rather than coolant, which in turn caused sludge due to the alloy head in the waterways, reducing water circulation. Uncaring owners would then cook the engine warping the head.

Running proper coolant however makes this a non issue. And common sense would say, don't cook an engine, pull over.

As for the Saab engine. Yes everyone loves to claim how rubbish the Triumph one was. The reality is there really is very little different between the engines despite what protesters would like to claim.

Having a different part number or an ever so slightly different spec of the same component (i.e. So it can be called different) is hardly the basis to claim the engines are not largely the same thing.

Right. So the fact that the 900 engine can do 200'000 miles plus with negligible maintenance and the Triumph one can't........

The engines are different. Saab redeveloped it and built it properly.

Run a Ford Pinto engine on tap water and see what happens. Not a lot. Good tough engine, no excuses. Triumph stuff had an appalling reputation that was richly deserved. Frank Sytner once told a story about a Police Dolomite Sprint chasing him in a 2002Tii, when the Sprint expired in a cloud of blue smoke......