Talk:Triumph TR7

Speke vs. Hunts Cross

I have provided several references for the factory being named "Speke", both officially and in general usage. While, geographically speaking, the Speke No.1 and Speke No.2 plants may have been located between the nearby suburbs of Hunts Cross and Speke, IMHO, it is better, to avoid confusion, to refer to factories and similar facilities by their official name, even when it could be argued that it is geographically inaccurate. Letdorf (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC).

COMMENT:

For what it's worth, I was responsible for the launch of the TR7 and, at the time, the factory was known within the company as Speke. If anybody had referred to it as Hunts Cross, none of their colleagues would have known what they meant. Sky120liner (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

US legislation against convertibles

I have put a flag in the section on convertibles to the effect that a citation is needed for the legislation that prevented the TR7 being available initially as a drop head coupe. It also wants some further editing, since the wording is currently confusing. The confusing phrase is “Because of US legislation in places at the time of its launch”. The confusion is whether this means that there was “US legislation in place at the time of its launch” or that there was “US legislation in some places at the time of its launch” is unclear. In any case it was always my understanding that this was proposed/threatened rollover legislation not actually ever in place ; BL did not make the drop head until it went away, to avoid tooling up for a car they might not be able to sell.

I’d try to resolve this myself, but haven’t time, so I’ve flagged the statement so readers might realize that it is uncertain, if not actually disputed. Graham.Fountain | Talk 12:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I clarified the sentence in question, but it still needs a citation. Oh wait, I may have one in my library, WBB.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Triumph TR7 Sprint into Triumph TR7

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

---

In my opinion, there is little, if anything, worth moving from the existing article on Triumph TR7 Sprint to the existing section Triumph TR7#TR7 Sprint, which is why I simply redirected the article to the section. However, the redirect has since been undone, so I am beginning a formal discussion on whether to merge the article into the section.

The merger should not expand the TR7 article unduly, since most of what is in the article is already in the section and the large redundancy will be deleted.

I am looking forward to finding out what the community thinks about this.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge. Likewise Triumph TR8 and any similar discussion of after-market V8 conversions. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with merging, as long as all the relevant info from the Sprint page is included, such as the technical specs. RGCorris (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge. The TR7S page, besides badly written, is trivial. How a page on a project that never saw series production IDK. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't Merge. As one of the rarest TR variants, certainly of the TR7, the TR7 Sprint is interesting.

My position is this: There is much information on the internet and elsewhere on the TR7 Sprint and its properties, production history, distinguishing features, and some history on the specific cars. Some of this is accurate and referenceable, and some of it is, frankly, blather (I'd normally have used another vernacular English term, that begins in 'b' and ends in 'olocks' but thought better of it here) and needs to be pricked. I have written some of this, possibly of both types, and I'm still asked fairly often for further information; despite no longer having any official capacity with any of the clubs. That there is, relatively speaking, so much information in the wild means, I think, that there is a place for a consensus article on the TR7 Sprint that is open to all with any interest, and this should be it. That this page has languished in its current woeful state for so long is not to anyone’s credit, but I, personally, have been frying other fish. I did tart-up the TR7 Sprint entry on the TR7 page, but haven’t had time to deal with this page.

However, to the end of fixing the article, I'm now working on a very thorough re-write, and have been so for more than a month, which is currently in my user area. I'm unready (both in the modern English meaning and the older meaning applied to Ethelred of Wessex) to transfer this to the article space, but expect to do so in the next couple of weeks at most. But, in the context of the West Saxon meaning of unready, I would first like to get the perspective of some others who have also been interested in researching these cars over the years: Jim Johnson and John Wood come quickly to mind, but there are others. Some input from Paul Towle (the TRDC TR8 Registrar in the late 80s/early 90s), would be especially useful, if I knew how to contact him.

Hence, I think merging with the TR7 article would be precipitous at this time as well as unwarranted, and I intend to do everything within my power and capabilities to prevent it. I also think even more will fight to defend a separate TR8 page until Hell freezes over, good and proper <-flame mode to off->. Graham.Fountain | Talk 13:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you link us to this rewrite? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The rewrite is currently at User:Graham.Fountain/TR7 Sprint/rewrite. However, I'm still in the phase of getting the information in it right, rather than properly getting to grips with making it encyclopaedic, so unless you've detailed knowledge about the TR7, Dolomite Sprint, or TR7 Sprint, I'm not sure comments or editorializations would be appropriate at this time. It is (or should be) a conglomeration of all the information I can find, with some of the misguesses that are out there rebutted, etc., and not “all mine own work”. So I’m not claiming ownership of the article or any such. However, I’ve still got references to search out where possible. Also, frankly, I’ve got some hard choices to make about some of the current content before it can go into the article space, but I want to make them myself and argue about them after, rather than get bogged down in that process before it’s an article. It’s possibly one of my failings, but it takes me a huge number of re-writes to get any piece of work where I think it should be – I’m still short of happy with the leaky bucket algorithm, and that’s been on-going for quite a while (and that started to rebut the utter tosh Andrew Tanenbaum wrote in Computer Networks on half the subject that was confusing the hell out of everyone).Graham.Fountain | Talk 13:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

While I would not like to see the detailed info on the Sprint lost, I don't see why it cannot be included as an expanded section within the main TR7 page. Could your re-write not be used to do this ? RGCorris (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If we were talking only about the information currently in the TR7 Sprint article, I'd more or less agree, except that I think I've already got most of it into the TR7 article already. However, if you look at the rewrite I'm going to propose, inchoate as it is, you will see that the re-write is more than extensive; it's more than a little expansive. So I wouldn't think there's space to put it in the TR7 article, it would unbalance it immensely. You may say it's not interesting, but that's a judgment call I won't ever agree with; you could also say it could be in a wiki for car nuts, and maybe it should, but I still think it should be here as well. Partly that's because there is and never will be a TR7 Sprint Owners Club (with the exception of the old pub quiz team that used to assemble at TRDC National weekends: me, Derek Harvey, Nige Trott, and on occasion Pete Sheppard and Peter Haynes, and WAGs; the owners of most of the TR7 Sprints that were roadworhty in the 80's and 90's): there isn't even really a TR7 owners club, as such, just divisions of the TRDC, TR Register, Club Triumph, and (a bit) TSSC. However, if you look, all these, and a number of web only TR fora, have sections on the TR7 Sprint, and they all give slightly different, sometimes conflicting, information. So I thing Wikipedia is the ideal place to bring that all together into a cohesive whole. I may not be the person to do it all, but I think I’m in a good place to begin.Graham.Fountain | Talk 13:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd still favour merging the lot. This is a merge, not a deletion. Nothing needs to be lost.

My point about the merge is to produce an article that gives the best service to the reader: an overall history of the TR7 in one place. The TR8 and the Sprints were all rare, so they just don't have much independent history of their own, outside of the scope of the TR7 article. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Same answer as to RGCorris plus: I don't see a contradiction between having a TR7 article that does what you say, for the reader with a passing interest in the derivatives, which I'd suggest it is pretty close to already, and having a separate cross referenced article on the TR7 Sprint, and the TR8 as well. I certainly think if you put all this stuff about the three batches ACH 1F, the test track cars, the press garage cars, what year model body shells were used, pictures of the different bits - there'll be pics of the unique manifold and the water transfer housing, etc., to go in at some point, I just haven’t asked Jim and John of permission yet -, into the TR7 article it will unbalance the TR7 article, just a teeny weeny bit: just like all them nested parenthetical statements screwed up this sentence. They may have nested, but they didn’t lay an eggGraham.Fountain | Talk 13:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't Merge The argument to merge these pages is equivalent to arguing for a merge of the BMW 320 E21, E30 and E36 pages - it is just inappropriate given that the TR7 Sprint and TR8 were distinct vehicles, separately developed and homologated from the TR7. Both variants competed in top tier world rally events, and therefore, there is much worthy history that should be incorporated into unique pages for each vehicle. Further, given Graham Fountain has commenced a re-write of the Sprint page, it is illogical to subsume the existing page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney.Wedgehead (talk • contribs) 00:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge per the nomination, I would also agree with the TR8 being merged too as a variant of the TR7. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Why? I've looked at Wikipedia:Merging and Wikipedia:Notability and still don't see why the need to merge. This page is not a duplicate. I don't see that it has that much overlap with the TR7 page, relatively little of this page covers the TR7 itself. It is short, that is true. But it in not "unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time", see rewrite referenced above. I don't see that it is "a short article [that] requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it." So I don't see how it fulfils the merge criteria.

It also seems to me to clearly meet the notability requirements requisite for a separate page. I'll address these individually if you like.

It should also be obvious by now that the required consensus to merge is never, ever going to be achieved.Graham.Fountain | Talk 20:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't Merge. I don't see why these pages have to merge. The TR7, TR8 and TR7 Sprint are all distinct vehicles to those who own one of them. They were all considered separate models when Leyland produced them so lets keep it that way. From the notes above it looks like Graham Fountain is in the process of doing a full re-write of the TR7 Sprint page so at least lets wait to see how that turns out. If anyone is interested I have an original drivers handbook for the TR7 Sprint published by British Leyland in 1977 so they thought it was a separate enough model to produce the handbook. Russ Cooper 16:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge - any article on the Sprint which would be too large to easily fit into the TR7 article would clearly fall afoul of WP:FANCRUFT. The TR8 is also just a version of an existing car. As for Sydney's statement regarding Bimmers: no - but having a separate page for the TR8 and Sprint would be like having separate entries for the E21 320, 316, and 323 models. I'm as intrigued by these cars as anyone else, but they clearly do not warrant standalones.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr Choppers, for the link to fancruft. However, having read it, I don't exactly see how the TR7 Sprint page can "fall afoul" of it. Notwithstanding what it says about the use of this term as a pejorative and uncivil, the article is, at best, ambiguous about this as a reason in its own right for merger or deletion. Also, this is not a vote, Wikipedia is not a democracy: it's meant to be a discussion leading to a consensus to merge. On the whole, I don't see how this statement is intended to achieve that consensus - it is surely implicit in the definition of a fancruft that it's "fans" will never admit its unimportance.

As to their warranting "standalones", if you wish to achieve consensus, you will, I think, need to address the issues in Wikipedia:Notability in a little more detail than "clearly do not warrant". I, personally, would argue, at least, that the notability criterion is reasonably well met. Graham.Fountain | Talk 13:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Wait - the Sprint article in its current state is small enough to be merged into the main TR7 article. However, a quick read of Graham's new version shows the new version would be suitable for keeping as a standalone article (with a single paragraph summary in the main TR7 article and a link to the Sprint article). I found his version full of interesting points that I would love to see recorded here on WP. However, Graham's new version still needs quite a lot of work to make it follow WP's rules. The main problems are lots of original research and references being pulled from WP:FORUMs. I know Graham is still working on it, so I propose that we hold off on the merge decision. However, WP generally doesn't like waiting forever for 'the perfect article' to be done in seclusion, instead prefering an individual to add their best effort and then allowing others to also contribute. So I suggest we give Graham a few days to fix any large problems, then copy his version to the Sprint article. Others (and Graham) can then contribute, fixing any original research and providing better references. After two weeks (11 Mar 2013) we can start removing any outstanding OR and forum references and re-evaluate the merge on 13 Mar 2013. Sound fair to both sides?  Stepho  talk  03:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge - it is a derivative of the TR7, not a distinct model, so happy to support the proposal. Warren (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem I'm still struggling with is this: This and several of the other calls to merge appear to be based on the assumption that a car that is a derivative automatically cannot have a page of its own, and treat the correctness and validity of this assumption as obvious. That is, there is never any explanation or reasoning why this is so (with the exception of MrChoppers, and I've addressed his argument separately: "Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion." (WP:fancruft)).

I've already asked what the basis is for the above assumption and had no answer. That maybe because the question was lost in the detail about notability. So I'll ask again, explicitly: What are the actual, underlying reasons why the TR7 Sprint or TR8, or any other derivatives, cannot be covered by standalone pages? Graham.Fountain | Talk 16:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I am fairly sure there are derivative automobiles that have earned their own articles separate from the article on either the main version or the group of versions. The main reason why they are not brought back into the main article is that they are substantially covered in their own right.

I, for one, am not in favour of merging the article on the Triumph TR8 into the article on the TR7 and did not propose doing so. The TR8 was marketed as a separate model, was tested in the motoring press as such, and was raced as such. It has had significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. According to WP:GNG, it may be presumed to be notable.

What I had proposed was merging the article on the TR7 Sprint into the general TR7 article, largeley because the existing TR7 Sprint article had little, if anything, more on its subject than the TR7 Sprint section of the TR7 article did. You have been able to say much more in your rewrite, but mainly by going into really minute details. Most of your sources are from restorers and enthusiast websites, including one from an enthusiast magazine article written by you. Not that independent, I would say.

The TR7 Sprint does not seem to be notable in terms of either production or motorsport. Yes, it has been documented that they exist, but existence is not notability.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer to the question of whether being a derivative is an offence of absolute liability under WP rules, i.e. at least in your opinion, it is not. With no further responses after this length of time, I assume we can take it that none of the others in favour of merge disagree with what you say.

I also thank you for those of your comments on my inputs to the rewrite that provide constructive criticism. Thanks also for the editing work on the rewrite with the thumbnails and infobox.

This, I believe, really only leaves the issues of notability: I propose, for the moment, to ignore most of the issues over the current quality of the draft for the update and any shortcomings in my efforts: it is a work in progress, and not yet suitable for inclusion as an article; however, given time and effort I have no doubt that it can achieve that level. Positive help and positively constructive criticism to that end would be appreciated.

So, with regard to the specific points you make regarding the notability of the TR7 Sprint:

I don't understand what you mean by "The TR7 Sprint does not seem to be notable in terms of... motorsport." (I accept its small production): the current and proposed versions of the TR7 Sprint article both state the early TR7 rally cars, before the coming of the TR7 V8s (not TR8s BTW), were 16 valve Sprints and their successes as such are covered in them. Also, there's the issue of the 4 SJW rally cars which many believe were actually TR7 Sprints from the press garage. I don't believe that myself; I believe Bill Price when he said that only the registrations were used – he ought to have known after all. However, in regard to notability, it may be arguable that the truth is less significant than what is believed to be true. I also think that the cars that should have been needed for homologation were built after the cars were used in group 4 is very interesting, but that, as you say, may not be relevant.

I appreciate your concerns that referencing an article I wrote might not be seen as independent. However, it was, as far as I’m aware, the first such article solely on the subject, and it is relevant, at least, because of that; so I’d expect anyone writing a Wikipedia article on the TR7 Sprint to reference it therefore, and that I wrote it should not bar it. That article is also referred to in David Knowles book,Triumph TR7 the Untold Story, which I intend to reference, Also this is not some self published internet source, it was originally published in the TRDC magazine, which it is true is a club magazine, not one specific to the TR7 Sprint or even TR7s, but to all TRs. I count it as independent of the specific subject on those grounds. If this magazine is specifically considered as "unreliable" in any regard, I am unaware of this. Also, that this article, among relatively few others from that magazine, is seen as worth reproduction on the web is telling to the notability of the TR7 Sprint.

Despite your link, I don't think it falls foul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE: see also Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information. It is true the proposed rewrite contains a deal of detail, but, this detail is discriminate and includes "sufficient explanatory text". I have also done some work on that aspect of the article.

Clearly, the points that the conversion section, and to a lesser extent the minutiae elsewhere, were attempting to address were too obscured and I've removed the section. These two points, which I must now address differently, were as follows:

Firstly, that there is sufficient interest of the TR7 Sprint that all the parts to make a functional conversion, if not an actual forgery, are still available, some 36 years on. It is this interest in it (as opposed to it being interesting) that goes to notability.

Secondly, that the reason why the TR7 Sprint, and converting TR7s to TR7 Sprint spec., is separately notable, at least here in the UK, is that it makes a much better car than a TR7 for a lot less effort than the V8 conversion – especially if you've got or can get a TR7 with a dead engine (of which there has never been a great shortage:) you get performance essentially identical to US Spec., TR8 for little more effort than an engine swap; you don't have to go to the effort of replacing the sub frame, bell housing, clutch, half the exhaust system, or the back axle (diff gear ratio), remounting the radiator, and modify the water pump at the same time. There are a number of quotes from the secondary sources about the relative performance of the Sprint and that it was preferred by many within BL over the TR7 V8/TR8.

With regard to secondary sources, it was true that "Most of your sources are from restorers and enthusiast websites". That they were web sources was partly because I had simply had not yet got around to others: these web pages are relatively easy to access. I suspect that they're mostly by or for "restorers and enthusiast" is, at least, partly because most of what is written about cars is either for or by car enthusiasts in one way or another. This seems rather unsurprising to me: generally, people who don't like cars don't write or read about them very much. I have added some more references to work by Graham Robson and David Knowles, I've changed the reference to Bill Piggott's work to one with a less despicable title (exactly the same chapter in two different books: there's clever isn't it), and will see what may be relevant from Bill Prices 25 years before the mast book.

As for the given reasons to merge:

The TR7 Sprint, as it is, may duplicate much from the TR7 page; I admit I've made the TR7 page such that there is little in the TR7 Sprint page that is not overlap; however, there is information in secondary sources on the TR7 Sprint that is worth inclusion and should go in.

It may be a short article, but it is not unlikely to be updated within a reasonable period; though that does beg what a reasonable period might be.

It (the rewrite) does not require substantial context from (or duplicated from) the TR7 page.

As to given reasons why merging should be avoided:

With the additional information specific to the TR7 Sprint, the TR7 article would become unbalanced, and would be ripe for splitting.

It, the current TR7 Sprint article, can be expanded into a longer, stand alone article. The TR7 Sprint is a separate entity. Admittedly it's derived from the TR7, but we've dealt with that. There is plenty of separate interest in it, which is just a way of saying notability.

There is significant coverage from multiple secondary sources, independent of the subject: "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability."

Graham.Fountain | Talk 19:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm finally overwriting the current Triumph TR7 Sprint article, as suggested by  Stepho  talk . I've addressed all the specific comments made (see above and discussions at User talk:Graham.Fountain/TR7 Sprint/rewrite), and there have been no further ones for a while now. Graham.Fountain | Talk 13:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel that the issue has been addressed: The TR7 Sprint, no matter how many sources you can find, is nothing more than a very slightly different prototype version of a car. It is no more deserving of a standalone article than the Renault Clio Williams or the Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3-16. There is no separate interest, and it is absolutely not a separate entity. But it is obvious that you have a lot more energy and single-mindedness in this matter than do I, leaving me with only the suggestion to ask for outside opinions and simply abiding by their decision. And for the last time, merging is not very bad - it most likely makes this material more visible.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I feel that the car is noteworthy enough to be included in WP. Reliable sources were found for the important facts and about 60 of the cars were definitely made (ie, low numbers but more than a prototype). There's too much interesting information here that would clutter up and overwhelm the main TR7 page. To my mind it is similar to many Japanese cars having an article for their GT or GT-R versions. Some things still need some cleaning up (eg metric conversions) but that's normal for most articles and we'll fix them in the future.  Stepho  talk  13:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I've tried writing a response to the above that might help in resolving this issue. However, in this process, I've come to the conclusion that we probably never can agree even on the fundamental question, which, in my opinion, is this: Which takes priority, this repeatedly made (in various forms) assertion, that a derivative/prototype simply can't be notable, or WP:Notability? I've written several versions of the diatribe about why I see this assertion as basically a piece of dogma (a belief that cannot be doubted) and why WP:Notability (and rules on content) should obviously take precedence over it. But this is largely reiteration of the rebuttals of its specific use, gathered together; and even I wouldn't expect challenging dogma would ever work, without sufficient single-mindedness and energy to at least seriously dent belief in the ideology it is dogma to.

So, where to next? I take MrChopper's "suggestion to ask for outside opinions and simply abiding by their decision" as a call to conclude this proposal to merge . Since I don't see how anyone could state that consensus to merge is clear from the above, someone has to call in an administrator to adjudge the situation, and I assume it would normally be SamBlob. I am, however, not sure if the call to merge the TR8 is separate and whether it is concluded or not. However, that merge call appears to be based on the same piece of dogma, that as a derivative (a fact I would strongly argue against anyway) it can't be notable and so can't deserve a separate page, etc. Hence, I would suggest it should be judged at the same time.

Graham.Fountain | Talk 13:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I won't reiterate my opinions (see above) but I believe merging (or not) of the Sprint into the TR7 article is a separate issue to merging (or not) of the TR8 into the TR7 article. I have no objection to calling in an administrator for either merge issue.  Stepho  talk  23:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I would also consider the TR8 a separate issue from the Sprint version.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Am I to take it that, with Mr.Choppers change of heart since 23 February 2013 on the TR8 being "also just a version of an existing car", and no further comments following this last post, the consensus is to keep the TR8 page at least? Graham.Fountain | Talk 21:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TR7 V8

I don't understand what the 'TR7 V8' is. The article says the obvious of it being a TR7 with the Rover 3.5 L V8. How does that differ from the coupe version of the TR8? There are possible hints that the TR7 V8 is a rally car (ie not a production road vehicle) or possibly pre-production examples of the TR8 but neither is very clear. Any clues?  Stepho  talk  13:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The rally cars were designated TR7 V8 as at that time the designation TR8 was not in use. Various post-sale conversions of TR7s have been made by fitting the V8 engine into it, but that does not change it officially into a TR8, even if it is identical to a production TR8. RGCorris (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The preproduction TR8s built at speke at the same time as the TR7 Sprints and first DHC's were also called the TR7V8. I'm not certain when or where from, but there's an article in one of the club magazines about the US dealers asking that this not be the name for the production cars. This, it was claimed, was because of the TR7s poor reputation at the time. I'm sure I can chase up where that's from if need be. It might be interesting to get a V55 from one of the cars that stayed in the UK and see what they were called on that, especially as at least some of the TR7 Sprints were registered as TR7 4 Valves. Is there a US equivalent of the DVLA's V55 application for registration form? Graham.Fountain | Talk 19:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Here registration is done by the various states, and all systems are a) different and b) badly kept. People self-report the names of their cars, so no real way to tell.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

TR7 vs MG Magna

The article states: "During development, the TR7 was referred to by the code name "Bullet". Rumours that it was earmarked as a possible replacement for the MGB are unfounded." Just after it, anonymous IP 68.209.172.80 added the following:

I'm not altogether sure that was the case. There were two possible options available to Donald Stokes -- the TR7 or the MG Magna. I saw both clay bucks in the Longbridge styling studio and and in all deference to Harris Mann who I had the pleasure of working with, the MG Magna was in my opinion the much better design. However Stokes' preference was for Triumph and the TR7 was to become the new BL sports car.

I figured that such a commentary would be better on the talk the page instead of in the article itself.  Stepho  talk  06:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

TR7 Sprint and " virtually identical engine blocks"

Why do recent edits imply that non-factory TR7 Sprint conversions were encouraged by similarity between the TR7 and TR7 Sprint blocks? Although it's possible to convert a Sprint by using the same block, this was hardly ever done. The typical conversion was by swapping an entire head and block from a Dolomite Sprint (probably without even lifting the head), not by finding a 16V head (effectively unobtainable except from the same Dolomite Sprint route) and then swapping that onto the original TR7 8V block.

The conversion was made possible by the common origins of the two engines and their 45º lean in particular. There were almost no other engines that would fit into either engine bay. But this swap was done at the engine level, not as the head or block alone.

The Rover V8 incidentally fitted in fairly easily because it was a V8, thus also inclined, and so a low overall height. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The answer is, in part at least, because they were, as you say, "encouraged by the similarity". I certainly was when I had my first TR7 sprinted in the 80s – and the 3 following. But you are right in it's not that the Sprint head fits on a TR7 block (and, if not over skimmed, the TR7 pistons - despite the cut-outs being in the wrong place - ask Steve at S&S preparations Ltd.) that makes this so attractive a conversion. Though there have always been more spare Doly Sprint heads and dizzy's about than engines. And I, for one, have several times had a TR7 block rebuilt with Sprint pistons and a Sprint head rather than find a full Sprint engine.

But the really, really big attraction from the blocks being the same is that, unlike all other engines (except the dolomite 1850, but what's the point of that?), including the Rover V8, the Sprint engine drops directly onto the existing subframe; connects directly to the existing bell housing, thus with the gearbox in the same place, and thus using the same remote and propshaft; and it fits directly behind the rad. without moving that. It also has the same rev limit, etc., so there's no need to change the axle ratio - some say the 3.45:1 ratio is an improvement with the Sprint, but BL stuck with 3.89:1 and so have I always. So it's essentially the same as swapping one TR7 engine for another.

Even with the Rover V8 none of the above applied/applies: though as there was the TR8, all the bits (sub-frame, bell housing, prop shaft, rad mounts, etc.) to do it were/are available at no small additional cost - hence its attractions to those with deep pockets and for whom 150 hp (possibly as much as 200 with a pair of 45s, a competition ext. manifold, better big-end bolts, and a little polishing work, etc.) was/is just not enough. But if you're just going to drop an SD1 3.5 V8 in there, the only really big advantage over the Sprint is the sound - I admit it is the D's B's -, but you'll also want an auto box, because it will cost you an arm and a leg.

The sprint conversion does still need you to buy an exhaust manifold (or you put one foot under the windscreen, the other on the nearside wing top, and smack the bulkhead with an effing big sledge hammer till it yields enough that the doly's will fit: thanks Nick). The TR7 Sprint ones are hens teeth (I did get one on eBay last year, but it cost many a mickle, possibly several muckles), but there're tube manifolds out there, and some of the works competition manifolds (I've had two). There's also a bit of a problem connecting the cabin heater, as the pipe-works are different diameters and one starts from a different place on the engine, but that ain't rocket surgery.

Graham

Graham.Fountain | Talk 19:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Relocated from my talk page.

Vis TR7 TR8

Where is there a section in the TR7 page on a V8 version of the TR7?

There is a section on the TR8 as a derivative, but it's not a version, or variant of the TR7. It's a different model. It might be argued it a bit much for a section on a different model, but that's another issue.

So, by the logic in the reversion, the O-Series, with and without Canley Turbo, and the 16-valve slant-four engines need mentioning in the info panel too.

There is, by the way, an almost exactly parallel situation with the TR5 and TR250, which are almost exactly re-engine versions of the TR4A and TR4 (there are some chassis difference that are precursors to the TR6, but they are a bit hard to see). Graham.Fountain | Talk 17:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Graham.Fountain, The very first sentence of the TR8 article says "The Triumph TR8, eight-cylinder version of the "wedge-shaped" Triumph TR7 sports car..." (my emphasis) so yeah - it is a version. Additionally, that's really splitting hairs to say that a derivative of "X" is not a version or variant of "X".

Finally - if you can find reliable sources to show notability of the O-series and Canley turbo, then absolutely they can be included in the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I was invited to comment here by Graham. My TR7/8 knowledge isn't very detailed but I'll chip in my 2c worth of general principles.

For me, deciding whether 2 vehicles are variants of each other or not can usually be solved pulling both apart with hand tools (ie spanners, screwdrivers) and then rebuilding with the parts swapped over (without using oxy torches or welders). If so, then they are just variants of each other. So, if you can pull apart a TR7 convertible and a TR8 convertible, then put all the TR8 bits into the TR7 chassis then the TR8 is just a variant of the TR7. Of course, this is just me.

Grey areas exist. Possibly the TR8 (I'm only guessing) had some extra brackets welded on to hold something or an extra bulge in a particular panel (say, the firewall, an inner wing or a slightly bigger trans tunnel). But as long as the differences are restricted to just a few parts.

The body panels of both the TR7 and TR8 look identical to me. I'd be surprised if the floorplan, or interior differ - although I bow to the experts if there are differences. These similarities alone make them variants of the same model in my mind - other editors may have a different opinion.

Grey areas also exist if the factory always marketed the 4 cylinder version as the TR7 and always marketed the V8 version as the TR8. Was there ever a V8 version sold as a TR7 ? Beware that racing homologation papers and press pre-release test cars are infamous for having the wrong badges/stickers - often using test mules for both.  Stepho  talk  09:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Both the TR7 and TR8 article use terminology highly indicative that the TR8 is essentially a TR7 with a V8:

1. "A small number of pre-production cars were manufactured at Speke in 1978, soon after the pre-production TR7 V8 (later designated TR8)..."
2. "Triumph created a much more powerful Triumph TR8 model in 1977/78, which was a TR7 with a 135 bhp (101 kW) 3.5 L Rover V8 engine."
3. "The Triumph TR8, eight-cylinder version of the "wedge-shaped" Triumph TR7 sports car..."
4. "A more powerful V8-engined version of the TR7 was planned in the early stages of the TR7's development, a prototype being produced in 1972."
5. "include pictures showing a 1977 TR7 V8 prototype with a set of decals indicating it to be a TR7 V8."
6. "TR8 coupes based on the original Harris Mann TR7 design made from 1978 to 1980 are quite rare; it is estimated that only about 400 TR8 coupes ever existed..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaheel Riens (talk • contribs)

Don't forget that WP cannot be used as a reference for itself. All those quotes might be wrong. Or they might be right. But thy cannot be used in a circular argument. If we find that the TR8 really is a variant of the TR7 then those quotes can stay. If we find that the TR8 is not a variant of the TR7 then all those quotes will have to be fixed in the articles.  Stepho  talk  21:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Very much agreed, but my point is that if the TR8 is not a version of the TR7 then more than just removing "V8" from the infobox needs to be considered. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

True.  Stepho  talk  08:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that we all approach this discussion from preconceptions acquired while we were growing up, possibly - at least in ay case - through press releases regurgitated during the 1970s as authoritative articles in the specialist / automobile press. As far as I can tell none of the people engaging in this discussion grew up in North America, which is where most of the TR8s were sold and where - as far as I know - it was sold with as little reference as possibly to the "scleritoc and underpowered limey TR7". It would be interesting to hear from a North American contributor on this stuff. Meanwhile, having acquired most of my prejudices on these matters while living in various bits of Europe, it is at least refresshing to find "European" (and Austrialian) preconceptions apparently taking precedence over American ones. Can't see it happening, on English language wikipedia, with a Mercedes or BMW. But then British sports cars had become somthing of a (much loved by those who loved them) niche in North America by the time the (TR7/)TR8 turned up. I'm not quite sure what I think about the argument over whether we should have one entry or two here. Except that we should always try and come up with solutions that work for casually interested readers who came here to learn more. We are not producing this thing for ourselves, nor even for the relatively narrow - and as far as I can see diminishing - community of fellow wiki-car nuts. Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The question appears to be, how do we differentiate between a version, a variant, and a different model. WRT to Wayne's point about whether one can pull "both apart with hand tools (ie spanners, screwdrivers) and then rebuilding with the parts swapped over (without using oxy torches or welders)", it would be complicated, as the two cars share a body shell, but, as well as the engine, bellhousing, ancillaries, etc., different subframes, gearbox remotes, and prop shafts, with different gearbox, and radiator mounts, as well as internal differences in the axle. An issue with that is what proportion of the bits, and how measured, go into the other? If the example is too clouded by grey areas, is it a good example?

Personally, I would err to the manufacture's perspective, where, just as the with TR5 and TR4A, which are largely interchangeable apart from the engines, they are, from the Triumph literature, different models. On that basis, and only a little research will show that, there is no way to argue the TR8 is anything other than a different model.

The FIA also have a perspective, which I would argue is somewhat authoritative in respect of automobiles. They (the autonomous CSI/FISA) required the TR8 to be homologated as a different model and required 400 homologation specials be built for its Group 4 approval. Whereas, the FIA allowed the 16-valve TR7 Sprint to be homologated as a Group 4 variant of the TR7, with no cars needed for its initial homologation in 1975 and only 50 (ish) for its 1978 re-homologation after the rule changes of 1976 as an amendment (10/8v) to the TR7's form of recognition.

Also, is it that big an issue? There's no question the TR7 was a 4 cylinder engined car, and that's what the info panel should reflect. Whether the TR8 was a version or a variant or a derived model, it has its own linked to page, and there's plenty of references to it in the body of the article.Graham.Fountain | Talk 17:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that the owner's clubs perspectives is significant, and they consider the TR7 and TR8 to be different models with different registrars, etc. Graham.Fountain | Talk 17:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

A stripdown and reassembly is not a valid comparison - if I strip down a 3 door Peugeot 306 and try to fit the doors to a 5 door, or the boot from an estate to a hatch - are they different models? Additionally - there may be no question that the TR7 was a 4-cylinder car, the question is that it was also a V8 engined car. The question is that a defining aspect of the TR7 is not that it is exclusively a four cylinder 2.0 engined car. Or is it? What reliable sources dictate that there is no such thing as a factory built TR7 with a V8 engine? Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There are simply oodles of reliable sources that identify the V8 powered TR8 as a separate model. Obviously, they don't explicitly answer this question; however, it is clear that if the model with the V8 was the TR8 and separate, the TR7 model only had the slant-4 engine. Here are some examples of such sources culled from various articles herein:

Piggott B., Clay S., Collector's Originality Guide Triumph TR2 TR3 TR4 TR5 TR6 TR7 TR8, 2009, MotorBooks International Company, ISBN 9780760335765.

Knowles D., Triumph TR7 The Untold Story, 2007, Crowood Press, ISBN 978-1-86126-891-4.

Bill Piggott, Original Triumph TR7 & TR8, 2000, Motorbooks International, ISBN 978-0760309728.

Steve Jackson, The Bullet that Backfired, 2015, Lily Publications, ISBN 978-1-907945-88-5.

There are also shed loads of motoring mags from the launch, and the aforementioned TR Owners club's publications; especially, TR Action and TR Driver.

There are, however, three exceptions to that rule of 'if a TR7 has a V8 in it, it's a TR8'. These are homebrews, of which there are plenty, the TR7V8 rally cars, and BL prototypes:

The homebrews, obviously, don't count.

According to Graham Robson (ex Triumph engineer and motoring journalist) the TR7V8 was called that from its first use in April 1978 because BL Sales and Marketing Division wouldn't let John Davenport (head of BL competition dept.) use the name TR8 before its launch. Also, they were hard tops (FHCs), and the TR8 was only ever marketed as a soft top (DHC) - the (probably close to) 400 FHC TR8 homologation specials were mostly sold off in the US and Canada, because FIA rules said they had to be "meant for the normal sale"; but there was no marketing per se. But the TR7V8 rally car was homologated as the TR8 in FIA Form of Recognition number 654 (can be found on the FIA's website). That the pictures in those homologation papers show a car badged as a "TR7 Sprint V8" is a whole other story. That about 250 of the FHC TR8 homologation specials were built after the homologation was approved is also another story.

The question of what terminology to use for a TR7 pulled from the line and fitted with a V8 engine by BL as a prototype TR8 is one that has plagued the owners clubs for many years. My position is that if they don't carry a commissioning plate with the prefix used for the TR8s (ACN for FHCs or ACT for DHCs), they ain't proper TR8s. But, in the context of this issue, that BL made the conversion does not change their status as mashups.

So, while there may be a number of individual TR7s fitted with V8 engines, these are necessarily modified vehicles attempting to reproduce (or fake) the TR8 model spec.Graham.Fountain | Talk 12:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you supply any readily verifiable sources that sustain this thought? Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

As a quick response - I assume the problem is you don't want to have to buy these books - try the previews linked from https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=tr8. I could post scans of what I have, but I suspect the problems of copyright are too great.

But more importantly, I think we should ask where are your readily verifiable reliable sources that dictate that there was a factory built TR7 with a V8 engine, outside the context of the separate TR8 model? Alternatively, do you have any evidence that the TR8 was not a separate model?Graham.Fountain | Talk 17:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

A bit more: I am expect you will argue with this as a reliable source. However, as verifiable evidence from one of the premier British sportscar clubs, at least supporting the reliable publications listed above, the TR Register's website has this on the page: https://www.tr-register.co.uk/tr-buyers-guides/triumph-tr7-tr7v8-tr8, "All cars with 8-valve/ 1998cc overhead-camshaft engine (105bhp in Europe, approximately 92 bhp in North America)... The V8-engined TR8 was it's short lived sister car." The point being that it does say, unequivocally, that all TR7s had the 2ltr engine, and the V8 was restricted to the TR8.Graham.Fountain | Talk 19:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)