The red Triumph TR3 jockeys for a place in the line of show cars. As it rumbles in, a handful of guys follow it like kids after an ice cream truck. When the owner finally backs it into position, shuts off the engine and raises the hood, a dozen more eager faces gather around. This car couldn’t draw more attention …
It is not that I am purist or I disagree with the concept, and if you think it is important to leave your friends in the dust that is ok too. The car looks to be very well crafted, but it is not a TR3. It is what I would call a Rod. The same as a Bucket T is not a Ford Model T or a 40 Ford with the usual SBC, LS whatever, MMII front and multi link rear is still a 40 Ford; they are Rods. I like Rods, especially if they are interesting and don't have a bowtie in them. I like this one also, but it is not a TR3, probably does not even leak oil.
I like it a LOT !
As a matter of fact, I'm building my own V8 powered Triumph. However, mine's an LS swapped TR4
I've never considered that particular car a good candidate for a V8 swap given the handling shortcomings and the fact that the rear end runs over rather than under the rear axle.
We had one guy that installed a Chev 283 in his, but because the suspension cross brace got in the way of the water pump or something, he left it off the car. Took about 6 months for the front suspensuon towers to start slowly folding toward each other. Triumph generally didn't install unecessary bits on the car.
I had a fast street TR3 with a 87 mm pistons, a head rewoked by a place in the UK that knew the engiens, 10:1 compression and something that approximated the old G cam, and it was about 130 bhp and a ton of fun without compromising anything.
A friend owns this car http://www.britishv8.org/Articles/Triumph-TR3-Plus-4.htm that he split down the middle and added 4" to so he could fit a Nissan 240 SX engine to (with IRS rear end) which gave him 140 bhp net (vs. my figure, which was gross) and it is a very nice swap, but that is a far cry from 500 bhp.
Your fearless leader can probably comment on this thread as he races a TR3.
Unless there was a fair bit of frame strengthening done on that 500 bhp car, I'd love to see what the results of putting it on an alignment rack to measure twist etc. was.
Looks great to me. But then I put a Buick 231 V6, 4bbl, headers, etc., in front of a Chevy TH700R4 with Wilwood disc brakes all around in my TR7 Spider. A Triumph Spider, powered by Buick. So what.
While an AC Ace with a Ford V8 may be called a Shelby Cobra, a Morgan with a Triumph engine is still a Morgan. My Range Rover may have a Jaguar 4.2 supercharged engine but it's called a Land Rover.
In fact the same Buick V6 in my Spider was installed in several other brands ( some bored out to 252 CI ) and they were still called Cadillacs, Pontiac and Holdens.
I'm a Brit and I love LBCs but they were nothing fancy when they left the factory. I am tired of seeing 'restored' LBCs that have better paint and bodywork than a 1980s Rolls-Royce. That's sick if you think you're keeping them original. It may look great but it's not authentic. The factories didn't lovingly hand buff their paint work or spend hours getting perfect cut lines, door alignments or symetrically aligned stitching in the leather seats. My old cars are built to drive, be reliable and safe. They are far safer than many of the 'specials' I built growing up in Britain using Austin 7 or Ford Popular chassis.
To each his own, but don't turn your nose up at a modified LBC. Remember, Rootes didn't build the Sunbeam Tiger. Jensen Cars did it for them, installing the revised firewall, Ford powertrain and paint at the Jensen Factory in West Bromwich. But we still call them Sunbeams.
So, a Ford powered TR3 is okay in my book. Besides, it looks far better than a 'fat' AC Ace called a Cobra.
In reply to bkwanab :
Well said.
Please post some pics of that Spyder.
You'll need to log in to post.
