Talk:Triumph 2000

Rover 2000

"the contemporary iconic Rover P6/2000, which initially was offered only with a four cylinder engine" The Rover 2000 was only ever offered with a 4 cylinder engine. The V8 was called the Rover 3500. It was never publicly referred to as a P6. This was the internal project code of the car.
LewisR 23:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Triumph 2000 MkI

This section barely mentions the Mk1 before launching straight into the Mk2 facelift. They were BOTH styled by Michelotti.
LewisR 23:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Triumph 2000 Mk1 Estate

This car was not shorter than the Mk1 saloon. The author has got confused. The Mk2 estate carried the Mk1 estate's rear end over therefore, the Mk2 estate was shorter than the Mk2 saloon but not the Mk1. LewisR 18:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is Barbara?

Has anyone worked out the significance of Barbara as in the section heading "Triumph 2000 Mark I; "Barb""? It may be obvious to everyone else, but .... I'm still confused. Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think "Barb" and "Innsbruck" were project names, but it's hardly clear. Anyone able to clarify it a bit more? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to understand why "Charles01" assumes that "Barb" is/was short for Barbara and that it wasn't just meant to be just "Barb", even though it is a word itself in the English dictionary [a sharp projection near the end of an arrow].

They are however, indeed, project codes and it was I that added them. Sorry for any confusion but many car enthusiasts often prefer to use project codes (look at the BMW vehicles on Wiki), as vehicle names (e.g. Ford Escort) can refer to many car designs and designations such as Mk1 etc are not always official (e.g. Cortina Mk5 was never called that by Ford, it was a Cortina Mk4 80). LewisR (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Lucas Mechanical Injection

Mechanical injection was dropped on later models because there were problems with engine fires. Surely this is significant ? 203.26.122.12 (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have a source for this, add it to the text and include a citation/source note. (I thought it was simply to save cost at a time when BLMC was losing money and market share hand over fist that they reverted to the more old fashioned fuel feed system for the 2.5s) Charles01 (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have seen no reference to fires occuring in these vehicles at all, PI induced or otherwise. I understood that the fuel injection system was dropped because it became unreliable after a while; difficulty starting, lumpy idle, over fuelling and then Lucas washed their hands of it, leaving Triumph to pick up all of the warranty issues with no technical help from Lucas, so they dropped it. LewisR (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Also not heard of fires, but given the 100 PSI fuel pressure, any pipe fault could be disastrous....

A lot of the issues in PI system was down to mechanical wear in the rollers and calibrated 'arm'. Only a small amount of wear rendered the mixture quite rich, and unfamiliarity meant most owners didn't know what to do to fix it. When recalibrated/reset by a specialist they would run well again, but typically only for a few months. For some unknown reason, some went out of tune much faster than others. Typically any vacuum leak also caused massively rich mixtures.

I had 4 PI saloons and was able to buy them all cheaply, and ended up converting 3 of them to carbs from parts off 2000 saloons. The inlet manifold was a direct swap fit, despite Triumph/BL of the day insisting it was not. The 2500 even ran fine with original 2000 carbs and needles, although it did better with 1 3/4 SU or strambergs, it got excellent economy with the twin 1 1/2 from the 2000 engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.162.126 (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Michelotti

Charles01, thanks for the clarification! But, just to clarify the clarification, are we saying the Mk1 was designed by Michelotti too? If that is the case, then I guess it would clarify things if that was mentioned in the Mk1's section too. (and, err, perhaps referenced too?). -- DeFacto (talk). 17:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Michelotti styled the final iteration of the Standard Vanguard / Ensign / Sportsman / Vignale, the Triumph 2000 Mks I and II and indeed the Triumphs Herald and I think the 1300. Though there were press reports that the way the cars ended up was a slightly simplified version of the maestro's original designs - at least as regards the Triumphs Herald and 1300 - in order to avoid Standard-Triumph (or their steel panel suppliers - presumably Pressed-Steel Fisher, if Triumph weren't doing the panels in house)) having to invest too much in the shape forming dies (I'm sure there's a better word ... somewhere) and possibly the larger steam presses needed to produce the body panels. I guess that's what I had in mind with my throw-away remark in the narrative that I put up for the edit I contributed an hour or so back, before supper / dinner / cabbage 'n fish.

My old copies of Autocar, Motor and Car in the attic are the opposite of indexed. But I'll have a google around and see if I can find an online source for Michelotti's longstanding commmercial relationship with Standard-Triumph. Unless ... you or someone else reading this wants to get in first.

Be well Charles01 (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)