Re: 1975 Triumph Dolomite

^{[Continued from page 12]}

We took the cars on a 114 mile test drive from Canley to Moreton-in-Marsh and had a good opportunity to assess their various foibles and flaws. Rather surprisingly, Lancia´s Fulvia belied its controversial chassis-configuration and proved to be the most surefooted and tractable of the three cars. Whilst the top-speed was nothing to telex home about, the crisp steering, rifle-slick gearchange and smart acceleration belied the limousine-in-miniature appearance of the car. The driver’s position is a little odd but far less so than one might expect. The Mini´s is far, far worse. Naturally the front-driven Fulvia is prone to understeer yet I found this much less unsettling than the Dolomite´s tendency to swing its tail at the lightest of touches. Even the lethal Herald had more stability, which is saying something. Triumph have saved some pennies with their cleverly simple engineering and this is to be respected. However, this does not compensate for the sense of fearful anxiety one feels merely pulling into the pub carpark to down some afternoon refreshments. Incidentally, the Butler´s Plough outside Chaulkham is a fine place for a good lunch. The ox-tongue sandwiches deserve a special mention. I have not had any finer since roadtesting the Riley 4/72 in the Lake District in 1972. It was there we were treated to a smashing basket of home-baked bread, thick slices of ox-tongue, English mustard, cress, lettuce, creamery butter and a baker´s dozen of Slattern´s Extra Dark Imperial Stout. For me this transformed my views of the Lake District. I´d previously been unable to find a single decent pint of beer or a half-way palatable luncheon in nearly twenty years of testing in that otherwise pleasant region. When Riley summoned us there (back when I worked for the Weekly Manchester Advertiser) I was filled with a deep dread, despite my fond regard for Riley cars, God bless them, because I thought we´d be forced to eat awful vittels for three days straight. The tongue-sandwich thankfully saved the Lake District for me. And the car we tested seemed to be as good. I always said that the 4/72 was a much better car than its BMC competitors: the laughable A55 Cambridge, the appalling MG Magnette (the wife has one!) and the stout Morris Oxford. Perhaps the Wolseley 15/60 is nearly as good a car but I´d hate to be asked to justify this prejudice in a court of law.

To sum up, the Dolomite is credible motor car and a credit to BMC. It´s cheaper and simpler than its predecessors which is a sign of progress. The Lancia is formidable car whose main failing seems to lie in the viscosity of the engine oil that is recommended. I think a slightly lower viscosity would allow far better performance from its thoroughly-resolved 92 horse power, narrow angle-V engine. The Alfa Giulia in 1.6 litre guise has benefited from its restyle, with modern black plastic replacing the old-fashioned chrome grille of earlier cars. The comfortable grey velour upholstery is another attractive feature too. And finally, even if it´s not the fastest car of the trio, it is better assembled than the Triumph and has a bigger boot and an even bigger ashtray than the Lancia. Is that enough to swing the test? No, I prefer the Lancia for the simple reason that is the more honest and carefully constructed of all three cars and this makes it worth the extra money. Triumph take note. You can not rest on your laurels for too much longer!

Re: 1975 Triumph Dolomite

Oh another wonderful gem from the Vicar files! Thank you for transcribing it B&N, as ever you are a marvel. I had no idea on the complexities of the then current Triumph range, quite astonishing. Marvellous how dear Mr Vicar manages to describe the then modern touches with such accuracy, yet it now seems so quaint.

How wonderfully thoughtful to suggest a less viscous oil for the Lancia, one can only assume that some of the horses under the bonnet were too disinterested to run on his test?

Thank you again Bert, and the best of the new year to you.

Re: 1975 Triumph Dolomite Review

By the mid-late 60s Triumph was on the verge of having a decent range of cars – (if you discount the primitive sports models). Although their Michelotti styling was not to everyone’s taste, the 2000 and 1300/1500 saloons were the kind of classy semi-sporting saloons that should have ensured Triumph’s future.
However, it was not to be. Quality issues (what else) and buyer resistance seems to have put paid to the FWD experiment, Triumph also lost a fortune on the ill-starred Stag project and of course, once the Leyland Cars merger took place, chaos and under-investment ensued. From then on, Triumph had to make and mend. A shame, as the Dolomite with a properly located rear axle would have been a lovely car. (If Alfa could make the live rear end of the 105 series work, surely Triumph could too?) You are right though, by the late 60’s Triumph’s model range was a mess. Partly because the 1300 failed to adequately replace the Herald, the old girl (beloved of driving schools) remained in production until about 1971, by which time they should really have abandoned that end of the market. The ensuing Toledo was dreadful and had that money been spent upgrading the Dolomite accordingly, it would have rivalled the Italians and BMW - dynamically at least. To think the poor old Dolomite soldiered on until 1980 virtually unchanged. Tragic.
Out of the three tested here, the Alfa appears the obvious choice – I’ve always loved the shape of the Giulia saloon. (Interestingly, it was, despite its boxy appearance, highly aerodynamic). I think it was about 0.38, which was incredible for the early 1960s. They also handled better than the more glamorous Giugiaro-penned GTVs, I believe.
However, I would be swayed by the ladylike grace and engineering purity of the little Lancia. I imagine it would be the sensitive driver’s choice too. It too, despite its leaf-sprung rear suspension, rode and handled beautifully I believe. But Lancia did things properly in the days before Fiat.

Oh by the way bertandnairobi, I hate to sound like a pedant, but you have in fact uploaded two pictures of the Fulvia’s bigger sister, the equally understated but equally aristocratic Flavia Berlina of similar vintage. An even nicer car than the Fulvia Berlina, I would imagine…
 

Re: 1975 Triumph Dolomite Review

The reason that Triumph retro-engineered their front drive 1300 and 1500s as the rear-drive Toledo was due to cost (it was explained). I had a look at the prices for the 1300s and their competitors in the mid sixties. I don´t have all the figures for one year but a spread of years from 1965 to 1968. It would appear that the Triumph was more expensive than a Ford but less expensive than many other similarly powered cars. The Riley looks the most absurd, costing £912 and being little more than a posher version of the Austin 1300. Possibly the 1300 Triumph´s price didn´t allow enough of a margin.

1967 Ford Escort 1300 cost £750 and had 53 bhp.
1966 Triumph 1300 cost £835 and offered 60 bhp.
1968 MG 1300 1275 cost £845 and offered 70 bhp.
1967 Saab V4 1498 cost £851 and offered 65 bhp.
1968 Riley Kestrel 1275 cost £912 and offered 70 bhp.
 

Re: 1975 Triumph Dolomite Review

That is some interesting research. The Michelotti version looks rather smart, if typical of il maestro´s late output. I suppose it was hard for the BMC people to see that there was no future in having so many different brands. Instead of culling them and moving the price points inside one or two brands, they tried to keep a broad but shallow range of cars. These days they´d be trim variants rather than entire brands. Ford did this for years in the US with its Ford and Mercury brands too.

Having the original market prices was the only way to make sense of the brands and their relative positions. I find it hard to believe that people who knew Riley´s pre-war cars were much fooled by the Riley-ised versions of BMC´s 1100 body. It would be nice to know how many were sold. There´s probably a PhD in historical marketing to be done on this topic.  A careful study of the product literature might elucidate how BMC attempted to differentiate between, say, Wolseley and Riley and between Austin and MG. It´s similar to the pickle GM was in for years with their competing Pontiac, Buick and Oldsmobile brands.