Triumph TR250 vs. Triumph TR6

By David S. Wallens and Tim Suddard.

Most all sports car enthusiasts know the Triumph TR6, the iconic sports car from the first half of the 1970s. It was a huge success on both the road and the track. Then there’s the TR4, the brand’s model that helped define the 1960s.

The one-year-only TR250, however, tends to get lost in the shuffle. It marries the Michelotti-designed TR4 body with the six-cylinder engine that makes the TR6 such a brute.

Is it the best of both worlds or a wayward blip in Triumph history?

Up until the 1953 release of the TR2, the Triumph brand was associated with family cars and saloons, not sporting machines. While MG offered true sports cars both before and after the war, Triumph had no such animals in their lineup.

The TR1 show car, displayed at the 1952 London Motor Show, changed all that and gave birth to the TR2 production machine. Where the MG T-series still had cycle fenders and a prewar look, the Triumph was thoroughly modern.

Okay, so maybe the chassis, engine and suspension came from the brand’s production sedans, but the body was totally cutting edge: low-cut doors, bullet-shaped headlight housings, and flowing rear fenders that terminated in simple taillights. The TR2 immediately turned Triumph into one of the world’s most important sports car producers.

The quite similar TR3 replaced the TR2 for the 1955 model year. Triumph made minor tweaks, but the bulk of the car was a carry-over–even for the later, refined TR3A and TR3B iterations. Despite this sameness, the brand’s reputation only grew.

Something new and exciting appeared for 1961: the TR4. The boxier yet still soft body provided room for a real trunk plus windup windows. Underneath was another big upgrade: rack-and-pinion steering. The chassis and drivetrain, though, could be called carry-over items, all dating back a decade or two. Fans still ate up the new car.

If there was something close to a major update during the ’60s, it was the independent rear that coincided with the 1965 release of the TR4A. Plus, a revised frame was part of the new package. The rest of the car was made up of, you guessed it, carry-overs.

Big news was on the horizon for 1969, though, in the form of the TR6. The German design firm Karmann squared off the nose and tail to create a contemporary look, while more grunt came courtesy of the 2.5-liter, inline six-cylinder engine slipped under the hood. The Triumph sports car had moved upmarket–even though the rest of the car contained recycled items.

Sandwiched between the TR4A and the TR6, though, was a shortlived model that merged the classic TR4 body with the TR6’s six-cylinder engine. In the home market, it was called the TR5. Americans knew it as the TR250, and it was only available for the 1968 model year.

Two Sides of the Same Coin?

The British-market TR5 really was a game-changer, as the car’s inline-sixreceived Lucas fuel injection. Total output was some 150 horsepower, 45 more than the outgoing TR4A.

American-spec examples didn’t receive the intake setup, though. Two tried and true Stromberg carburetors topped the six-cylinder engine, limiting output to 104 horses–no performance gains here, but the switch resulted in fewer headaches.

Triumph made almost three times as many American-market cars than British-market ones. According to “The Triumph TRs: A Collector’s Guide” by Graham Robson, Triumph delivered 8484 copies of the TR250 to our shores; another 2947 Triumph TR5s were built for British buyers. After only 15 months, Triumph ended production of both models, as it was time to switch to the TR6.

From the outside, the TR6 looked simply meaner. Up front, Karmann smoothed the blister required to clear the intake and moved the headlights to the edges of the blacked-out grille. New front fenders completed the work. Out back, they squared off the tail, replacing the old tail fins with large, horizontal taillights and more blackness.

Beneath the skin? Yes, more of the same. The American market received the federalized, 104-horsepower engine also found in the shortlived TR250. Nearly everything else underneath was a carry-over, too, and despite some updates, it remained so until the end of the TR6’s model run in 1976. The wedge-shaped TR7, its successor, would be all new–and would also usher in the end of the company.

Despite growing competition in the marketplace and the car’s dated form and structure, the TR6 was still a success. Nearly 95,000 units were delivered–no previous Triumph TR model posted better sales figures.

Two-Fifty Equals Fun

We’re intimate with the TR6, but we admit that we hadn’t spent nearly as much time with its predecessor. During the recent Speedfest at the Classic Motorsports Mitty, though, Coker Tire gave us a way to even the score. They loaned us the TR250 they had on display, allowing us to rack up plenty of seat time.

So, which car is better? Well, how do you like your bodywork? The TR250 perfectly captures the look of the ’60s with its light chrome touches and friendly face. The petite tail fins tie up the styling nicely. The TR6, which we’d call one of the most successful facelifts in automotive history, turned the cute TR4 into something angular and raw. But really, is one better looking than the other?

The TR250’s trunk opening is a bit narrower, but the liftover is much, much lower. Is one easier to load than the other? That comes down to personal preference, so we’d have to call the styling contest a tossup.

The doors, dashboards and practically everything else found inside the TR6 came from the TR250, but their interiors aren’t identical. The big difference? The seats. The TR250’s classic seats look cool, but some might prefer the extra safety and support offered by the TR6’s high-back buckets. On a 1000-mile rally, perhaps the TR6 would get the extra nod here.

Want a quantifiable difference between the two cars? Look at their weights. According to the Moss Motors database, the TR250 sports a 2270-pound curb weight. They list a 2390-pound curb weight for the 1969-’74 Triumph TR6, and it’s not as though it made up for that heft with horsepower. Decreasing compression ratios, in fact, sapped power over the years. Climbing curb weights don’t help the TR6’s case. In fact, for the final two years of production– 1975 and ’76–curb weight swelled to 2624 pounds thanks to the required increased crash protection.

The Dollar Decides

Perhaps the price guides can deliver the final verdict. Do they favor the much-loved TR6 or the rather uncommon TR250? Hagerty delivers a TKO in favor of the TR250: Average price for a TR250 is right at $25,000, with average prices for the TR6 hovering around $15,000.

Taking an objective look at the pairing, we can see that: The TR250 combines the classic Triumph styling with the smooth six-cylinder engine of the TR6. The earlier model also retains the better-riding, if not betterhandling, independent suspension introduced on the last of the TR4s.

The real trick, of course, may be finding one.

Join Free Join our community to easily find more Triumph articles.
Comments
View comments on the CMS forums
maseratiguy
maseratiguy New Reader
11/19/14 9:20 p.m.

Problem is the price differential for basically the same car /looks aside. No?

Woody
Woody MegaDork
11/19/14 9:24 p.m.

I've always loved TR6s but if I had to choose, I'd take a TR250.

I saw this beauty at Lime Rock a couple of years ago.

 photo LimeRockMonday09-03-2012306.jpg

Leo  Basile
Leo Basile Reader
11/19/14 10:12 p.m.

When the dust settles, Id still rather have a TR 4. Why you may ask...The TR 4 was availible with an optional hand crank, thats why!

Seriously though, I think the 4 is a bit more...Its on the tip of my tongue but I cant seem to find the right words...I dont know, "cleaner" perhaps.

I never really cared for the 4A either. I guess Im not a fan of Triumphs IRS.

Leo

oldtin
oldtin UberDork
11/19/14 10:21 p.m.

I like the TR250 over the TR6, but am a little stuck on TR4s. I like some of the details a bit better - better looking grill, no fussy side trim and I like the painted dash on earlier TR4s better than wood dashes.

Woody
Woody MegaDork
11/19/14 10:26 p.m.

I have been driving past this on my way to work for twelve years. So far, I have resisted the urge to try to buy it.

 photo TR4004-1.jpg

Leo  Basile
Leo Basile Reader
11/19/14 10:28 p.m.

Woody,

You should stop in. If nothing else maybe you can help rescue the car and find it a forever home.

Leo

Ian F
Ian F MegaDork
11/19/14 10:36 p.m.

It amuses me that a car that was only made for one year is still fairly common - at least around here. I see them at British car shows in NJ & PA all the time. Usually at least one. Heck... there was one at the little cruise night near work.

Neat cars, but in the same way I like square tail Spitfires over round-tails, I like the TR6 more than the TR4.

gjz30075
gjz30075 Reader
11/20/14 7:34 a.m.
Ian F wrote: It amuses me that a car that was only made for one year is still fairly common - at least around here. I see them at British car shows in NJ & PA all the time. Usually at least one. Heck... there was one at the little cruise night near work.

I don't know enough about them but how common are fakes? I'd imagine a 4 or 4a can be made into a 250 without too much problem but I'm sure there are details in the 250 that the purists and 'those in the know' know.

Ian F
Ian F MegaDork
11/20/14 7:43 a.m.

In reply to gjz30075:

I don't get the impression the value difference is worth the effort to fake one and a lot of TR people prefer the 4 to the 6 for its lighter weight.

oldeskewltoy
oldeskewltoy SuperDork
11/20/14 12:53 p.m.
Woody wrote: I've always loved TR6s but if I had to choose, I'd take a TR250. I saw this beauty at Lime Rock a couple of years ago.  photo LimeRockMonday09-03-2012306.jpg

ditto.....

bravenrace
bravenrace MegaDork
11/20/14 1:03 p.m.

TR250 has always been my favorite.

stan
stan UltraDork
11/20/14 2:36 p.m.

TR250 for me.

Came this close ->| |<- to buying one for $800 dollars some years back. (So many years back I don't remember why I didn't buy it...)

TR8owner
TR8owner HalfDork
11/20/14 9:03 p.m.

I had a TR4. I liked it but its not a car I've ever desired to purchase again. The TR6 is much better looking than the TR250 IMHO otherwise they are essentially the same car. The only thing the TR250 has going for it over a TR6 is the higher collector value. Did I mention that they're essentially the same car?

Flight Service
Flight Service MegaDork
11/20/14 9:08 p.m.

Very interesting discussion

wspohn
wspohn HalfDork
11/20/14 10:46 p.m.

The TR250 is a deflated balloon - a wimp compared to the real deal, the TR5.

It was heavier and had very little more power than the TR4 - certainly nowhere near the levels of the TR5. Sorry, couldn't live with owning a wannabe instead of the real thing. If you've ever had a ride in a TR5 or home market TR6 (I have) you'd probably agree.

spitfirebill
spitfirebill PowerDork
11/21/14 10:51 a.m.

I used to own a TR3 and was a fanboi fo the TR6. The Tr4 were OK, but I hated the TR250 with the Rostyle wheels. I softened on the TR4 over time and then saw a gorgeous TR250 at a car show with wire wheels. Those wheels made the car. I would love one now, but the rarity is catching up in the prices.

Rupert
Rupert HalfDork
11/21/14 12:42 p.m.

I've always felt the TR-3 & the TR-6 had something alike as if they are father and son. I little grit in the belly or maybe a little Bulldog attitude. The TR-4 & the 250 strike me as their daddy lived down the street. Or most likely in France. Nothing against French Styling, well maybe against the Dauphene, but they just don't strike me as British.

But given the choice of the four, I'd buy yet another TR-3, not even a TR-3A. IMO that roadster feel & the cut away doors with no exterior handles just can't be duplicated by any car with roll-up windows. Once you start down that pike, you might as well consider a radio and maybe A/C too!

Rupert
Rupert HalfDork
11/21/14 1:56 p.m.
Leo Basile wrote: When the dust settles, Id still rather have a TR 4. Why you may ask...The TR 4 was availible with an optional hand crank, thats why! Leo

With TR-2s& early TR-3s the hand crank wasn't optional. It was often required unless you could park on a hill. Those old TR-2 flywheels, which both cars used have been unobtanium for years!

racerdave600
racerdave600 SuperDork
11/21/14 2:55 p.m.

I owned a 4, and to be honest, after driving a 250, I never felt I was missing anything. My warmed over 4 was actually a bit quicker and it felt like it drove better. But with older cars, you never know about the condition underneath if it isn't yours.

That said, I followed a TR6 on the way to work this morning, and it is still a very good looking car. I'd take a 6 in a heartbeat, probably more so than I would a 250.

Leo  Basile
Leo Basile Reader
11/21/14 8:43 p.m.

Like Rupert said...One I drove the Morgan with no windows and what not, I was hooked.

With that said, Id take a TR4 over all the affordable roll up window roadsters of the day.

Leo

TR8owner
TR8owner HalfDork
11/22/14 10:46 p.m.

Gentleman, you can argue the merits of the tractor based TR2 until the TR6 all you want, but they were a virtual slow evolution of the same car and I'm personally familiar with each one of them. But I've moved on from there.

If you you really want a unique TR series Triumph that broke the mold then look at the TR7/8. They were a far more modern car, higher sales, etc. It was a world class race/rally car that moved Triumph to a different level on the international stage, particularly with the V8 engineTR8 which dominated international rally/TransAm/IMSA. TR7 sales were much higher than other TR's. Only 2800 or so TR8's were produced and they should be the most sought after TR of them all. But personally I'm glad they're not otherwise I wouldn't be able to afford the trio I have.

I've tried to explain this to my TR3 owning best friend and my TR6 owning brother but unfortunately for them they just don't get it.

JoeTR6
JoeTR6 Reader
11/23/14 8:02 a.m.

To me, the TR4/5/250 is a more classic looking car. Some of the Michelotti prototypes Triumph made when considering the TR4 design were quite striking (see Triumph Italia). The Italian design elements are more elegant than the squared-off design of the TR6. But I think that Karmann did a fantastic job given constraints to come up with the TR6. I would love to have a TR250, and a TR4, and a TR3, and TR2 long door, and a TR8 coupe rally car, and...

If only I had the time and space.

wheelsmithy
wheelsmithy Reader
11/23/14 11:40 a.m.

My opinion- TR 6 all the way. This is totally from a style perspective. Nothing wrong with any Triumph in my book, but especially considering that the 6 was a facelift, it is a timelessly beautiful design.

Rupert
Rupert HalfDork
11/23/14 11:44 a.m.

In reply to TR8owner: Glad you like your TR-7/8. As they obviously weren't "the shape of things to come," both can be bought very cheaply.

TeamEvil
TeamEvil HalfDork
11/23/14 2:16 p.m.

I've driven three TR6s, one of them was a two owner car with me as the second owner. I had it completely restored and ended up selling it in less than a month. Several reasons.

If I could afford it right now (I'm deep into two MGA resurrections and an Austin A35 resuscitation) I'd own a TR4A. I just love the "face" of that car !

Spitsix
Spitsix Reader
11/23/14 7:11 p.m.

There was a green TR250 with the silver fender strip at my High School back in 1975. I have loved them since then.

Rupert
Rupert HalfDork
11/24/14 11:53 a.m.
Spitsix wrote: There was a green TR250 with the silver fender strip at my High School back in 1975. I have loved them since then.

I bet it was owned by a student not a teacher. When I was in high school all the cool cars were in the student parking lot.

TeamEvil
TeamEvil HalfDork
11/24/14 1:31 p.m.

My science teacher drove an M-chassis TVR.

It wasn't that he was really cool, he was beyond such considerations. A class of his own, you know the type?

Rupert
Rupert HalfDork
11/24/14 6:25 p.m.

In reply to TeamEvil: Your teachers must have been paid a ton more than ours!

I knew students who drove new Porsches, Corvettes, & Healys, etc. to school long before they graduated. In fact I "dated" a girl whose father bought her a new '63 Corvette so she wouldn't be ashamed when her "best friend," who was a year older and had a license showed up for class in her new TR-4. My "date" wasn't old enough to get a license. I dated her only because whoever dated her got to drive her to school every day in her new Corvette.

Most of our teachers were lucky to drive a three to five year old beater to school. Many of my fellow students arrived in what their C.E.O., V.P., etc. fathers could buy for them. Even when they weren't even old enough yet to have their license.

Having been born and raised on a hard scrabble farm, I was thrilled to go to any highly rated school. If I could also drive a rich bitch's car provided by her dad, so much the better!

Ian F
Ian F MegaDork
11/24/14 7:31 p.m.

In reply to Rupert:

I'd say that isn't the norm... at least it wasn't at my high school. A couple of kids during my senior year had very nice cars. One because his father owned a successful construction company (he drove a Pantera) and another was bought a new Mitsubishi Starion because she was a brain and got a full ride to an Ivy League school - so her parents took some of the money they had been saving for college and bought her a new car. (I graduated in 1988). The rest of us mostly drove beaters and hand-me downs.

VClassics
VClassics Reader
11/24/14 7:38 p.m.

I've never been tempted to own a LBC, but to my taste, the TR-4, 4A and 250 are far and away the best looking Triumphs. My older brother, OTOH, had (in order) a MG-TF, MG-TD, TR-3A (we went coast-to-coast in that one), a AH 3000 w/ side curtains and another 3000 with roll-up windows. Then he had a '69 AMX 390, which was a really nice machine. It was all downhill after that one.

I remember from high school that my English teacher had a faded Peugeot 304, the chemistry teacher had a new Capri 1600, the music teacher a trashed '59 Impala and the physics teacher a VW Beetle.

Leo  Basile
Leo Basile Reader
11/25/14 8:57 a.m.

I graduated in 87...and in 86 bought my history teachers Fiat 124 Special...sedan. It was a nice olive with tan seats!

It did have 4 wheel disks and the same basic suspension as a spider. Big fun, when it ran!

Leo

Rupert
Rupert HalfDork
11/25/14 1:21 p.m.

In reply to Ian F: My favorite of the student rides in my high school student parking lot in 1964, belonged to a friend on mine. She had a '59 Desoto Adventurer 2-dr. hardtop with the wedge motor and twin 4Brls.! It had a rectangular steering wheel, push button transmission, swing out bucket seat when the door opened, it had it all.

Unfortunately. She was too smart to let me drive it!

maj75
maj75 Reader
11/27/14 8:21 a.m.

Graduated in '75. Female English teacher had a new '73 Corvette 454/4speed. Serious lust on two levels. This was the gas crisis when you could own a serious muscle car for nothing. I had a '68 GTO, friends owned a Cutlass S 455/4speed, '67 Chevelle SS 427/4speed, flip front end, '69 Corvette 427 tri-power 435hp/4speed, Mustang Boss 429/4speed.

If only we had stashed them in a garage instead of selling them for nothing...

stu67tiger
stu67tiger Reader
11/27/14 8:51 a.m.

If you live in the Boston area, you can understand when I say I had a Boch in my high school class. Apparently the son had the pick of whatever floated into their dealership's used car lot, so lots of interesting machinery showed up. One I remember was an early Thunderbird with the"porthole" hard top...

And one of the teachers had a Stingray convertible. Rumor was he was retired military (injury) plus family money... In college friends had some interesting stuff. A Sunbeam Alpine, a new Pontiac GTO Judge convert, a 2002, and so on...

Interesting story on the Judge. I saw that very car, fully restored, at a car show last year. It had to be that one, since it was the only judge convertible produced that year with that color.

Stu

TeamEvil
TeamEvil HalfDork
11/27/14 9:30 a.m.

"I had a Boch in my high school class."

COME ON DOWN ! ! ! ! !

68TR250
68TR250 New Reader
12/2/14 8:08 p.m.

This discussion is a matter of to each his own. I had a '65 TR4A ( live axle ) during senior year of high school and first year of college. It was a great car. Removable soft top. I had some really great times in that car but sold it to get something with a back seat. I got a '68 396/375 Camaro. Then the gas crisis hit and I really couldn't afford the 8MPG so I got a '71 TR6 that I kept through the rest of college. After college I got another TR4A - a '67 this time that was warmed over and it was blast to drive. It also had the live axle. I could really feel a kick in the pants at about 2600 RPMS. It was rear ended on the Schuylkill Expressway one night and was totaled. Then I got a rough TR250 with frame rust. I drove it for a couple years and then I replaced that one with a low mileage, two owner 250 in '80 - which is the 250 I still have now. Having said all that, IMO the TR6 was a bit more civilized than the 4A's - smoother and nicer ride. The 250, again IMO, was a bit 'rougher' than the 6 but had more of a classic feel to it and again, IMO, looks better.

I'll keep the 250, lust after a TR5, have a soft spot for the 4 / 4A's, and will like the USA spec 6's from afar.

barrington_pro
barrington_pro
1/7/15 9:04 a.m.

Triumph, having owned, 4 spits, GT6, TR4/6/250 and all the parts that come with them:

I'm happy to say, after the first 1/2 of my fun driving life, owning 356A Supers for some 20 years I switched to a TR4a, and Triumphs in general. At the same time I also bought a ‘69 tr6. Both were in very good condition. After ten years I sold the TR4a for what I paid for it and bought a very, very good condition TR250. The TR4 had a lot of miles and needed a good refresh. I used it every day except on salted roads. I took it on many week long vacations all over New England and eastern NY.

I never been stuck on the side of the road, ever. A generator wire fell off the generator once. I put it back on when I saw the needle reading 12VDC. One Saturday at 6:am I backed it out of the garage on my way to, Chatham Cape Cod and the clutch failed. Five hours later I backed out again and had a late lunch of Scallops and fries. I did keep a slew of radiator, hydraulic cylinders, exhaust pipe, regulators, disks, bearings, but seldom needed anything. It was still very dependable even when I sold it.

ThatTR6 I bought at the same time - I drove it all of 4 times for maybe 100 miles, that's it. I always took the TR4 over the TR6. For me the TR4 did not have to prove it’s self as a fast sports car for me it’s more an avatar for the golden age of classic sport motoring. My ’69 TR6 is not a fast car, it’s quick but it’s that exhaust sound that makes it appeal to me. The Triumph 6cyl engine - if I cannot be serenaded via, a Jag or DB 6cyl ($) then the sound of a strong Triumph 6cyl is a soothing alternative.

When I bought the TR250 a few years ago. I expected the same dependability and wonderful exhaust note that I’ve grown accustomed to. Simply stated, the TR250 has been a wonderful contributor to my memory of calm back road sport driving. I’ve grown to think of it as an affordable, dare I say, DB5. The TR5 spec would be nice, but it would come at a cost in M.P.G. and I suspect wear, so I’m comfortable with it’s lesser performance. So, by all means I find a TR6, soundly satisfying a TR4 visually satisfying and the, TR250 most satisfying.

just my MHO

Frank

TeamEvil
TeamEvil HalfDork
1/7/15 2:08 p.m.

"So, by all means I find a TR6, soundly satisfying a TR4 visually satisfying and the, TR250 most satisfying."

X2

Absolutely ! ! ! ! !

chuckles
chuckles HalfDork
2/15/15 7:45 p.m.

My first new car was a BRG TR-250 bought in '68 with money earned as a summer farm worker in Wisconsin in '68 and '69. I flew to Houston and drove it back from the port. I had a strong emotional attachment to the TR-4 and was distressed that my car would have IRS and a very mild 6. I should have bought a used 4.

Still, it was a great car for me, very reliable but for one front wheel bearing. I sold it in '74 at 86,000 miles to finance a Lotus Europa. I always loved just looking at it. Never warmed up to the TR-6 but I agree with comments made about its styling. A good-looking car, just not what got me excited.

tw78911sc
tw78911sc New Reader
2/15/15 9:39 p.m.

In reply to Rupert:

Saw a SCCA trailer @ Mid Ohio, guy raced a TR7, on the trailer it said "the shape of things that break"

850Combat
850Combat New Reader
2/16/15 10:08 a.m.

I thought the TR4A and TR250 both had independent rear suspension. Now I'm confused. What precisely was the evolution of the rear suspension? I used to prefer the TR6 styling, but today, I have to say that the earlier styling is pretty darned cool. The only TR I have driven was a 3, which belonged to one of my buddy's fathers. I thought it was great at the time. Big old steering wheel and cut down doors.

A guy I used to work with had one of those targa top TR4s. It was all lowered and hot rodded. It was an autocross car. It was pretty cool, but he tore the oil pan at an intersection leaving work one day. I laughed, but years later had the same problem with my Seven.

Anyway, just what is the progression on TR rear suspension?

TR8owner
TR8owner HalfDork
2/16/15 10:11 a.m.

In reply to 850Combat:

The original TR4 had a live axle. Mine was a 1964 and was still a live axle. Not sure what year the TR4 IRS came out but that was carried on to the TR250/5 and TR6. Ironically the TR7 went back to a solid axle.

850Combat
850Combat New Reader
2/16/15 12:22 p.m.

I've got a 4 speed TR7 center section and cut down TR7 axles installed in the Triumph Standard 10 housing on my Seven. These axles are much stronger. The housing had to be drilled and retapped for larger diameter studs for the nose piece, and the drive shaft modified accordingly. It also allowed an LSD to be installed.

TR8owner wrote:

In reply to 850Combat:

The original TR4 had a live axle. Mine was a 1964 and was still a live axle. Not sure what year the TR4 IRS came out but that was carried on to the TR250/5 and TR6. Ironically the TR7 went back to a solid axle.

wspohn
wspohn HalfDork
2/18/15 2:10 p.m.

Triumph was conservative as far as making changes and losing customers was concerned. They continued the TR-3 as a TR-3B after TR-4 production started in case some customers preferred the earlier styling. They also made about 1/4 of the TR-4As with live axles for the same reason. In that case it was a good thing as the IRS had poorly chosen spring rates and the handling suffered (it was much better once you stuck higher rate rear springs in as they did on the race cars).

racerdave600
racerdave600 SuperDork
2/18/15 6:09 p.m.

I had a 4A with IRS in college. They were not without their issues. After driving a live axle car, I would have preferred that to be honest. For an IRS, there wasn't a lot of travel.

250Putinas
250Putinas
11/18/15 3:46 a.m.

In '70 started with a '67GT6.Loved it - custom tail-lights, Stebro exhaust, and weak rear. Not longer after stolen in Chicago - in broad daylight! In '75, in Dallas, got my hands on a TR250, had drooled over these at British Leyland dealer on 64th&Western(Chicago). Still own though currently engine fried. On Ebay found NOS...Stebro exhaust. If you've heard one, you know of what I speak. Now all's I need is an engine! I love the TR6, to supply all the mechanical parts I may need. The 250's the best -shhhh, tell no one.

extric36
extric36 New Reader
1/28/16 12:27 a.m.

I've owned a 64 MGB, 69 GT6+ and now a 72 TR6. The GT is a go-cart mini racer, the MG is a two seat daily driver. The TR6 is a sports car cruiser, with good looks (and of course the wood dash!). Owning a 40 year old british car for me is about the look and feel. If I wanted a reliable daily driver I would get a Honda. If I could spare the $ I would pour lots of money into an E type Jag. But for the money the TR6 looks great, and is a lot of fun to drive. Working on it is part of the fun.

Triumphfan
Triumphfan
2/11/17 3:28 p.m.

Owned several Triumphs over the years as well as a '71 Datsun 240Z. I've also had the opportunity to have driven MGs, Austin Healeys, Jaguars, and Morgan's. All in all, I've found the Triumph GT6 to be the most underrated and under appreciated of all British cars produced. Aside from its beautiful-from-every-angle Giovanni Michelotti styling, it, too, produced 104hp as did the TR250. However, the GT6 was less than 1,800 lbs. and it's 2 liter six propelled it effortlessly. For some reason, the GT6 has been overlooked. I found it to be, by far, one of the best British cars ever.

rgrabn71
rgrabn71
2/12/17 10:30 a.m.

I had a bit of seat time in a TR6 that was owned by my best friend while we were stationed in Bavaria in 1969 -71. While I always have preferred the TR4 design, the TR6 had an available electronic overdrive which was very nice for autobahn cruising. My friend and I with our wives (and my daughter) took a number of trips together with me driving my MGB-GT which could not keep up with the TR6. This necessitated meeting at the autobahn exits. By the way, I still have the MGB-GT while the TR6 has long since been recycled.

maseratiguy
maseratiguy Reader
2/12/17 9:04 p.m.

I love the classicness of the 250, but for a lot less you get an improved car with the TR6, (or at least the same car that costs a lot less), ....but I'm with TR8 all the way.

wspohn
wspohn HalfDork
2/13/17 9:48 a.m.
While I always have preferred the TR4 design, the TR6 had an available electronic overdrive which was very nice for autobahn cruising. My friend and I with our wives (and my daughter) took a number of trips together with me driving my MGB-GT which could not keep up with the TR6.

Overdrives were available on all TR models.

For cruising with TR-6s, I use my lightly modded MGC, which is quite a bit quicker than they are!

dherr
dherr Reader
2/13/17 3:56 p.m.

In reply to Woody:

I am pretty sure I know where that is

dherr
dherr Reader
2/13/17 4:01 p.m.

In reply to wspohn:

Agreed, the TR4 was too slow compared to a TR5, so I did the next best thing.....

dherr
dherr Reader
2/13/17 4:18 p.m.

I have driven all three as I have my TR4A (with the original engine, then a Judson supercharger and finally the Rover V8). Stock, it was much fun, but I drove my friend's TR250 and TR6's and wanted more power. I do prefer the classic lines of the TR4/A/250 body style, but also appreciate the TR6 lines. Honestly, they all drive similar, as they should since they are evolution's of each other and incremental steps in that regard. You can generally swap bodies onto the frames and drive trains of each and build what ever you want. The 250 is probably the best (TR5 being even better) as the 6 cylinder engine sounds sweet and the beautiful lines of the TR4/4A body.

Dashpot
Dashpot Reader
2/14/17 11:20 a.m.

So for those who know - what other differences exist between a TR250 & TR5 motor beside the Lucas FI?

A 40% increase in power can't be just fueling. Is the whole motor upgraded?

dherr
dherr Reader
2/14/17 12:43 p.m.

In reply to Dashpot:

It is the same basic engine, the Lucas FI and a hotter cam make the difference. You can get a similar result with a cam and sidedraft webers, but the factory fuel injection was just so cool back in 1968

racerdave600
racerdave600 SuperDork
2/14/17 12:50 p.m.

I'm doing this from memory so I'm probably getting my facts not quite straight, but I had my TR4A modified with a bunch of the factory racing bits, such as pistons, carbs, cams, etc. They may have called it a rally kit, I can't remember. When it was finished it was much faster in a straight line, but compared to a stock TR6, it was about neck and neck which was faster.

Our Preferred Partners
lAnRfEIa7hX4GKxQ9k61IYFMYEPj26d5CSnasAjs9eY2xBmeocu6l5rOW5gllRhy