Most Unworthy Successor...

I had one for some years. Nice car for the period - good interior trim and gadgetry.

The only Fiat I've had that died of engine failure, not rust.

The never to be replaced Nissan RS13 200SX and JDM RPS13 180SX fastback - 1989-1998. Replaced in the USA by a FWD Sentra (sort of an USA version of the Almera GT with a sloping tailgate).

-- Peter Hill Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header Can of worms - what every fisherman wants. Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!

"Peter Keating" wrote in message news:bvg2j2$pnilm$ snipped-for-privacy@ID-222646.news.uni-berlin.de...

Well a completely off the point reply that I just have to dispute... I honestly cant remeber how many if these Ive had now. Ive driven them for some 25 years and I can honestly say Ive only seen...not experienced...one head gasket failure. This was my Landlord of the times old car and it was caused by a leaking hose and overheating. He was too busy listening to the radio at 80 on the M3 and had a misfire that got worse. He should have stopped when the temp guage went high. We had the head off and replaced it with another one for safety reasons. The car then went to the great scrapyard in the sky some 8 years later with terminal rust with some 180k miles up IIRC. I still have the original head, had it skimmed and its still on a car I drive occasionally. The poor reputation is IME apocryphal and is caused by bad maintenance, poor quality antifreeze, silted up rads and leaking water pumps. I rate the Triumph slant 4 as one of the best engines of the period for smoothness, refinement, power and longevity. No Ford engine of the period comes close and I'd have to go to a Vauxhall or Golf ohc engine with EFI and a generation later, to beter it in any way. It doesnt break cam belts and smash valves though. A rattly chain gives plenty of warning at 80k miles. Even the water pump design...the weakiest point....means you can still get home if the fan belt breaks on you. A trick much appreciated by a previous B series owner! I'd happily drive my 1850 to scotland now. Not many 30 plus year old cars I could say that about. Jonners

Triumph Dolomite's are about the ONLY daily driver 60/70's car I get to see. Almost all other old cars are high day and holiday use only.

What did it replace? It fiitted in below the 2000/2500, clearly a full size family saloon is somewhat up market from a Herald.

-- Peter Hill Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header Can of worms - what every fisherman wants. Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!

It didn't if it was correctly assembled or repaired.

The front wheel drive 1300 and 1600.

Bollocks, finger trouble, s/1600/1500/

I can't completely agree with you there, the BX was a way better car in every respect than the GSA. The XM was the most unworthy successor to the CX.

IIRC, 1300 and 1500. Any other examples of the near same bodyshell swopping driven wheels? And perhaps, in the wrong direction? Apart from the ill executed Austin 3 litre, of course.

The 1500 was a cracking little car. Never did drive a Dolomite or Toledo.

In article , Peter Hill writes

The Dolomite's history is a bit convoluted. I'll try to explain as clearly as I can.

In 1965, to plug the gap in Triumph's range between the Herald and the

2000, and with a view to the Herald's eventual replacement, Triumph introduced the FWD 1300. In 1970, the 1300 was enlarged bodily and mechanically to become the 1500, and the Toledo, a RWD 1300 with 2-doors and simplified trim, was launched as a Herald replacement. The Toledo retained the shorter boot of the 1300, and had single, rectangular headlamps versus 4 round ones on the 1500.

The Dolomite name appeared in 1971, when the RWD running gear from the Toledo was mated with Triumph's new 1854 cc ohc engine (previously introduced in 1709 cc form in Saab's 99) in the larger 1500 shell. The Dolomite used the 1500's trim level, and was again designed to plug a gap, this time between the FWD 1500 and the 2000/2.5PI. It could perhaps also be viewed as a Vitesse replacement in the same way that the Toledo replaced the Herald. The smaller Toledo and the FWD 1500 continued more-or-less unchanged, save for the addition of a 4-door Toledo.

In 1972, Triumph launched the Dolomite Sprint, in its day a credible competitor to the smaller BMWs and Alfa Romeos, with a 16v 2.0-litre reworking of the 1850 Dolomite engine.

Then in 1973 the 1500 switched to RWD, and became the 1500TC, eliminating its unique FWD layout which must have been costly to produce when all the other cars using that platform were RWD.

Further rationalisation of the range took place in 1975, when the Toledo was revised to become the Dolomite 1300, using the longer rear end from the 1500/1500TC/Dolomite but retaining the single rectangular headlamps from the Toledo, and the 1500TC became the Dolomite 1500 (with simplified trim and single rectangular headlamps) or Dolomite 1500HL (twin headlamps, so visually and mechanically identical to the 1500TC which it replaced). The original Dolomite was now rebadged as the Dolomite 1850HL, while the Sprint continued unchanged.

The range then continued more-or-less unchanged until 1981, when it was discontinued.

I hope that's comprehensible.

Heh. When I first got the 2CV I tried taking speedbumps at the pace where they're imperceptible in the GSA. By the time I worked out the weight of the vehicle is relevant I was about two feet in the air... (Didn't break the eggs, though)

The 1300fwd, 65 - 70/71, was facelifted and became the 1500 fwd. Around the same time, The Dolomite 1850 came out, using the same shell as the 1500fwd, but with rwd. The Toledo was about the same time - Used the new front end, but had a short back end, same as the 1300fwd, but with a prop tunnel and space for rwd, and with a different rear panel that looked like a baby Dolomite effectively. The the Sprint came along, then the 1500TC, which was a 1500fwd but with rwd... Or a Dolomite 1850 with the 1500 engine, depending on how you look at it :) Could be a bit off on my timeline, but that's the basics of it all.

The 1300fwd has some nice touches the later cars didn't carry over.. I really like the fold out window winders :) Plus it's got independant suspension all round.

I've got 2 1500TCs, and a 1300fwd. The 1500 engines are weaker than an anorexic ant with iron deficiency (there's a clue as to who I am for some - been away a while!), but the 1300 is a nice revvy dependable lump, although a bit heavy for it's cc IMO. Never driven a 1500fwd though. The TC is a lovely car, just let down by the engine, but otherwise not at all bad. The

1300's not bad either, but I can't get on with the plastic instrument panel fitted. A lovely drive though, once you get used to the slight vagueness of the gearchange.

Oddly, and I speak from experience, when the change was made to the 1500/ Dolomite bodyshell, alot of daft little things were changed - Door catches, dash, wiring, even the fuel tank sender!

Yep we have three daily driving dolomites....an early one with a TR7 engine, an 1850HL and a Sprint. all nicely sorted..part of the joys of very long term ownership.

Well as a direct model replacement the original Dolomite was a one to one with the Vitesse. as something smallish, nicely appointed and sporty in performance. Introduced in 72. As a range its shared much bodywise with the 1500fwd, which gave a prettier

4 light front end and longer boot to the original 1300fwd and that had come out about a year earlier in 71. The Toledo was a cheapened short tail version with rwd and was offered with 2 doors as a direct Herald replacement. Triumph certainly got their money's worth from the original 1300 Michelloti body. Further down another thread someone complains about the loss of the 1300fwd window winders. Well okay biut at least you get a nicer dash as compensation and the cloth seats are a lot better too. The column switchgear was also a serious improvement.You cant have it all... Jonners

Jonners

Ta very much.....Just a few issues...

I have car number 5000 registered in April 72. Ive never seen a J reg; dolomite and I thought they werent actually available til 72 but I could be wrong...I'll check with the club. Also Ive never seen a SAAB99 with that capacity. I thought they were all

1854 until the later stretch to 1998 and finally the different later block that Triumph should also have got but didnt.

Dolomite was a bit plusher with more clocks, bigger wood cappings and cloth seats.

Err first Sprints are April 73...some on L plates still survive.

The 1500TC wasnt exactly replaced...the 1500 had downmarket Toledo level trim but the same mechanics and the 1500HL was a re engined original Dolomite trim wise nut lacking the rear anti roll bar and proper engine. .Still I'm being pedantic now. So a jolly good effort. You should join the club...Have you got one? I never really undertood why they didnt make it with the TR7 engine too. Ive got one I made myself and its brilliant...just that bit more go than an 1850 and less fussy than a Sprint. Its also very economical.

Jonners

The later dash is alot better.. And it's hard to argue the 70s Lucas switches aren't better, although the 60s flimsy things do have a certain amount of charm, but those retracting window winders are just such a nice touch, something that to me makes the car that little bit different.

Another plus point of the later cars is a better rear view mirror.

There aren't an awful lot of Dolomites or fwds around here, but I've spotted a couple of 2000s, and aside from a P6, an Imp, and a Lancia up the road, there's not many classics in daily use by the looks of things. Hundreds of faceless Pugs, Renaults and Nissans though.

That, I think, depends where you are. Regular morning traffic I see includes a couple of P6s, a P4, three Morris Minors, an Imp, a Hillman Hunter, a couple of beetles, two Heralds, a Vitesse (convertible), two or three MGB-GTs, a GT6 and a Spitfire and a couple of

80" Land-Rovers as well as a maul of later series-Landies. And a 2CV6. Oh, and a Morris 8. Those are just the ones that I can count on seeing every weekday without counting ones which are out and about 2 days or so a week throughout the year. I'm not even counting my own car, because I usually get the bus into work (it's only 5 miles - not time for the engine to warm up). There's probably a fair amount of other stuff about - that's jsut what strikes me as obvious in the mornings.

-- Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales.... Nieveler's law: "Any USENET thread, if sufficiently prolonged and not Godwinated, will eventually turn into a discussion about alcoholic drinks."

Steve Firth (%steve%@malloc.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

God, no. The G was *lovely* - and the BX was far bigger.

In character and "Citroen-ness", yep. In competence, no. I've had four CXs, and had an XM for the last three years. It's a much better car, viewed with the head. But - let's face it - if you buy a car with your head, you don't end up with a big Cit.

In article , Jon Tilson writes

You may be right; ISTR the car was launched at the very end of 1971, after long delays due to strikes, which would make them K-plate, and production took some time to build up, but I could very well be wrong.

1968-1970 models had the smaller engine. It was enlarged to 1854cc for 1971 models.

Correct.

Sorry, you're quite right.

Thank you

No, but I have a special affection for them; my uncle had a 1300 new in

1967, which I remember as being incredibly refined for a small car of the era, far more so than my father's then new Triumph 2000, although obviously slower. My uncle followed his 1300 with a 1500 and finally a 1500TC before being seduced by the Japanese in the guise of a Honda Accord saloon in 1980.

Yet another missed opportunity by BL.