To Stag or Not To Stag

Hmm, if it really wasn't there fault why not, unless we are really talking about hot air, pipes and dreams....

Bollocks, they were being employed to re-build the engine, if they chose not to check and double check everything then that is their problem not some problem with the drawing board - I would be saying the same if we were talking about a Chevy big block, the Rover V8, the Austin 'series' or Ford 'county' engines - all of which have *known* weaknesses.

As with any car, mud thrown by ignorant people sticks, never mind the fact that some of is not real mud, I'll tell you something though, give me a Stag engine over the old Ford V4 or the UK build V6 - now they did have design problems

If you're being paid - as part of a open cheque book restoration - to build the best, whilst also using parts that have (presumably) spent years sitting on a shelf some place for some unknown reason [1], anyone with a brain!

Whilst I remember cars being delivered on trade plates....

Forgot the foot note... [1] I have come across new 'old stock' OEM parts that had obviously been put to one side due to manufacturing issues (basically being faulty) that get forgotten about and then surface years later.

All I can say is that doesn't sound like the car I've owned for the last 19 years. No special care of the engine, just over 110K on the clock, still on the original engine and still being used a couple of times a week - no blown heads - nothing like that.

I think you'll find the Stags that are still on the road nowadays are pretty reliable - the years have a strong filtering effect :-) And underpowered? Compared with modern high-performance cars yes, but it's still feels pretty grunty - especially with all the torque which means it's easy to use most of the performance - it _feels_ like it has even more power than it really has, which makes it good fun to drive. Certainly it has enough power for its handling (grin) - which means you can have fun at lower speeds.

Mark

Only a 6.3, m'fraid..

Right. I don't think common sense ever sees you running a classic. There's always a more sensible option - but it's not as much fun.

Mark

Accompanied by the sound of a chisel on slate Mark Wheadon, managed to produce the following words of wisdom

You must have got the good one.

I'm sure a Stag is good fun to drive when they work, but I know too many people who've bought them [1] and deeply regretted it. My first ever experience of travelling in an AA recovery truck was because of a 6 month old Stag which had blown its motor. That, along with all the other experiences I've had of dead Stag motors is enough to put me off them.

Triumph should have swallowed their pride and fitted the vastly superior Rover V8 or stuck the 2.5 PI motor in [2]

Then something was wrong with that rebuild as they don't all 'pop' head gaskets and never have.

Hmm. What exactly did they do for this rebuild?

If they supplied the 'new' cylinder heads then they and their supplier would be liable. However the likelihood is they were exchange units and should have been properly tested after repair by the supplier.

Other thing is NOS body panels - thrown to one side as a poor fit during manufacture but sold on as spares long after it ceased.

:-) Which is what people say about ours - "It's fitted with a Rover engine - yes?"

Mark

You seem to have been surrounded by average mechanics. Rather like the Stag engine, the Lucas injection system didn't suffer fools gladly.

Interesting point is one reason for the Rover V-8 to have come about was that the care of the original was too complicated for backwood US garages...

As was any all alloy engine, the same can be said for many garages in the UK, remember all the problems that the Imp engine had - same basic engine used in racing and the fire service, no problems...

Gran Turismo gives me the impression they'd be a bit deadly. Is that correct?

Around the same output as a contemporary Rover 3.5 V8, then - as fitted to the MGB-GT (137bhp - and yes, I do know that was strangled by the installation), TR8 (132bhp), Rover P6B (143-150bhp), Rover P5B (151bhp) and Rover SD1 (non-Vitesse version, 155bhp).

TR8 was strangled by US emissions stuff, but IIRC had 210 lb ft torque Rover P6B was 176 bhp with 220 lb ft @ 3000 rpm, the low compression ones were 156 bhp with 205 lb ft @ 3000 rpm.

Quite a significant amount more than the Stag, from a much more reliable motor.

Accompanied by the sound of a chisel on slate Doki, managed to produce the following words of wisdom

I was playing in the Interceptor today, not the kind of thing to be hooning about like a madman in, but it is amusingly quick for such a big old barge.

Brakes aren't wonderful though, the calipers are from an old FX4 cab and I think the discs might be Rover P6 fronts. They work ok but I'd not like to push 'em too hard. Discs look tiny on it.

Accompanied by the sound of a chisel on slate Dave Plowman (News), managed to produce the following words of wisdom

Was a faulty head casting that caused it.

Genuine, "NOS" head.

With all due respect, 'cos you do know a lot of 'stuff' like this, but I'd prefer to refer to the bible on such matters: