PAUL MURRELL has a fascination with cars. Like the rest of us at Cars4starters he has been writing about them for a long time. Sometimes he’s found the best stories are small ones. Look no further.
The argument continues
When it comes to classic cars, there are two distinct camps: one believes in originality at all costs, while the other is happy to implement changes that make old cars more pleasant (and often, safer) to drive.
Way back in 2006 UK Classic Cars magazine was reporting that many classic car owners were refusing “to live in the past” and upgrading their cars.
The trend saw the cancellation of the MG Owners’ National Meet for the first time in 30 years.
TRGB experts reported that more than half of its TR6 customers had paid for suspension upgrades.
A Jaguar specialist commented that “Around 15 to 20 percent of our customers like the image of a classic car but don’t want the hassle of old technology.”
Most surprisingly, the trend even affected concours events, with the Autoglym Concours introducing a class for “modified and performance” cars.
Meguiars also followed suit with a class for “customised vehicles” as more entrants were willing to lose points because of non-original specifications.
The argument continues to this day.
The more things change…
Twenty years ago, Tony Dron was lamenting that motor sport had become nothing more than entertainment.
But as he pointed out, if that was the case, the old theme that motor sport improves the breed was dead in the water.
Go back another 100 years to 1906 when 29-year-old pioneer motorist and racing driver Charles Jarrott published his book, Ten Years of Motor Sport and Motor Racing.
He declared that the glory days were all over and that “automotive technology has been perfected to such a degree that no further improvement in motor car design can be imagined.”
Dron went on to suggest that motor sport, in equal machinery, piloted by media-plugged superstars would result in a sterile world with no future at all.
And what does that sound like?
Today’s F1 and Supercars instantly spring to mind.
But if we are to learn anything from history it is that today’s cars are no more the last word in motoring than they were in 1906.
And you thought cupholders were a recent idea . . .
If you thought cupholders in cars are a relatively recent innovation, this idea from the 60s (I think) may remind you that nothing under the sun is new.
Not sure about the safety implications, though.
And if the cardboard got wet, you’d almost certainly end up with a lap full of Coke.
It never happened
In 1976, Cadillac built its last convertible for 20 years in the face of pending American safety legislation that looked like banning open-top cars.
Jaguar was so concerned, they launched the XJ-S as a coupe and many other manufacturers abandoned plans for future convertibles.
But as we now know, the legislation never came into force.
… and nor did this.
The list of proposed new cars that never made it to production would fill a large book.
One was a planned modern version of the Austin-Healey 3000 in 2006 following the sale of the Healey name to HFI, an Anglo-American consortium headed by Healey specialist Tim Fenna.
HFI announced that it would launch the all-new car using the same 3.0-litre, six-cylinder rear-wheel drive format as the original Austin-Healey 3000.
HFI planned to offer two models, including a 400bhp (300kW) turbocharged version.
The background to car badges
The Triumph “globe” logo derived from an earlier logo (called “Triumph All Over the World”) shared by Triumph cars and motorcycles in the early 30s.
Triumph started building motorcycles in the late 1800s and cars in 1928.
As car and motorcycle production began to separate in 1934, the globe logo was created for Triumph cars and used on and off until around 1968.
When Triumph was bought by Standard Motors after WW2, Standard used the shield logo from 1950 on sedans and Triumph from 1953 on sports cars.
From 1960, Standard was phased out and the Triumph name applied to all cars.
It’s not, strictly speaking, a shield but a representation of the “Waterfall” chrome slatted radiator grille as used on Standard cars of the early post-war period.
Through the later 60s and early 70s Triumph didn’t really have a logo, instead using the corporate stamp of British Leyland but in 1975 “Triumph” became a logo again with italic script cutting across a laurel wreath.
It was used either as a vinyl sticker or glossy enamel badge with silver “Triumph” letters and gold outline wreath leaves on a black background.
And that’s how the fight started…
My wife occasionally says, “Correct me if I’m wrong.” I have learnt never, ever, under any circumstances, to do that.