Running across this Triumph 2000 posted by Benoît at the Cohort is triggering some PTSD in me about this car. Ever since I first saw pictures of one as a kid, the absurdly short doors and roof have been killing me. It looks so cartoonish; something Goofy would drive (with the top down). And it’s still bugging me.
So it’s time for someone to fix it; please!
I should add that one of my great frustrations is not learning Photoshop. I finally bought a copy a few years ago, and tried in vain to quickly create this shot for my 1961 Buick bubbletop CC. I just couldn’t pull it off, though, but I’m determined to take a class or hire a tutor one of these winters. CC reader Dan Moran came to the rescue on this one. But there’s so many ‘chops in my head that are wanting to be realized…
Beautiful design with the improved proportions.
Ah; much better!
Apologies that it is a very quick/rough Photoshop.
I saw the glass on the rear deck, and was curious if it was a second windshield. Interesting design.
I do photoshop all the time, and if that is fast and rough, you are really good.
Thank you. As you already know, most observers will not see our errors or omissions using Photoshop. But to do it professionally, work has to be virtually perfect. This is a really simple example. If you go to professional portfolio sites like https://www.behance.net/, you can see the amazing level of creativity from around the globe of designers and photographers using Photoshop.
The 2000 had a rumble seat so that is indeed a second windshield.
Much better! Why couldn’t the original designers step back and see just how stupidly odd that short door/roof looked? Did they have blinders on?
The top isn’t intended to be raised for display. The car certainly was designed to be viewed top down, then the simplest, cheapest top was created for it.
The goofy door length and the high cowl are results of the dimensions of the base chassis and parts. The postwar Triumph cars were mutton dressed up as lamb.
I wonder if the designers for this car were trying to fit the body of a bigger car to a smaller chassis?
It looks like a 6 cylinder engine could fit under that long (looking) bonnet.
I think if you look at many British cars styled before the late 50s/early 60s you will find several with odd proportions.
Another Triumph oddity is the Mayflower (do a Google Images search). It looks like a Rolls Royce shrunk down to fit a Spitfire’s chassis.
a bit less of a stretch, easier to get in and out when parking between two cars
The other solution is to lower the cowl height.
The short-door problem seemed to be a recurring disease at Triumph as this 1939 Dolomite shows. Photoshop surgery might be a little harder on the 1939 because of the curved window sill line.
This malproportion infected two American sportsters of that era, the Kurtis and the Kaiser Darrin. When Muntz took over the Kurtis, he metalshopped it to a much prettier proportion, which was also easier to get in and out. Nobody ever cured the Darrin.
There’s no styling solution for the Darrin, because of the retracting doors.
Here’s a view of the rear windscreen and dickey seat arrangement, from one I saw earlier.
and another view
and the view through it
Nice Roger. I’ve caught a two-tone, makes it look even shorter hehehe
rear window down..
Looks nice from this angle though
Wonder what those glass panels did for the upholstery life in such a confined space?
Those cars had the wet sleeve Standard four also used in the Vanguard sedan the long bonnet is mostly for the drivers feet.
Reminds me of cars like this.
Looks like the wheelbase would about match the track. Stability problems?
I always thought that the original owner must have been proud of his short male parts.
To heck with the car, what random curbside was this with an MGB-GT across the street, and a Facel Vega behind the Triumph. Not to mention the Alfa …
agree, those Facel headlights and grille steal the show!
Another approach – stretching the cab within the same overall length and wheelbase by moving the cowl forward and shortening the hood. Long hoods are (or at least, were) *so* overrated.
And I think this might be the most balanced approach of all. Still has enough of a long hood to look businesslike, while providing a less claustrophobic cabin.
Seems kind of silly to define any convertible as claustrophobic.
There was nothing wrong with the original design, it`s just single minded people trying to convince everyone that their opinion is the correct one.
just leave things alone!!!
As a major Triumph fan and TR6 owner I agree with you Richard, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it at all….
Nothing except the overly bulbous front wings, the out of proportion doors/cabin area that this article is all about, and the fat dumpy rear end.
Other than that it’s a great looking car…for a cartoon.