Have you ever tried to define “a grand tourer”, with a sense of affordability and familiarity, to someone who is less familiar with cars than yourself? It can be complicated, or quick. After all, you can just say “Triumph Stag”. It normally works.
By the mid 1960s, life was starting to look up for Standard-Triumph. The TR3,TR4 and TR5 were doing good business in the sports car market, and as a brand defining and promoting product. The Triumph Herald was proving a commercial success despite its unusual construction and the contrived manufacturing logistics it required. The Triumph 2000 saloon was doing good business, establishing, with the Rover 2000, a new market space for a compact, luxury, sporting car, a space we now define by saying BMW 3 Series or Audi A4. The Triumph 1300 was achieving something similar at a lower point in the market, perhaps in a parallel to the BMW 2 Series or Audi A3 of today.
You can sense there would have been a feeling of confidence, of achievement of the difficult task in moving upmarket, indeed of effectively re-establishing the brand as a saloon car producer. Much had been achieved since, and with the investment that came from, the Leyland takeover. Indeed, in 1966, Leyland would acquire Triumph’s leading competitor, Rover, and eventually the much larger BMC itself.
In 1968, the 2000 gained a 2.5 litre version of the 2000’s six cylinder engine and the range was looking stronger than ever. Triumph also had the 1970 1500, developed from the 1300 but with a longer tail and four headlamp front, in the works, as well as perhaps one of the most understated and surprisingly charismatic cars BLMC ever produced, the 1972 Triumph Dolomite.
Photo from www.aronline.co.uk
All these cars had been styled by Giovanni Michelotti, who had a very close relationship with Triumph’s engineering director Harry Webster. Michelotti was able to persuade Harry Webster to hand over a Triumph 2000 for a concept car programme Michelotti were planning for the 1965 Turin Motor Show, to show case Michelotti. Webster, always a canny character, negotiated the rights or Triumph to have the first refusal on the resulting design.
Of course, once Webster saw the result, that right was exercised and concept car actually never made it to the Turin Show. By 1966, Triumph were working on the Stag project, initially as a six cylinder convertible GT car based on the Triumph 2000/2500. The style of the Stag was clearly derived from some of the other work Michelotti were doing for Triumph, especially the 2000/2500 Mk2 that debuted in 1968.
The concept was quite straightforward – a cut down platform from the Triumph 2000, with 6 inches cut from that car’s 106 inch wheelbase, carried over fully independent suspension through front MacPherson struts and rear semi-trailing arms. Braking was by front discs and rear drums, while steering was power-assisted rack and pinion. The engine was to be the 2.5 litre straight six from the Triumph 2.5PI, with Lucas mechanical fuel injection and the four speed gearbox, often with overdrive, from the Triumph TR2. In production, the majority cars had Borg Warner automatic gearboxes.
Also in development at Triumph was the Dolomite, which was a fusion of the Triumph 1500 body, with a new four cylinder engine, known as the Triumph Slant-4, as it was canted over at 45o. The engine had been developed in house by Triumph from 1963, and was shared with SAAB, who used a derivative in the 99, launched in 1968. As originally designed, the engine was planned at 1700cc, but was used at 1850cc in the Dolomite and then at 2 litres on the Dolomite Sprint, with a sixteen valve cylinder head.
Webster then linked the Stag project with the Slant-4 project, and specifically the potential for a V8 developed from the Slant-4. The driver for this choice was the potential of an increase in the car’s appeal to the important US market, where Triumph were selling the TR4 and TR5 roadsters but making little, if any, head way with the saloons (AteupwithMotor.com suggests sales were “bleak” and “dreary”), which were withdrawn from the US market in 1968. Webster’s proposal was that a V8 engined GT car, with compact but usable rear seats could be a good image builder and a step up for the existing TR5 owners. And probably profitable if based closely enough on the existing range.
As it finally came on to the market in 1970, the Stag had a 3 litre, 90 degree V8 of 145 bhp and was capable of 120 mph and around 9.5 seconds to 60 mph, and more than capable of holding its own against the Rover 3500V8, with the ex-Buick V8. The cars were not directly competing, but not many manufacturers in Europe were offering two V8s so close in size and power.
The issue of BLMC having two comparable and maybe competing V8s is one that cannot be avoided, and the obvious question is why the Rover V8 was not used for the Stag, given that it was available to BLMC earlier. The only answers have to be the available production capacity of the Rover engine (or rather the lack of it), and the fact that as much as possible of the investment in the Triumph engine, partly shared with the Dolomite’s slant-4, had to be recovered. It is hard to make the case though that corporate pride didn’t come into it. But, it doesn’t look very connected, given that Rover and Triumph had been together since 1966.
The V8 became one of the Stag’s many differentiating features, along with the T-bar construction, the size and configuration of the car, and maybe even the overtly masculine naming of the car. The V8 almost became one of its major problems.
This engine had possibly the worst record for reliability of any produced by BL, before or after. The list of defects included the excessively long single-link timing chains which suffered from poor tensioning – and to avoid expensive failures, the chains needed replacing every 25,000 miles – and its appetite for head gaskets made the 1990s Rover K series look positively teetotal. Add in issues such as inadequately sized main bearings, cylinder head warping due to poor castings, and water pump failures and you start to see why production volumes were never what was expected.
The second series cars, from 1972, addressed some of these issues, with reshaped combustion chambers and a higher compression ratio, as well steering revisions. Some things didn’t change though, like the heavy hardtop and the poor quality materials in the interior. The interior looked good, but the materials didn’t answer very well on the knuckle tap test.
The appeal of the Stag is clear – here was a car that practically unique in the market – a relatively compact, grand touring four seater convertible with a hardtop for the winter. There was a V8 with a great “wooffle” factor, a decent automatic gearbox and an attractive, modern (for 1970) take on the wood and leather British interior. Looks wise, it had all you could have wanted – the showroon appeal of the car was unarguable. Perhaps the closest competitor in Europe was a Mercedes-Benz 280SL (W113), albeit with more cramped accommodation, or as a more compact take on the W111 250SE Convertible, and a stronger brand image. The Peugeot 504 Convertible and Coupe were not dissimilar, but less powerful.
The manufacturing logistics were less impressive – the bodyshells were pressed and assembled at Triumph’s plant at Speke in Liverpool, and the engine and final assembly were completed in Coventry. Add in the sort of build quality you may typically associate with Britain and the 1970s, and you get an idea of owner experience many had.
One other feature that everyone will recall the Stag is the T-bar, which was added to the original Michelotti design for structural. Apparently, without it, the car suffered scuttle shake to an extent that it was undriveable. But, it also became one of defining features and added something to the uniqueness of the car and somehow to its visual appeal as well.
Stags are now a favourite on the classic car scene in the UK, and many shows will have a good Stag turnout. With the TR range and the Spitfire, Triumph has a strong following in the classic community, perhaps ahead of any volume premium marque other than Jaguar. One particular fan was Donald Stokes, Chairman of BL from 1968 to 1974, and one of the drving forces behind Leyland’s purchase of Triumph, who proclaimed the Stag as his favourite ever car.
In 7 years, Triumph sold exactly 2,871 Stags in America and exported fewer than 7,000 in total. Of the 18,000 sold in the UK, remarkably around 6,000 still exist. That’s a survival rate ahead of anything comparable.
That doesn’t make it a good car, in absolute terms. But it does have a great appeal, still.
Thanks for another splendid read Roger on a car from my schooldays in 1970s Britain.The Stag was a car I dreamed of driving to my job at Boot’s perfume and makeup counter(they were the most glamorous women in my town in the 60s and 70s).Of course I should have been studying Latin and Physics at the time and as a result always got poor marks and exam results.
Triumphs made a range of nearly great cars,sadly most owners burned shoe leather rather than rubber.If only the build quality was better,if only the Rover/Buick V8 was used,if only they’d been properly sorted before hitting the show rooms,if only the Sprint was a few years earlier and could take on the Lotus Cortina.
A few have been re engined with Ford V6 and Rover/Buick V8s or have the problems sorted out now.Make mine a purple one(and have Nigel the mechanic on speed dial just in case)
That begs the question of what possessed that imbecile Stokes in the first place to agree to take on all those other firms in creating the monstrosity that Leyland became. Until that moment Leyland was profitable on account of its buses and lorries. One could justify purchasing Triumph but not the rest of them. A clever MD would have looked at what the Japanese were doing in the US and ensured that the 1300 came out as the Toledo from the start and that reliability was on the same level as Datsun’s or Toyota’s. History would have been very different. But I suppose the rot started already in the 50s when they began neglecting development of their lorries (I won’t get into that)…
Count me in as a Stag fan. When I was about 10, someone in the neighbourhood had one. (in brown, which seemed horribly uncool at the time) Quite apart from the reliability, I’m not sure I’d buy one, but they look great burbling around whenever I see one.
I wonder why the sidelights/indicators are upside down (or mounted on the opposite side) on the maroon car? Owner was bored? You’d think they’d have enough to do.
Theres a faded purple Stag roaming around here, The red headed woman that owns it uses it as her daily driver, its one of 3 that seem to be daily driven not a huge number compared with the dozens of Triumph 2000/2500 sedans in regular use.
When I arrived in Perth, WA in 2009, I was expecting to see loads of Japanese cars I hadn’t seen in the UK for years, and I did.
What blew me away was the number of Triumph 2000/2500s which appeared to be daily drivers. Must be a bit more reliable than some people imply.
British cars are generally reliable if maintained only Americans who refuse to maintain anything because they are either lazy or have too much access to finance have issues with them.
Oh dear,I can’t see this ending well!
Blame the bloody customer. Because of this attitude, both the English & French lost the N.A. market to humbler firms more interested in customer satisfaction.
So who’s the idiot: the lazy owner, or the manufacturer too proud to meet his needs? Whichever you choose, there’s money to be made from Stupid Americans.
..nothing wrong with an early manual trans Triumph 2000!! ..in ’65 it was a good machine with a performance similar to the Fiat Crusader 1500.. the later larger bodied Mk11 2000 was a dog though .. slow ..slow …slow
..once knew a chick who had a 1970 Stag (yellow) ..after a short time she was calling it her ‘Triumph Stog’ for ‘Triumph Dog’ …lol
yes, it sounded great… but but it was always in the workshop for one mechanical fault after another after another ..endless trouble ..virtually zero reliability
As to the use of the Triumph V8 rather than the Rover/Buick, I remember reading (though not where I read it) that Spen King (technical director of Rover and involved in the later stages of the Stag’s design after the creation of British Leyland) was once asked if there was anything in his career he might have done differently. After a moment’s thought he replied: “Yes. I wouldn’t have taken the Triumph engineers’ word for it that the Rover V8 wouldn’t fit in the Stag”.
Brilliant.
Objectively I shouldn’t want one, but I do. Another fine piece on yet another flawed design so many wished had succeeded.
I knew an older Polish woman who had a new one back in the day, which she remembered fondly. It caught fire and was destroyed while she was driving. Her explanation was that “the engine was too powerful for the car”. What could I say to that?
An engineer I’m acquainted with also bought one new. His late father ran a Rolls Royce and his mother had a Daimler 2.5 V8, so he knew English cars and their quirks. The Stag is remembered as a complete disaster. He still has the Daimler today.
I don’t know where they’re coming from, but there are quite a few Stags in this part of the world and they are mostly seen out on the weekends. Most are restorations but there is one, with the hardtop permanently fitted, in magenta with silver stripes, a black interior and an assortment of ancient stickers, which hint the whole thing may be original, that appeared on the forecourt of a local church. So Gem, in regard to the Stag ownership, maybe it helps if you are a believer?
The Stag is one of the great “should have beens” of the 1970s, but there were just too many flaws for it to be a success. From what I understand, that slightly clumsy T-bar arrangement was necessary because prototypes without the added structure had the rigidity of overcooked linguine.
Nice summary, but I don’t think anyone I know would have a clue what a Triumph Stag is. It’s so obscure here that I think I’ve seen two in my life.
I believe that in North America you can address the engine by swapping in a Buick V6.
> Nice summary, but I don’t think anyone I know would have a clue what a Triumph Stag is.
I bet nobody has ever asked you to explain what a “grand tourer” is though, so you’re probably okay. 🙂
I wonder how many of these were exported to Canada? I’ve seen one at a local car show before, most likely one of the same ones that you’ve spotted. I think it was maroon.
The Stag looks okay with the basket-handle rollbar, but the horizontal top bar on the window frames that stay in place when the windows are rolled down kills the look for me. Based on the other comments, I appear to be in the minority on that.
Hmm well I’ve never liked the styling of the Stag, but then again I think Triumph styling peaked with the TR3A.
I can tolerate the restyled Spitfire that bears a family resemblance to this, but with the same theme at both ends of the car the Stag is too much. Add the Meccano / Tinkertoy structure above the beltline and somebody should have stepped in.
But I guess you could say that about any number of BL cars at the time.
I can’t get past the grille and headlights. They just don’t work for me.
But variety is the spice of life, and I’m glad to see that there are plenty of you who disagree with my view.
The minority, maybe, but not alone. Ditto from me on the window frames.
It’s not like frameless door glass hadn’t been done before.
A quick ‘n’ dirty rework to shed the frames. Also moved the headlights closer to the corner. In board headlights never worked for me. ’69 Camaro excepted.
Mmmmm, much more graceful without the frames.
As luck will have it, I saw a Triumph Stag in a junk yard last week in South Carolina, minus the engine and drive train as well as the interior. The body had a bit of rust, but not that much. For a restorer, this would have been a gold mine. I didn’t recognize the car until I saw the Triumph emblem on it. Even it its forlorn state, I could tell that this car had been a looker back in the day. Nicely proportioned.
I am old enough
and wise enoughnow that I no longer chase after beautiful, fascinating, but clearly disfunctional women. I thought that I had reached the same level of clear-headed detachment towards Triumph Stags until I saw this one (photo below) at the All British And European Car Day show recently. These cars just look so elegant. I want one. I know that buying one would be more foolish than quitting my job and moving to Las Vegas to live near a beautiful strip tease dancer I saw on stage one night, but the heart has its reasons the mind knows nothing of. Note the perfect caramel-colored leather….. Oh God, Save Me!Ach, if they were so bad, their survival rate in the UK would be much lower. The problems seem to be largely with the engine and ancillaries. Motor swaps are possible as noted in previous comments, so if you you could find a cheap one with engine trouble, then why not?
OK, if you were torn between this and some locally built fleet-mobile like a Caprice then clearly that’s an unfair comparison, but for something which is relatively exotic where you are, I don’t think it would be too bad.
As Bryce and I mentioned, lots of people are still running around in the related 2000/2500.
An excellent tutorial on what appears to be an epic tragedy. The car is so attractive, even with the upper superstructure required by the lack of rigidity down below. Everything about the looks of this car makes a guy want one.
It is amazing to consider how people who have been developing and building automobile engines for decades can turn out a new design that is utter garbage. And this is not restricted to the British industry of the 1960s-70s, either. Although they did seem to develop it to highest art.
A coworker of mine in San Francisco had one of these ca. 1976, and I remember that it was in the shop a lot. I’d like to have one if I ever win the lotto, but not as my daily driver!
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. A *good* car? No. Not at all, objectively. But an *appealing* car? Hell yes. That shape, that interior, the practicality of the hardtop during the off seasons. I think these Michelloti Triumphs really are beautiful cars–love the 2000/2500 also. I actually never knew we had the sedans in the US, as I’ve never seen one in person. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen a Stag also, though I recall seeing a couple of them over the years.
I’d love to have one, but not with the problematic original engine. Wonder how hard it might be to get that 3.5 V8 in there instead? Probably better left to daydreams.
There have been articles here on CC that at some point ask the question: is it a good idea for a car manufacturer to maintain a “family resemblance” through out it’s entire line of cars? In my opinion, a major fault with the Stag is that it looks like a 1 and 1/4th scale Spitfire. That wouldn’t have been so bad if the Spitfire didn’t look so delicate, but I’ve always looked at the Stag and felt it was a bear in a tutu, sort of car.
I shot a genuine CC Stag parked here on the street a couple of years ago, but never got around to posting it.
Is the Stag the most flawed BL car ever? Maybe we need to ask that question here sometime.
Sure, the Stag is flawed, but oh boy, is it desirable.
There are plenty of more flawed BL cars, but if pushed, I’d have to vote for the Austin Maxi in its first iteration.
Though there’s the Austin 3-Litre, of course…
…and the poor old MG Midget, jacked up to US height with those dreadful rubber bumpers…
…and the Morris Marina/Ital in any iteration, but particularly the diesel…
…and (a bit later) the 1995 Rover 400…
…and the fixed-head, Speke-built TR7…
The nightmare showroom!
Those US-spec bumpers were an ignominious end to the MG Midget (and B). it would have been better to put them out of their misery and have done with it.
Wasn’t it more of a bad engine than a bad car? Surely BL made cars which were worse overall?
Philip – I never knew there was a Marina diesel! What was so especially bad about the diesel version?
Casting sand was left in the engine blocks during assembly it would later clog cooling passages and radiators all Stag issues are solveable now, and other motors do fit.
Introduced in 1977, six years after the Marina’s debut. Six years of sitting round boardroom tables (albeit in the most trying economic and industry circumstances) trying to figure out what to do next with BL’s “Cortina beater”. Sluggish performance and a horrible noise. Four years in production and total number manufactured = 3870.
Over the few years that I’ve been following CC, I’ve been able to look at some cars from the past in a new light. Some, that excited me as a kid or teen or a young man, just seem like boring old cars. Others, that seemed mundane at the time, have new appeal, emotionally or technically. The Stag is neither. It seemed dorky when it can out, and has no appeal to me now. And I had always preferred Triumphs to MG’s. I stare longingly every time I see a TR6 now, and there are still a few running around my town, and was fascinated with the few Vitesses and 2.5PI’s that appeared in SCCA club racing in the ’70’s. I even like TR8’s, despite not being a huge fan of the wedge shape. But the Stag still seems like a bad design, poorly executed both esthetically and functionally. Still, I’m glad you featured it, if only to remind me of I car I had pretty much forgotten, as well as to remind me that others have different tastes 🙂
I blame both shoddy QC and the shtoopid decision to forego the Buick V6 in this car as the ruination of the Dolly Sprint, a car seriously at the top of my bouquet list. No one could ever take BL seriously enough to help the wunderkar beat and establish cred before the 1600 and 2000 sturmed and dranged across the marketplace, nicht wahr?
At least in the U.S. market, the Marina has to be the most flawed BL product. Next to an EARLY 60s Datsun sedan, the Marina was almost competitive. But by the early 70s the Marina wasn’t even an also-ran…except in 3rd world markets.
The Stag was pretty ambitious for Triumph, a “flagship” that had all the necessary mechanical ingredients but was let down by styling and build quality that were no better than BL’s lowliest model cars.
I’ve owned a Spitfire and a TR3, driven a GT6+, and driven and ridden in several TR6s…I’m a fan of the brand. But the Stag does not appeal to me, any more than a Porsche Panamera does.
I drove a Stag for a weekend a few years back. White with a black interior; it was late winter so the hardtop was on. Not particularly fast, but everything felt nice at a relaxed-but-brisk pace. And yes, the exhaust was as wuffly as everyone says.
Roger, really enjoyed your write-up and pictures of a Triumph model that has always intrigued me. Years ago, and before the internet, I had uninformedly assumed these were just stretched versions of an existing model – yet I couldn’t figure out which one (TR6? Spitfire?). In your pictures, I’m just now noticing some of the little details, like the “stag” emblem on the front grille and “TRIUMPH” badges on the front and rear bumpers.
As I noted on my Peugeot 307 SW article, my partner and I are quite keen on a Stag, as they have the perfect combination of size and style. Thoroughly enjoyed reading the back story – thanks Roger! Oodles of Triumphs left in New Zealand, and quite a few of them are Stags. Surprisingly, several of the Stags I’ve seen were used LHD examples imported to NZ from the USA and converted to RHD. The advantage of the ex-USA ones is they seem to have a/c, so if we ever get a Stag, I’d want one of those! I’d be immediately swapping in the Rover V8 (cheap and plentiful here) too, to ensure trouble-free motoring.
And of course, the most magnificent Stag ever made is the one-off one modified by Tickford. Mmmm, looks great!
Not one comment yet referencing Jeremy Clarkson driving his “Staaaaaaaaag” ?
C’mon, people!
No kidding! That was the first thing I thought of when this CC went up earlier today.
Staaaaag. I have a Staaaaag. It was the sort of a car you drove with a sneer. A cad’s car.
Definitely a rare bird in the States. I went to HS with a guy whose father owned one of the ochre colored Stags (don’t know the year). The son drove the Stag to school a few times, which is where I saw it, but in the forty or so years since, I think that is the only one I can recall having seen roaming in the wild. Wasn’t that big into cars at the time, otherwise I would have taken more of an interest in this rara avis.
I remember how dissapointed R&T was when they tested the Stag. Nothing really worked well. One oddity they noted was that, as the end of a hard acceleraton run, the back end of the car would step sideways. They suspected either the halfshaft splines were sticking under the torque load, or the suspension bushings were being pushed out of shape, then everything snapped back into position when they backed off the throttle.
The pic in their article of the soft top erected showed astoundingly poor fit.
But the prize for worst Brit car brought to the US has to go to the Marina. While the Stag testers were dissapointed, the Marina tester soon developed a deep loathing for the car.
The initial design being from 1965 explains quite a bit – 5 years later it was on the verge of being out of date stylistically IMO.
In Australia the 253 Holden V8 was a popular transplant also.
It is a wonder that Lord Stokes took the word of the Triumph engineers that the Rover 3.5 V8 would not fit so readily, and also a lost opportunity that they didn’t look at a V8 version of the 2-litre slant 4 for the US market. No doubt it would have been too expensive for what must have been a marginal project to begin with.
Rover V8s do fit, this was a common swap back in the day when the original stag motor grenaded. To do it properly you need to alter the front suspension to compensate for the lighter weight of the rover engine.
Funnily enough, they’re worth a lot more if still fitted with the original crappy engine than they are with a known reliable one retrofitted.
Perhaps the reason that the RV8 was fitted ‘back in the day’ was that there were more of these available in scrapyards than the original V8 and they were a cheap way of mending your inexpensive second-hand bird-puller. Despite what everyone says, in the UK less than 10% were converted to the 3.5 engine and currently there are not 6,000 remaining in the UK but over 10,000 – that includes the ‘barn finds’ waiting to be found – that really is a remarkable survival rate – over 50% for a car deemed to be a failure. The other myth is that most were automatic – actually manuals and autos were roughly split 50/50, even in the States. I accept that the styling may not be everyone’s cup of tea but the car has a huge following – and has had since it stopped being available new in 1978. I know of several cars which have exceeded 200,000 km on the original engine but mostly they top out at about 100,000 as they became valued low-use classics before they reached old age. If you really want to know why the decision to use the Triumph V8 was made, why the quality was so bad, why it didn’t fly in the States and why it was dropped from production, you need to read around the subject of internal BL decisions and the experiences of selling UK cars in the States in the early seventies, as it is not a straightforward as it seems at first look. You should start by asking the question: which engine would ever make anything of itself if the workforce found it quite acceptable to leave copious amounts of casting sand in the blocks and cylinder heads and nobody wanted to take responsibility for cleaning it out during assembly ? As Registrar of the Stag Owners Club in the UK I have 16,000 different cars on the database and with over 35 years with the car, believe me, I’ve seen it all. A unique engine and a unique car – it doesn’t suit everyone but it tops the list for a great number of people.