Talk:Triumph Stag

message: I have a book of scripts for the Lock, Stock... TV series, which mentions one of the characters as owning a Stag. I also seem to remember several scenes where his car breaks down or won't start. But it's been a long time since 1999, i'll have to check if he really does have one on the DVD one day. 82.153.230.130 23:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture 

message: Greetings,
I have modified this Wiki for the Triumph Stag (originally created by someone else) based on my own knowledge, discussions with and reading various published interview articles with Harry Webster, Ray Bates, John Macartney, Robin Penrose, Graham Robson and other Ex-Triumph personalities who "were there", coupled with references of factory produced manuals and third party publications which may be accurate or not.
Terminology and English language differences between England and other English speaking parts of the world may have caused some misunderstandings and misconceptions over the years.
Such as "the Rover just did not fit".  From several stories I was told, this was actually meaning that it "just did not fit into the production number requirements and schedules" as claimed by some, not that it did not fit into the engine bay. Some also say the fit issue was a hoax played on the higher up Rover management who were insisting on dropping the Triumph V8. However, it has been pointed out by those Ex-Triumph engineers who were there and as described in interview articles were directly involved in the designs, that the engine bay would have required modification to install a Rover 3.5 V8.  Modifications to what extent?
Anyway, those are my understandings of what was being told. It could very well be I am also mistaken by my own understanding of those stories and articles, or maybe missed something in translation - or body language perhaps?  All of the "It did not fit" stories I have personally heard from those who were there, well I think I detected a bit of tomfoolery along with recognition of the sparkling glint in the eye and a slight sheepish grin.  That was of course, Mr. Webster.  Those of you who know him know exactly what I am talking about.
I suppose we may never know the real stories or reasons, but we know today that the Rover V8 does indeed fit with no engine bay modification using a few simple brackets and spacers. We also know from these same interviews that there was tremendous "brand loyalty" between Triumph and Rover.  So, not fitting could very well be not fitting due to these intra company rivalies.  We also know that Rover was selling every V8 they could produce in the early 1970's, that supply was indeed an issue.  I suppose it is an issue of having to read between the lines of both text and sparkle in the eye.
The fact is, Triumph just did not complile historical data in certain and sufficient detail on its cars to be able to tell it all like it was.  Most everyone agrees that information is not really available.  Even those who were there admit that their recollection may be a bit faded by time over what actually happened in the mid to late 1960's.  So I hope to see more high quality interviews published with those remaining Ex-Triumph people so this valuable information is not lost forever.
So lets have at it, add your information.  Try to keep things factual with footnote references to note where the information came from and when.
Cheers!
StagByTriumph 03:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  . 

message: Did all stags have a V8, because I've read that some early stags had the slant-4. // Liftarn (talk)
No, all production Stags had the Triumph V8. Some owners have later changed to Rover V8 (Pah!!) or Triumph I6 (2500) engine. LewisR (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  V8 

message: They were known to Triumph quite quickly, but they did little to nothing to rectify the problems.  One engine machine shop I knew, in the mid-1970s, had a V8 to re-con as it had seized.  The old expert, hated working on the engine, and only took it on to fill in time when other more profitable work was not around.  Just about everything was worn or seized. He assessed the engine said it had a cooling problem and oil lubrication problem too.  He mentioned that Triumph should fit a lager radiator and a more powerful water pump to circulate more water when idling and an electric cooling fan to cope.  He said if it was his car he would fit a larger radiator if possible and a thermostat operated electric coolant pump to circulate more coolant when idling - this would require some alteration to rubber plumbing.  He also identified the use of quality anti-freeze all year around.
He suggested a manual reset overheat thermostat that cuts out the ignition when danger temperatures are reached to prevent expensive seizures - modern gas boilers have this mechanism.
At the time the precursor of Mobil 1 fully synthetic oil was available, but "very" expensive.  He suggested using that, as it thinner on cold start up and resisted high temperatures.  He noticed baked on mineral oil in parts of the engine.  Even in those days the oil had twice the service intervals of mineral oils, so oil expense was reduced, as long as the filter was changed as per the manual.
They were simple problems that could have been sorted quickly and specifying superior oils.  Triumph (BL) did nothing much at all. 
It may have been the Rover side of BL that wanted the Triumph engine to fail. 
Waterspaces (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with V8 

message: I can remember at the time that the Stag had problems with just about every component. The Herald derived gearbox was overstressed and prone to failure, differentials whined (a very common problem with the Salisbury unit), Lucas electrics as usual were hopeless, and I think that there were other problems. Such a pity, it was a lovely car and could (should) have been wonderful. DesmondW (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Problems 

message: During the development of the Triumph 2000, Triumph was not part of Leyland and wanted to compete with the Rover V8 Saloon.
The plan was to offer (as an alternative to the Triumph 2000 cc inline 6):
New fuel injected (Bosch) 2.5 litre V8 engine that would eventually have 4 valves per cylinder - Triumph 32 Valve V8 in the 1960's!
Triumph believed the high tech V8 coupled with their fully independent suspension and over-drive would be a better car than Rover's.
As Triumph were developing a new 4 cylinder engine for Saab, they made this half a V8 (slant-four).
When Triumph and Rover were part of Leyland, it was decided the Triumph 2000 shouldn't go head to head with the Rover V8.
However, Triumph were allowed their 2.5 litre fuel injected engine as an enlarged 2000 engine with Lucas injection - Triumph 2500 PI.
The Triumph 2.5 litre V8 engine that was now in development was allowed to continue at minimal cost, but for the Stag only.
The logic being the Stag would sell well in the USA and Europe without harming Rover sales. Win win!
To save cost, the fuel injection was ditched and replaeced with emissions capable Stromberg carbs and the engine became 3 litres to recover performance.
The Stag went into production with a minimal cost (underdeveloped) V8 engine.
Due to issues, the Stag had to be withdrawn from the USA within the first 3 years of production.
Leyland did experiment with Rover V8 engines in Stags, but the demand for Rover engines was exceeding production capability and the Stag wasn't a priority (Rover, Range Rover, Land Rover military, MGB V8, Morgan and even a few TR8's wanted units).
The poor Stag was never really planned as it was born from a stunning Michelotti design exercise that Harry Webster loved, and a new V8 engine that didn't really have a place in this world.
And the 4 valve per cylinder heads, yes they did exist and the left hand ones went in to production as the 2 litre Dolomite Sprint at 127 BHP (each).
And sadly there was another planned use for Rover V8 engines:
Rover had been developing a V8 mid engined sports car with the engine offset slightly so there was a child seat in the rear.
Yes, a bullet proof Rover V8 "Lotus Esprit" with an extra seat - 25 years before the Lotus V8 Esprit!
I'm told Jaguar's e-type had this project stopped - but I've deviated from the subject.
You have to respect Triumph's ambitions because they clearly existed - but maybe they weren't possible in 1970's Great Britain?
Mike H.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.253.112.206 (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Saab engine was a V4, so one end of a V8 rather than one side of it. The Dolomite 16-valve heads existed, but only for one side of a slant four. They cannot be fitted to the right-hand bank of a V8 as the heads are handed, and you would end up with the camshaft at the opposite end on opposite sides. There is no trace of any such heads having been made, nor had there been any description of the adaptations required to have two camshafts operating off a common belt. Which is a shame because the extra 100bhp would have been lovely.2A00:23C4:3984:3400:71F4:DC9F:DC8B:B259 (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The V4 engine used by Saab in four-stroke 95/96 models was sourced from Ford of Germany.  The Triumph-derived engine was the inline slant-four used in the 99. Mr Larrington (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Stag background as I understand it... 

message: What's the evidence for this? 
A 32-valve Stag could not have been made using Dolomite heads, as the article now claims. The cylinder heads are handed, so you would need mirror-image heads on the opposite side. These would have needed to be fabricated. You could not make a 32-valve engine from two 16-valve ones. Tirailleur (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced claim of a 32-valve engine having been built