I was most surprised to read three letters in your December issue actually praising the Triumph TR range of cars, my own experience with the model contrasts sharply with those of your correspondents.
Firstly the supposedly long life engine in my 4A is due for replacement after only 50,000 miles; this I attribute to the short-sightedness of Standard-Triumph who claim that one can safely use 5,500 revs for short periods, however if to do so gives the above result, I suggest the revs should be limited to 4,000 as at any speed over this the engine sounds decidedly strained.
Secondly, with regard to the body, I regret to say that already a hole has appeared in the n.s. sill, together with tops of both rear wings, that a body should deteriorate so rapidly after only 4 years is clearly a design fault, a deduction shared by many TR owners who agree that the dreadful “tin worm” appears to be attracted to all TR4A rear wings.
In conclusion I suggest that the long life reputation the TR engine holds is a myth no doubt in my case being attributable to excessive revs being used to match the performance of the MG-B.—No prizes for guessing the choice of my next sports car.