Your correspondent, J. Neville R. Hay, prompts me to reply to his critical comparison of the Triumph 2000 with his current Fiat 125.
I am a great admirer of Fiat and their designs, but cannot accept the Fiat 125 as a far better car—both models have their faults and strong points just as the Rover 2000, for example.
Mr. Hay complains of a leaking head gasket and replacement of four exhaust valves in 18,000 miles, but rates his car as certainly more reliable than the 2000. Just how do you describe reliability, as I would not enthuse over this with any car.
I am now up to 14,000 miles on my fourth Triumph 2000, which I believe to be the best “all round” design of its class yet produced in this country, and more than comparable with the best from Fiat, BMW, Lancia, Volvo and Rover in the 2-litre class.
The fact that the 2000 is a bit more “chuckable” than the Fiat is incidental and irrelevant. It is certainly much quieter, smoother and more relaxing with a better ride, designed to be driven long distances fast if need be, or just for pottering, the 2000 will do both without fuss. The “chuckability” just happens to be useful.
I spend many hours in my 2000, driving up to 300 miles in a day very often, and high weekly averages the rule rather than exception.>/p>
The features of the car that appeal to me coupled with its economy and sheer case of driving are responsible for the strong following the 2000 has had to earn, as it did not start life with the glamour, image or sheer snob appeal of its rivals.
J. A. Evans.