Good Service from a Triumph 2.5PI
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Sir,
I read with interest the various letters kicking Triumphs. I had a 2.5PI from new to 18,000+ miles and the only trouble I had with it during over two years of business trips was the right-hand window winder and the same side indicator failing at the same time; very frustrating and dangerous, but quickly and courteously put right. The car was a company car, one of several which have proved equally comfortable, reliable and economical.
Maybe the great majority of people don’t have cause to complain! Certainly I was amazed at the published letter from L. Carrick-Smith who admits buying a new car to use on holiday, immediately after delivery, and admits in the letter to an engine speed of 5,000 revs, and a road speed of 70 m.p.h. presumably within the first 1,000 miles. He lives in Sheffield and he mentions Harrogate. Hardly the standard of running-in as recommended by S. E. Edmundson in the letter immediately preceding his. Maybe the previous GT6 of which Mr. Carrick-Smith spoke so highly and purchased second-hand was run-in properly.
Sorry to draw this epistle out but while I’ve got pen to paper may I say a word in favour of another often maligned and seldom road-tested vehicle, namely the Chrysler Arrow series. I lost the PI after my company was taken over by a group who favoured Chryslers. I had the choice of a 2-litre, Rapier or Humber Sceptre. My wife chose the latter.
After the PI the car felt like a load of flashy rubbish, but after eight months and 11,000 miles which, apart from a flat Dagenite battery replaced under warranty, have been trouble-free, I am impressed! It’s comfortable, quiet and apart from a Mini it’s the most economical car I’ve ever owned, over 34 m.p.g. in general business motoring. One complaint, it’s an automatic and both the speedo and the odometer seem over-enthusiastic; In indicated 70 is actually 63. Incidentally the petrol consumption given above has been adjusted for error. Performance is probably inferior to a Marina TC but I like it. Bearing in mind price and equipment it’s very good value, probably the finest available. How about a road-test?
Chigwell Ron Read
[This Triumph correspondence must now be closed, if only out of sympathy for the postman, as the flow is unabated. We shall pass the most relevant ones to the appropriate British Leyland quarters.—Ed.]