Talk:Triumph Spitfire

Deleted sections from article

 * ===Driving Impressions of the Mk3 Spitfire (1969)===
 * Despite the fact that a Mk3 is essentially not that fast compared to today's vehicles, it has no trouble keeping up with :modern traffic conditions and will happily cruise down the motorway at 70mph, or more (where conditions allow). It handles better than would be expected, although when pushed to the limit the swing spring suspension can cause unpredictable handling. Controlled drifiting is quite achevable with practice (although you are not advised to do this with wire wheels).


 * The car makes a great sound at high revs and is very smooth through the gear changes, the brakes can be somewhat scary to someone used to driving a modern vehicle, but once you are used to it, you learn to change your style using the gearbox to aid braking. Performance is surprising, changing into second gear will easily give a pleasant pip of the rear tyres without labouring the engine.


 * All in all it's a surprising car to drive, it performs and handles much better than many cars of the period in the same price range.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolma (talk • contribs) 10:22, 20 November 2006

Moving another OR section to talk:
 * ==The Spitfire today==
 * Despite having sold more than the MG Midget and produced for longer than any other Triumph car (18 years), the little Triumph often suffered from the comparison to the MG, due partly at least to the inadequate rear suspension of the early models, corrected in later models. The reputation of the Spitfire, which like many types of smaller two-seat roadsters suffered during the 1980s and early 1990s, has undergone a major revival through the classic car movement. Throughout the world there are many British car clubs and Triumph car clubs whose members have many fine examples of Triumph Spitfires.


 * One key reason for the popularity of the Spitfire is number of improvements that can be made to the standard car at reasonable cost. Many owners upgrade the engine, drivetrain, brakes and suspension to improve the cars performance and handling. The Spitfire was a popular contender in the SCCA and many of the improvements available have their origins in the 'Competition Preparation Manual' by 'Kas' Kastner to assist with preparing cars for this form of motorsport. In recent years reduction in the cost of machining has resulted in a number of companies producing lightweight alloy parts for the Spitfire.

Toddst1 18:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone thinks these links are all spam and deleted them - seems rather a blanket condemnation as some at least are valuable.

- * Headquarters of the North American Spitfire & GT6 Squadron - * Spitfire & GT6 Magazine - * International Triumph Spitfire Registry Database - * Paul Tegler's Spifire & GT6 Megasite - * Graham's Triumph Spitfire 1500 pages - * Triumph Spitfire 1500 information pages - * Triumph Spitfire MKIV Restoration Guide - * Triumph Spitfire resources - * Club Triumph - * Triumph Sports Six Club - * Vintage Triumph Register (North America) - * Mike's Triumph Spitfire: 26 Years of Fun! - * [http://www.pbca1.com/members_triumph.htm Triumphs in Panhandle

RGCorris (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Spitfire 1500

 * I think the 1500 was available in the US and Canada in 1973. I owned a '74 1500 purchased in Vancouver in the 1980s and I don't think it was imported from the US.  Should these references be changed to "North America" instead of "US"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndowning (talk • contribs) 23:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Standard Motor Company
I've tagged the statement that Standard Motor Company manufactured the Spitfire as and. I have never seen any reference to Standard actually manufacturing the Spit. I realize Standard-Triumph started development, but that is different from SMC and it is different from manufacturing. While the name was last used in Britain in 1963 and Spit production started in 1962, I don't believe it is correct to say that the spit was manufactured by SMC. If someone can provide a source, that would be good, otherwise it should be removed. Toddst1 (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "manufactured" and what by "Standard"?
 * As for most cars in the UK, it was manufactured in multiple plants and some parts (engines, chassis, bodies) travelled long distances to other plants for assembly. AFAIK, the chassis for the Herald et al. was made by GKN Sankey. So does the plant for final assembly count as the manufacturing plant, or would you insist on all the plants being Standard's? Then what about major sub-contractors (but not part of BLMC) such as Lucas, Lockheed or Girling?
 * Secondly, do you mean "Standard Motor Company" or "Those plants originally owned by Standard, until absorbed into BLMC". Obviously for much of the Herald's lifespan we're talking about BLMC ownership rather than Standard, although the major work was still carried out at "Standard" factories.
 * It's characteristic of BLMC (and perhaps symptomatic of what was wrong with them right to the end) that Triumphs were still made at Standard Triumph plants, Rovers were made at Rover plants and Jaguars at Jaguar. Except when they weren't - so if an engine such as the Rover V8 was shared into another model such as the MG, then the two plants would happily talk to each other and the rivalries of the 1930s were forgotten. Otherwise though, different factories outside their originator group might as well not exist (look at the Stag V8 for a prime example). Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually for most of the Herald's lifespan the owning company was Leyland Motor Corporation, not BLMC.RGCorris (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably. Life's too short to track BL's many names over the years (likewise BAE Systems). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the pictures, the one of the grean car with the hood up showing the access to the engine, has seats from a Mk I miata. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.126.133 (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Awful photo
That picture of the red US 1980 Spitfire with the painted bumpers is awful and not representative of the car. It should be removed from the article. Toddst1 (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've swapped it for one that doesn't have this problem. Neither is very good, but they're the only ones Commons has to offer. If anyone finds anything better then please use it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Somehow it was still there - just removed it. There's a good picture already in the article that suits the purpose further down.  See "The 1979 Triumph Spitfire at the Marconi Automotive Museum."  Toddst1 (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)