Triumph SD2

triumph
Triumph SD2 prototype
SD2
Presentation year:	1974
Vehicle fair:
Class :	Middle class
Body shape :	limousine
Engine:	Petrol engines : 1.5–2.0 liters
Production model:	none

Under the factory name Triumph SD2 , the former British car manufacturer British Leyland Motor Corporation (BLMC) developed a mid-size hatchback sedan from 1970 to 1975, which was to succeed the Triumph Dolomite . At times, the SD2 should also take on the role of the "little brother of the Rover SD1 ". Due to low profit prospects and strong overlap with other models of the group, British Leyland stopped the development work in 1975 before series production had started.

background

Corporate and model policy environment

The Triumph Cycle Company , founded in 1886 as a vehicle and motorcycle manufacturer, began producing automobiles in 1923. After initial difficulties, the Triumph models developed by Donald Healey acquired a reputation for being particularly sporty in the 1930s, but this did not change the fact that the company's auto division was almost consistently losing money. In 1939 Triumph finally went bankrupt. After the destruction of the production facilities in World War II , the Standard Motor Company acquired the naming rights to Triumph in 1944 and resumed automobile production under this brand after the end of the war. In 1960 the Standard Group was taken over by the commercial vehicle manufacturer Leyland . From 1967 onwards, the corporate policy environment changed several times. Initially, the previously independent manufacturer Rover joined the Leyland Group; In 1968 Leyland merged with British Motor Holdings , which included not only the Austin and Morris brands , but also the premium manufacturer Jaguar , to form the British Leyland Motor Corporation (BLMC). As a result, Triumph found itself under one roof with several of its previous competitors. This required a repositioning of the brand, which the BLMC management actually only partially achieved in the following years.

Successor to the Dolomite

Triumph Dolomite

From 1965 Triumph offered the notchback sedans 1300 and 1500 in the middle class , which were front-wheel drive . After the establishment of the BLMC, the management decided to limit the front-wheel drive to the Austin and Morris brands, while the other brands should offer rear-wheel drive vehicles. Triumph therefore switched the 1300 and 1500 to rear-wheel drive. The externally largely unchanged cars were given the name Dolomite . They were positioned in a higher price segment compared to the Austin and Morris vehicles, but were below the Rover and Jaguar models.

When the Dolomite was launched, considerations for a successor to this series began. The new model was to appear in the middle class as a higher-quality addition to the Morris Marina and Austin Allegro and at the same time close the gap between them and the rover vehicles above.

In-house development

The order to develop the Dolomite successor went to the engineers of the in-house Specialist Division (SD), which at the same time designed the Rover SD1 hatchback model. The potential successor to the Dolomite was given the development code SD2. Overall management of the project was with Malcolm Harbor, technical director was Charles Spencer "Spen" King , and design was done by David Bache . Development work began in 1970. By spring 1974, it was well advanced; BLMC built several prototypes.

Model description

body

Triumph SD2 (potential basic version)

There were different approaches to body design in the early stages of the development process. On the one hand, Rover's designer, David Bache, was commissioned to create a design; on the other hand, the Italian studio Pininfarina should work out an alternative proposal. A prototype was built for both designs. The BLMC management agreed that Pininfarina's work was more elegant and preferable, but decided in September 1973 to use the in-house design for reasons of corporate policy and costs.

While Pininfarina had designed a notchback sedan with straight lines, David Bache envisaged a four-door hatchback with a large hatchback. Conceptually, Bache followed the Rover SD1, the body of which was also largely designed by him. Similar to the larger Rover, the SD2 had a distinctive bead that extended over the entire side of the car. At the front it fell down towards the bumper, while at the rear it rose. The waistline did not take up these forms. A third side window was provided in the C-pillar , which in the basic version should be unclad, but in the higher-quality version with a plastic cover. The rear wheels were partially covered by the fenders. Broadband headlights with an inclined surface were installed in the front.

technology

For economic reasons, the SD2 should take over as many components as possible from other Group vehicles; In particular, matches with the new Triumph TR7 were considered . On the other hand, the management at times assumed that the floor pan of the SD2 could also be the basis for other models of the group in the future, for example for a successor to the Morris Marina .

In the engine area, the Special Division relied on conventional solutions. Initial considerations included developing new four-cylinder engines; they should be derived from the six cylinders of the Rover SD1. For cost reasons, however, this idea was given up early on. Instead, only existing engines from the Leyland range could be installed. Initially, displacements of 1.5, 1.7 and 2.0 liters were planned, the largest version optionally with double carburetors or a 16-valve head. These engines corresponded to the designs already used in the Dolomite and Sprint. For the 1979 model year, it was planned to switch to the O-series engines, which were still in development at the beginning of the 1970s; However, it could only be achieved with costly changes in the engine compartment. When the inefficiency of the SD2 project began to emerge at the end of 1974, the management reduced the engine range to two four-cylinder units with 1.5 and 1.8 liters displacement. The engines were installed lengthways at the front and drove the rear wheels.

The chassis was also conventional. The front wheels were individually suspended and had torsion bars . The rear axle was rigid with leaf springs and Watt linkage . A subframe was mounted at the front that was identical to that of the TR7.

Production forecasts

The series production of the SD2 was to begin in June 1977 according to internal company planning. BLMC wanted to offer the SD2 in the British Isles, continental Europe (with the exception of Sweden) and most overseas export markets. In Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, on the other hand, the SD2 should not be sold because the local branches had their own locally developed vehicles in their range. BLMC saw the Alfa Romeo Alfetta , Audi 80 , the BMW 3 Series and the Lancia Beta as European competitors .

The manufacturing process should be distributed across several plants. The body-in-white was to be produced in Liverpool , while the Tile Hill and Canley plants in Coventry were intended to complete the cars. These factories had a capacity of approximately 2,000 vehicles per week. An increase in the scope of production would not have been possible without outsourcing to other plants. In an early phase of planning, consideration was given to discontinuing production of the Stag sports car in favor of the SD2.

The forecasts assume that around 83,000 SD2 vehicles could be produced and sold annually. Sales in the USA alone were estimated at around 50,000 vehicles per year.

Reasons for failure

The Triumph SD2 did not go into series production. From 1974 there were doubts within BLMC about the profitability of the project, which intensified in 1975. The economic crisis of the BLMC group in 1975 brought the development to an end.

Internal and external competitors

In the spring of 1974, an internal study came to the conclusion that strong overlaps with the similarly dimensioned volume model Morris Marina, which also had rear-wheel drive, were to be expected. In the summer of 1974, Spen King commissioned a comparison with the front-wheel drive Princess hatchback , which came to the conclusion that there was a sufficient demarcation to this larger and technically advanced model and that the continuation of the SD2 development was justified. However, this was countered by further comparative tests from autumn 1974, in which the SD2 was compared with the Audi 80 and the Opel Ascona and each fell significantly behind. As a result, there were considerations to sharpen the profile of the SD2 as a specialist car and to establish the car in a higher-priced market segment close to the Rover SD1 with the greatest possible use of identical parts.

The Ryder Report

However, these efforts failed to save the SD2 as a result. At the beginning of January 1975, the so-called Ryder Report ( British Leyland: The Next Decade by Don Ryder ) was published, the final report of a commission of inquiry, which was supposed to work out the problems of the economically troubled BLMC group and to develop concepts for future development. The main recommendations of the Ryder Report included the streamlining of the very broad range of models and the dismantling of parallel developments.

After the Ryder Report was published, the SD2 lost its management support. The work was then stopped in the spring of 1975.

Alternatives

Not realized: Michelotti's Dolomite facelift

Considerations for an alternative project under the name TM1, which should include a four-door Morris version and a five-door Triumph variant, also came to an end. British Leyland instead continued the production of the Dolomite in unchanged form until 1980. A facelift developed by Giovanni Michelotti was also not implemented. The Marina did not receive a successor either. In 1981 the Dolomite was replaced by the Triumph Acclaim , which was derived from a Japanese Honda sedan.

Web links

Commons : Triumph SD2  - collection of pictures, videos and audio files

• Triumph SD2 history on www.aronline.co.uk

References and comments

1. ^ Roy Church: The Rise and Decline of British Motor Industry . Cambridge University Press, 1995, ISBN 0521557704 .
2. ↑ David Knowles: Triumph TR6: The Complete Story , The Crowood Press, 2016, ISBN 9781785001383 , p. 278.
3. ↑ The Ryder Report on the website www.aronline.co.uk (accessed July 26, 2018).
4. ↑ As a further recommendation, Ryder spoke out in favor of government grants for the company. In return, he suggested nationalization.
5. ↑ https://www.aronline.co.uk/concepts/concepts-and-prototypes/triumph-morris-tm1/ History of TM1 on the website www.aronline.co.uk (accessed July 26, 2018).