marko Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 Anyone seen this? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/172002897959?euid=1ad7b2aec9a6402a8ebb476e92184d0a&cp=1&exe=12742&ext=32470&sojTags=exe=exe,ext=ext Deliberate misinterpretation if you ask me..... I contacted the seller to detail the car is a TR250 with chassis number CD 2591 L and he said "he's not doing anything illegal!! Discuss Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AL TR250 Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 This car caused a bit of discussion back in May http://www.tr-register.co.uk/forums/index.php?/topic/52062-tr5-on-ebay/ .................. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fireman049 Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) . Edited November 20, 2015 by Fireman049 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
marko Posted November 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 This is a copy of my message to him - Shall I start saving for a court case?? If this car was a genuine TR5 it would have a chassis number starting with CP. The chassis number of your car is CD2591 L which denotes it is catagorically a TR250 and was originally LHD. The fact that whoever registered this car in the UK put it down as a TR5 is deliberately misleading the DVLA and is fraudulent. You are advertising it as a TR5 and implying that this car is a TR5 when in fact it is a TR250 that has been rebuilt to TR5 specification. There is a big difference. Sorry if this sounds pedantic but I would hate for you to have a big argument on your hands if somebody turned up not knowing the actual detail. Regards Classic Marks His Response: Thanks for your concern. I'm not implying anything, I've stated that it started life in America and was imported (not by me) and it has been built to TR5 spec.That is NOT illegal. All the paper work (when I bought it stated it was a TR5) the DVLA were happy with that. My response to that: Classic Marks: You have stated in the advert heading that it is a TR5!!.It's not listed as a TR250. In fact nowhere in your advert does it state the car is a TR250. If I was cynical I would say this has been done deliberately to mislead unsuspecting purchasers..... I will be posting a notice on the TR Register forum to warn potential purchasers of this car being a TR250 and informing the TR Registrar for TR5's to notify the DVLA of their error. If you've got any morals you will modify your advert accordingly now you know the full story His Response: We live in a democratic country and therefore you are free to do, say and write what you want, BUT, beware of the laws of slander and libel. I don't like being threatened. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
peejay4A Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 No reserve this time around. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
openroad Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 Get saving Mark , or go to your tax haven for a while !! I reckon that you are spot on, although he seems to think that because he didnt register it as a 5, then thats ok. Good work, Conrad. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest ntc Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 As before It stinks and should be reported . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Motorsport Mickey Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) The truth is an adequate defence against slander and libel, and selling on a car as something else even if when he bought it described as a TR5 once he is advised differently (as you did to him) means he is liable for everything he gets. Mick Richards Edited November 18, 2015 by Motorsport Mickey Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RogerH Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 I wonder if he does cameras as well. Roger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 Going back the best part of 15 years, I came across (quite independently) two TR250 owners having problems registering their cars with DVLA. Both cars had been legitimately imported, and had all the necessary paperwork duly completed, together with all the right bits of evidence. Nevertheless, DVLA were unwilling to register them as a TR250, apparently on the grounds that the model was not known to them . . . . . and had never been available in this country. However, the good folk in Swansea suggested that they would have no problem with the TR5 designation, as that was their idea of the proper nomenclature for a 1968 Triumph TR of 2498cc, and the owners could have an age related plate . . . . . otherwise it would have to be a Q-plate. Thus at least two TR250s became TR5s at the insistence of DVLA - and I doubt they are the only ones. Mysterious are the ways of the Swansea computer crunchers . . . . In the same vein, my Humber Super Snipe is a 1958 Series 1 of 2.6 litres. DVLA have it as a Series II-V. Despite my best efforts of trying to explain to Swansea's finest that it is a SI of 2.6 litres not a SII, SIII, SIV or SV of 3 litres, they wouldn't have it. Either it had to be a SII-V or lose the registration number it acquired in 1958 and be changed to a Q-plate. That, I might add, was back in 1983. The position still hasn't changed, DVLA deny the existence of a SI Super Snipe. I can sympathise with the seller of this here red TR, and if I was him I sure as heck wouldn't be starting another round of argument with DVLA - not from my past experience. Any potential buyer who can't deduce from the listing that the car started life as a TR250 really shouldn't be out buying a TR . . . . . he should be back home doing the pre-purchase marque research. You really would have to be a complete numpty not to recognise that it's a conversion - I mean, it says so, and clear enough. Any road up, 250s and 5s rolled down the line together, some got the carb engine package and others the PI engine package, but other than that there isn't a whole big deal to choose between them. By the time you've switched the carb package to the PI package, the difference is academic, and not a lot more than the number on the commission plate. At least this one has the correct commission number for what it started life as, which is a damn sight better than the not inconsiderable number of 250s masquerading as 5s and boasting a TR5 commission number and plate to boot. But then, there aren't in fact many pukka TRs around - however you cut it, most of them are bitsas to a greater or lesser degree. Remarks about stones and folks in glasshouses spring to mind, along with eyes and motes . . . . . Cheers Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest ntc Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) Sorry Alec But his ad says it all. Run a mile. Edited November 18, 2015 by ntc Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Fremont Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 Shortly the performance difference between the two will matter as much as a tinker's damn ( in British parlance ) what with all-electric rockets whizzing past either variant as if it were backing up, and who knows; the one which came with that quaint stripe across the nose could even be preferable to some collectors . I'm not biased, of course but note only that the '250 badge covers more real estate on the bonnet... The ad does seem to come clean about it, but IMO it were better fitted with original '250 badging. Cheers, Tom Quote Link to post Share on other sites
marko Posted November 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 The note at the bottom of the advert declaring it as a TR250 was added after our correspondence. Unfortunately which ever way you look at it TR5's are currently worth considerably more than TR250's and where there is cash at stake evil prevails Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Don H. Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 ...who knows; the one which came with that quaint stripe across the nose could even be preferable to some collectors . I'm not biased, of course but note only that the '250 badge covers more real estate on the bonnet... Indeed. The nose stripe is cool. And there are some stonking hot Weber-carb'ed TR250s out there that I'd probably prefer to the reputedly fussy PI system. Don't the TR250 and TR5 badges occupy the same real estate, just one upside down compared to the other? Having lived in TR250-land, that's what I'd always assumed... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest ntc Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 £9k a fool and his money is soon parted,you can spot the faults and the DVLA would have registered it correctly over 20 years ago. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
oldtuckunder Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 Ok and only because I hate people being pedantic I buy a wreck of a TR5 with no engine and gearbox, and a rotten body and chassis but is has a V5. I source an engine from a 2.5 PI, I buy a load of ex TR4A or repro body panels, I buy a repro chassis, and an ex TR6 gearbox and I put the thing together with a whole bunch of new parts and trim. And everyone says "nice TR5" ? If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has the DNA of a duck, its probably a Swan? Interesting that according to How Many Left, there are about 600 TR5's on the database, an almost 50% survival rate? I suspect that there are more than a few TR5's out there that wouldn't get through over close scrutiny. <flame suit on> Alan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 There are lots of fake TR5s, let alone bitsas . . . . . . by the latter '70s you couldn't give TR5s away, not unless they were beautiful. Not that many survived intact. At 10 years or more old, the average 5 was a clapped-out well-rotted dog, and an awful lot were broken for parts. The drivetrain was a good donor for a high mile 2.5PI saloon, bearing in mind that the tintop monocoque lasted a damn sight better than the sportier cousin's body and chassis. The current obsession with TR5s I find amusing, and the comparison with the TR250 verges on the absurd at times. A TR250PI is a 5 in all but commission number . . . . . As for DVLA - no Neil, they wouldn't necessarily have registered it correctly, as I very well know from having had the opportunity to inspect correspondence re imported TRs in the past, apart from my own personal dealings with them. A law unto themselves, and just occasionally inconsistent and paradoxical. Cheers Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Don H. Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 ...At 10 years or more old, the average 5 was a clapped-out well-rotted dog, and an awful lot were broken for parts... This describes my TR250 exactly! I'm not comfortable with the TR Register sitting as judge, jury, and executioner on used cars. Let's say we come down hard on one bitsa and somehow forget another one? Is that fair? What objective standards do we set for originality/authenticity? I'd be more comfortable if we prepared a good "Buying a TR5" guide (or TR2, TR4, etc.). Any buyer who's dumb-ass eager to spend ten-plus thousand pounds on a car knowing virtually nothing about what makes it right or wrong is probably not going to be saved by our policing. The buyer who is interested in getting smarter would be better served by one of our buyer's guides than a simple thumbs up or thumbs down on any individual car. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ragtag Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 Interesting to compare Alex's contributions to the two threads about the same car. Regardless of what people here think, he is entitled to advertise it as a TR5 because that is what it is called on the V5. In my view, even before the additional statement that has been added, the seller provided more than sufficient information for any serious buyer to determine whether this car is really a TR5 or not and bid accordingly. I look at this car and see a 6 cylinder Michelotti Triumph. If I wanted one, I wouldn't care less about the engine number or chassis number if the price was right. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 Hi Chris, yes there is indeed a difference in tone between my posts on the two threads. The current ebay listing is somewhat clearer than the listing of last May, for a start. More to the point, during the past six months I've discussed this and other cars of mongrel (to a greater or lesser degree) ancestry with a number of TR characters of long standing. I'd like to think that the technical resources of the club were such that we might act as some form of authority when it comes to determining authenticity and/or provenance of specific TRs. Six months ago I still thought that way. I don't any longer . . . . . one of many reasons why I'm no longer associated with the technical side. For too many folks the value of cars, and their cars in particular, takes precedence over concepts of historical accuracy and authenticity. I've heard too much sanctimonious claptrap from owners whose own precious objects would not withstand close scrutiny. As all but one of my TRs over the years have been bitsas to at least some degree, and that one exception has subsequently been rebuilt to the extent that it's most certainly a bitsa now, then I don't have a financial motivation to claim unwarranted originality, provenance or whatever. As Chris correctly observes, the car for sale is a 6-pot Michelotti TR with PI. Which is about as much as one could reasonably say for many other cars with TR5 on their logbooks. Cheers Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
reg brg Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 As somebody who worked in the car town where triumphs were made The Tr5 is a prototype Tr6 to see if the engine was any good to put in the next generation of sports cars As for worth more than other Trs what a load of B--ll--ks How about that then ???? Waiting for the tirade Reg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
McMuttley Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 (edited) In my view, if the add is still as per the link on the first post, it goes to some specific effort to claim it is a TR5 (4 clear references in the title / first para alone) and makes no open attempt to say it started life as a TR250. The owner could have said that, but he doesn't; instead he is playing up '5' and deliberately withholding any reference to '250'. The phrase "It started life back in 1968 in America with twin carbs...." is, in the context of why he is pushing '5' so much (i.e., price and demand), deliberately / knowingly incomplete on a material fact and is arguably, lets say, unfair / misleading / whatever. Again he is relying upon this incomplete description not being recognised by an uninformed buyer. Not all classic car purchasers are experts (don't ask me how I know). Imagine an innocent non-expert buyer has a budget - he see's this car and thinks its nice - he does a bit of research on TR5 prices (because he is repeatedly told its a TR5) and thinks this may be a good value. He buys on trust, not on expertise, joins the TRR, only later to be beaten up by the likes on here and maybe finds out that it isn't worth what he paid for it - a price that he paid based upon the description given by the seller. The fact that the DVLA are wrong doesn't make it right for the seller to perpetuate a fact he knows to be likely to be misleading to an innocent buyer. .... and such a shame that the original speedo was missing and no documents whatsoever to help with mileage. Edited November 19, 2015 by McMuttley Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RogerH Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 Hi Reg, I'm with you. Roger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kevo_6 Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 (edited) Edit. Apollogies, Marko already said this in post 13. Edited November 19, 2015 by Kevo_6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Fremont Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 Indeed. The nose stripe is cool. And there are some stonking hot Weber-carb'ed TR250s out there that I'd probably prefer to the reputedly fussy PI system. Don't the TR250 and TR5 badges occupy the same real estate, just one upside down compared to the other? Having lived in TR250-land, that's what I'd always assumed... I'll take that as a plug for my driver ( Valley Girl ) - thanks Yes, the '250 badge is bigger than a 5's ( if size matters ). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.