Jump to content

PHP727 "factory hard top "complete with Le Mans style identification lights"?


Recommended Posts

The next time i buy i car, i'm posting the advert on here first.

 

The next time i get married i'm posting the wife on here first !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

 

Well I know that both the man who owns this car now (i.e. me!), the man who restored it in the early 1970's (a well know TR Register member) and at least one of the previous owners (from the 80's) have read this thread and are pretty astonished by particularly one line of these posts.

 

As far as I'm aware and having discussed it with all of the above before I bought it from Nick Whale, this is indeed the 1955 press car without any doubt and it was indeed restored using all sorts of parts for a number of sources (as in fact all of us do now, just with more success), including the very first set of wings and rear valance that C&B sold and including some used parts from another less rotten car (reputedly a 57 TR3) when very few new parts were available. Those of you who were around in the 1970's will recall that these cars were worth very little and it was very difficult to get anything, particularly bodywork for a sidescreen TR and nor was it financially viable to do so. I wasn't, so Im relaying what's been told to me by some of our founder members - at least three of which know this particular car well and were around when it was being restored.

 

Most importantly the car you see now was always PHP 727 and always will be. No amount of restoration can change that. I should add that I have been through this car from top to bottom and whilst I have not replaced all the "incorrect parts" as some of you so kindly point out, I do know EXACTLY what is original on the car and what is not, right down to the let in steel in the bottom of the original bulkhead where the new floors were welded in / old bits repaired. As with most cars of this age much of it has been renewed, replaced or restored, but that doesn't make it a 'replica' - it makes it restored! and in the same vein it cant be 'original', which I think is entirely a misused word in this context. Make no mistake, the car is not how in was built in 1955.

 

A few here have therefore made some comments which are only partially correct (particularly in respect of the above) or completely factually incorrect (in relation to some very significant matters), so I would respectfully suggest that those who have done so step back and consider that. For those of you who want to disagree, please come and have a look and be educated. Come round to my house and we can have a session under the car, see it for sure. I promise not to harm you.

 

I'm also happy to get out the 'history' file and the various bits and pieces that I gathered prior to buying the far which sets out who owned this car, who restored it, what they did (and used to do so) and where it has been so that you can be clear that it has been around a long time (ie it is not a recently created car as one poster has inferred) - I should say that the previous owners of this car, right back to the 60's, have been incredibly generous with their time and it has been quite rewarding to plot the history of a TR2 over 60 years of ownership, including a point when most like it would have been scrapped and where PHP 727 was only saved BECAUSE it was the 1955 press car. I believe that one particular TR Register member has considerable knowledge and expertise on the sidescreen cars was present at that time and actually pointed this out to the then owner - and this is a man who's opinion I certainly was happy to take.

 

If someone wants to send me a list of things that they consider 'wrong' with my car, apart from the colour, the rally bits, the quick engine, the uprated overdrive gearbox, the comfy seats, the better suspension, the better wire wheels, the steering that works properly, the bonnet that stays locked at high speed, the hole where the Halda and 8 Day Clock go etc etc please do give me a call.

 

Regards

 

Tony

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Tony. To return to the original intent of the thread, it would be appreciated to get your thoughts on the hard top "with le Mans style identification lights". We're guessing that refers to the Lucas rallye spotlight on the roof?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Don

 

Firstly, not my description so I'm interpreting too, but I think that this refers to the spotlights on the front.

 

Secondly, the rooflight was on the hardtop when I bought the car (and I'm told added by a previous owner in the 1980's. It is the early plastic handle type, not the later RMS 576 as used on the apple green TR3a's etc (and at least one of the VC TR4's after it left factory ownership and went rallying in the USA). I'm not aware of these being used when racing, but happy to be corrected.

 

I added the spot and fog lamp set for night rallying as the headlights don't give sufficient light for tired eyes, even with better wiring, earthing and decent bulbs. Again these lamps are the slightly later / better type SLR / SFT 700 S and converted to run H1 bulbs rather than the old BPF style. I believe that the racers of the 50's used the flat lense type and later some were modified to take an H4 bulb ? but this required a dish in the casing to accommodate the length of the bulb. You'll see this on the BMC cars particularly.

 

Regards

 

Tony

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gents,

It has been pointed out that some of my comments on this car could be construed as suggesting the car has been "ringed" or there is some other sort of impropriety has taken place.

 

 

For the sake of clarity I unequivically refute any suggestion that this car is anything other than stated.

 

 

My concern was more about the value that the cars are now worth and that it makes them possible targets.

I hope this clarifies the situation for all.

 

Please note that I have removed my posts in relation this car and state that at no time were any of them meant cause harm, nor detract from what is still a very nice car.

Edited by Rodbr
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware that my old mate Tony is now the owner of this car - not that the owner's identity is likely to influence my observations in the slightest, not one way or t'other..

 

So, is the description in the Nick Whale advertisement, as quoted below, correct or not ?

 

" This is a faithful reproduction of the the Triumph Motor Company Press Car from 1955 built by TR recognised expert, Mike Hazlewood. Mike bought the original car in 1975 but sadly found that the car was totally beyond restoration and thus set about painstakingly recreating the original car as accurately as possible using a 1957 TR3A as a base chassis and body. He utilised as many of the original parts as possible, including the original windscreen frame, instrumentation and doors. This painstaking process took over 7 years to complete and is a total credit to his expertise and specialist knowledge. It still has today the correct original chassis plate and chassis number and of course the famous factory registration number too ."

 

If this is factually correct, then it is beyond my ken to reconcile the fact of a replacement chassis and body with Tony's assertion

 

" Most importantly the car you see now was always PHP 727 and always will be. No amount of restoration can change that."

 

The current DVLA regulations, for example, would not permit retention of the PHP 727 registration number if the original chassis had been replaced by A N Other secondhand unit . . . . if sufficient additional components belonging to the replacement chassis were incorporated then the car could utilise the later registration number of the donor car, alternatively a Q plate.

 

This is not just splitting hairs in terms of DVLA rules though.

 

The FIVA and FIA can offer some pretty rigorous interpretations of what does and does not constitute 'originality' and acceptability in terms of eligibility for historic competition. Restoration work can and most certainly does influence their decisions.

 

Consider the 1980 TR8 Turbo Le Mans by way of comparison. Built by Janspeed and ADA engineering 1977-80, the car passed from ADA to Peter Nott in 1985 after its brief competition career had come to a close. Peter kept the car nearly 20 years before selling it to Bert Smeets, who restored the car. Its complete ownership history and provenance is detailed and unarguable.

 

The original Janspeed wings dating back to 1978 were replaced for the 1980 Le Mans race with detachable items, wings changed again later that year, and amended again for the 1982 season - as was the front spoiler. Bert restored the car to its final specification as purchased.

 

The original 1978 Janspeed wings and the 1980 Le Mans front spoiler were utilised by Peter Nott when he and Philip Eaves created the TR8 Drag Car bodyshell in the early 1990s, and still remain on that car, now owned by my wife. The Drag Car had just the one intermediate owner, Paul Brackley, between its creators and my wife's purchase.

 

No ifs, no buts, no grey areas.

 

Nevertheless, when Bert tried to obtain FIA papers for the car, the relevant committee took exception to the wings and spoiler profile, and questioned the originality of the entire car as a consequence - notwithstanding the fact of complete known documented history of both the Le Mans Car and the Drag Car. Unsurprising that Bert (and yours truly for that matter) lost patience with the authorities, and that the car has never raced since its restoration.

 

Returning to sidescreen cars of significance. I am well aware of the difficulties involved in 1970s restorations, as is every other TR enthusiast who was involved with the cars back then. New parts were hard to come by, there was no internet to assist us, and value of the cars was a lot less than the cost of restoration. Then as now, restoration involved shades of grey, at what point did/does a restoration become a recreation, for example ?

 

There are precious few relatively original unrestored 1950s TRs around, or cars of any other 1950s marque for that matter. That such cars are preserved, and distinguished from restored examples, would appear to a matter of very considerable priority to FIVA and therefore by implication to our own FBHVC as our national component of the international body.

 

I suggest that it does matter that the dwindling few 'original' survivors are clearly distinguished as such.

 

I suggest that it does matter that 'restored' cars are clearly differentiated from 'recreated' cars.

 

I suggest that 'tribute' cars are in a category of their own, quite separate from 'recreated' and 'restored', let alone 'original' cars.

 

Yes, I quite accept that such concentration on historical accuracy is unlikely to necessarily sit comfortably with the reselling and investment industry that has grown up " in a world of Classic Cars where discerning Buyers are mindful of future Values " . . . . .

 

But then, what else is the TR Register for if not to accurately and faithfully record the good, the bad, and the ugly - " to preserve the marque TR ".

 

If memory serves me well, that is more or less the reason why we came together in the first place ?

 

Discuss.

 

Cheers

 

Alec

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alec

 

To answer this one quickly, the Nick Whale article is a combination of fact and fiction, concocted by a seller who, to my mind, couldn't tell any one TR2 from another. I was told at the time that this 'advert' was hastily drafted against the background of a 'legal issue' with another car sold by the same company, to reflect a face to face conversation with the individual who restored the car and who pulled them up on putting the car forward as 'in as it left the factory' condition, which is obviously rubbish. Originally it was advertised as such, and fairly enough it was challenged. It's even a different colour! And it's got a hardtop ... It even had an LSD for a while. Understanding the full facts here is important!

 

The statements that I have made are based on talking to this same man who was very honest with me and told me as much as he remembered as we stood together at Stoneleigh, followed by me getting under the car to confirm what I had been told, learning much more in the process and talking to others who owned it before me - nothing more, nothing less. It's a very nice car, but it was completely restored over 30 years ago, not recreated and after 30 years of continuous use a lot more has been done since. No surprise then that its not 'original' nor would I have it that way, as you well know.

 

The 'triggers broom' analogy is applicable to many TR's and this one is no different, but it has an honest story and continuous history which needs to told. That story included a big restoration a long time ago by a proper guy whom some of us know. No one should have any doubt or difficulty with this.

 

Regards

 

Tony

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a fair discussion, but only if we know what is actually left of the original car. From the Whale advert, that would be the windscreen frame, the instruments, the doors, the registration number, the chassis plate and the chassis number. From Tony's comments above, it would also include at least part of the bulkhead. Is that all? Also, I have always been told the speedometer from the 54 TR-2 run had a period after the "M" the "P" and the "H", so it reads "M.P.H." The current advert shows the speedometer without these periods. Are those instruments replacements, were the faces redone, or am I simply wrong on this point? I agree with Tony that a comprehensive documentation of the car's evolution over time is a valuable resource, especially if it started out as a press car. But I have to agree also with Alec that the current advert is a bit optimistic, depending on what is actually left of the original car. Of course, no one can question that this fine car must be a joy to own and drive, and worth a pretty penny as well.

 

Dan

Edited by 2long
Link to post
Share on other sites

Credit where it's due Bill, there must be more than a few interesting TRs which owe their survival, restoration or even recreation to your past diligent researching and alerting owners to what they actually had, whether as cars or merely the mortal remains thereof.

 

Tony and I enjoyed a lengthy 'phone discussion about his car this evening, it's invariably informative to catch up on the history of a car one has not seen for quite some years. I can appreciate the reasoning behind the cautiously pessimistic description offered by Nick Whale a few years back. It still doesn't seem entirely clear whether one might correctly term PHP 727 as more of restoration or a recreation. A dilemma that applies to many a car restored in the 70s and 80s, of course. I think Tony and I are in agreement that his dealer's description offers scope for clarification and improvement.

 

As ever, quite how one describes someone else's pride and joy is a sensitive area . . . . I'm well aware that Rod meant no personal offence by his energetic comments, now voluntarily edited out by Rod at Tony's suggestion.

 

Classic car dealers are professional retailers, they take a substantial commission from cars sold on consignment, and I would suggest it behoves them to make every effort to dig below the surface and present as accurate a description of their wares as can reasonably be achieved. It isn't always best practice to simply accept an owner's assertions at face value. Some dealers succeed in this respect, others demonstrate the capability of improvement.

 

Marque clubs in general, and indeed the FBHVC, might play their part here in more clearly defining and distinguishing between the original, restored, recreated and tribute car categories - as I would term them.

 

A topic for constructive discussion, even if something of a nettle to grasp.

 

Cheers

 

Alec

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony - You invited helpful comments from members as to other items which may not be "as original".

 

The photos in both adverts show that the wiper assembly comes from a sidescreen TR with a much later TS number than the original car which left the factory.

 

Cheers

 

Don Elliott

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Don

 

Thanks - I changed that over, and in fact it got very close to having a later DR3a 2 speed and also a very rare DR1 2 speed for rallying in the rain ! Those really aren't great!

 

Regards

 

Tony

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they're not very wonderful are they . . . . but better than wiping the screen with a cut potato !!

 

As a matter of interest, was the DR1 ever a TR fitment, as OE or optional extra ?

 

I'm familiar with the CRT on TR2 and earlier 3s, then the DR3 in one form or another, but not DR1 or DR2 for that matter.

 

They can be made to fit, I recall fitting a DR1 two speed from a scrap XK Jag long ago, although the wheel had to be changed.

 

Cheers

 

Alec

Link to post
Share on other sites

Far as I know CRT was the first single speed wiper motor. It was replaced at TS12568 by the DR2 single speed wiper with self parking, which moved to the opposite side of the firewall. While fitted to sidescreen cars, DR2 was continuously upgraded comprising of four different Lucas part numbers.

 

DR1 was the first optional 2 speed wiper motor. From TS12568 when the wiper motor swapped sides, DR3 became the optional 2 speed wiper.

..

Viv.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Standard-Triumph accessories brochure from September 1956 shows dual speed wipers as an upgrade to the TR series using part number 501843. My S-T to Lucas part number cross-reference doesn't show details for exactly which Lucas motor it was at the time.

 

Standard-Triumph%20Accessories%201956%20Standard-Triumph%20Accessories%201956%20

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Standard-Triumph accessories brochure from September 1956 shows dual speed wipers as an upgrade to the TR series using part number 501843. My S-T to Lucas part number cross-reference doesn't show details for exactly which Lucas motor it was at the time.

 

Standard-Triumph%20Accessories%201956%20Standard-Triumph%20Accessories%201956%20

 

Don, there are two obscure references to the 501843 optional dual speed wiper. It's been quoted as the first optional 2 speed wiper up to TS994 when the spindle spacing was widened, after which 501956 became the optional 2 speed wiper. Neither part appears in the factory spares manual and it's unclear whether the motor was changed at TS994 or only the rack and casing tubes. Some changes only applied to US spec cars, so the fine detail seems lost in time.

 

Viv.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

PHP 727 had a DR1 in it when the car arrived with me, which is a higher quality LUCAS 2 speed of the early to mid 50s as the xk jaguars used. I took this out as the commutator was knackered and I couldn't get another one at the time, so I suspect that this was the OE updated version as I have seen a DR1 in a few other early TR's.

 

The general tale with LUCAS wiper motors in my experience is the that the later, the better. This is why I run the late TR6 / current land rover type in my rally TR4, firstly because it works better, secondly because they don't tend to fail easily and thirdly because they are £50 new !

 

More 'originality' discussion ensues .....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to know that my little TR2 ( PHP 727 ) I bought off a student at B'Ham University in

1975 for £60.00 is causing so much interest. Oh, those were the days!!. My initial reason for buying an early TR ( sidescreen ) at the time was to become a full member of the TR register rather than being just an associate member with my

TR4a ( PRL i44G )

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike

 

You'll be interested to know that he sent me a picture of the car in 1967, painted Healey Ice Blue (at least 3 shades from the look of it) !! So you chose the colour well .... Much nicer.

 

Regards

 

Tony

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please familiarise yourself with our Terms and Conditions. By using this site, you agree to the following: Terms of Use.