Oh Dear! TR250 Pretending to be a TR5!

[marko]

"so they bunged it into a 4A body and badged it as a 5"

 

This is not entirely true Roger, in fact the inner body is much closer to a TR6 than a TR4A...

 

There are quite a lot of differences between the TR4A and TR5

 

As they say a little bit of knowledge...........

[RogerH]

Hi Marko,

I was generalising.

 

Roger

[Don H.]

I understood exactly what you meant, Roger, and I agree with that generalization.

 

But then, I don't sweat the esoteric details between TR3, TR3A, and TR3B with those kind folks who show interest in my car out-and-about. I say it's a TR3 to them -- it makes things simpler and matches the head badge.

[foster461]

I understood exactly what you meant, Roger, and I agree with that generalization.

 

But then, I don't sweat the esoteric details between TR3, TR3A, and TR3B with those kind folks who show interest in my car out-and-about. I say it's a TR3 to them -- it makes things simpler and matches the head badge.

 

.. and the commission plate. They were all TR3's to Triumph, everything else was made up to make discussing the different versions easier. One could argue that the pre and post 60K TR3A's should have had their own designation so we would have a TR3, 3A, 3B and a 3C.

 

Stan

 

Stan

[marko]

I once owned a TR5A - Yes really - It was a TR5 engine, running gear, engine and logbook but the body was clearly from a TR4A (different front inner wings, different B Posts, different grille, front panel and lots of other little differences).

 

Although I advertised it as a TR5A "Bitsa" on Ebay the guy that bought it said "that's what happened in the 70's when they were worth 3/5th's of Fxxk all...!!

 

You can't beat a good ole forum mass debate!

[Guest ntc]

Rememberer it well Mark

[Mart O]

What are the differences between a 5 and a 250 apart from:

RHD, LHD

PI, Strombergs

Badges

....?

[Alec Pringle]

It's a very lengthy list, which is why anyone looking to purchase a TR5 would be well advised to pay for an inspection by one of the professionals who can spot a pukka 5 from a reworked whatever - and there are a LOT of reworked whatevers out there, and sporting TR5 badges and logbooks . . . . .

 

I've been asked for detail chapter and verse on several occasions, and politely declined to answer . . . . simply because I don't wish to encourage fraudsters faking TR5s.

 

If you don't know enough already to be able to tell a real TR5 from a bitsa, a list of nominal differences isn't going to be sufficient education to assist you adequately, but it would assist the unscrupulous.

 

Cheers

 

Alec.

[Tom Fremont]

I submit that the difference that matters is solitary: pedigree. It takes lots of changes to make a TR5 not a TR5 - switching to Webers for example doesn't make it " not a TR5 ". Similarly, a TR250 will remain that and never " be " a TR5.

Now that that's out of the way, the only reason I'd want a TR5 is...for the pedigree. For the driving experience, whether it's a TR5 spec'd TR250 or a TR5 makes no difference and ( for the time being ) for those who prefer LHD the 250 is a far better value that way.



Cheers,
Tom

[Jon R]

On 11/18/2015 at 8:08 PM, Alec Pringle said:

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

I can confirm that even now DVLA do not recognise TR 250 as a Triumph model. After a fairly lengthy discussion which included the idea of TR 5 being designated I have ended up with my 250 being listed, after a 2nd attempt, as Make (Not Model) Triumph 250. The first V5c just said Triumph, and the model was blank. The chap at DVLA on my second attempt suggested TR5 as it was as close as he could get on the UK register !   I said no, as this would produce the above controversy, so the model is still blank. This is worth knowing this as I suspect alot of TR 250s have come  back to UK and been designated as TR5 simply because DVLA do not have TR250 as a Triumph model on their system. I will add that DVLAs incompetence also listed my car as 1967 despite the factory document supplied showing it as 1968. DVLA are probably the main issue here, and despite the 'ping pong' of TR5 v 250 the original chassis plate number should prove everything despite what the paper work says.

[rcreweread]

37 minutes ago, Jon R said:

I can confirm that even now DVLA do not recognise TR 250 as a Triumph model. After a fairly lengthy discussion which included the idea of TR 5 being designated I have ended up with my 250 being listed, after a 2nd attempt, as Make (Not Model) Triumph 250. The first V5c just said Triumph, and the model was blank. The chap at DVLA on my second attempt suggested TR5 as it was as close as he could get on the UK register !   I said no, as this would produce the above controversy, so the model is still blank. This is worth knowing this as I suspect alot of TR 250s have come  back to UK and been designated as TR5 simply because DVLA do not have TR250 as a Triumph model on their system. I will add that DVLAs incompetence also listed my car as 1967 despite the factory document supplied showing it as 1968. DVLA are probably the main issue here, and despite the 'ping pong' of TR5 v 250 the original chassis plate number should prove everything despite what the paper work says.

Forgive me for being stupid, but why can't DVLA create a new model category of TR 250 to resolve this ridiculous problem - their IT systems must be able to do this to cater for all new models being produced currently - how can they possibly justify recording false information

Beggars belief

Cheers Rich

[ntc]

It’s called buyer beware only a fool would not check the vin number and conversion from lhd 

[Tim T]

Out of interest, when I read that there very approximately 500 or so 5s left in the UK would that include 250s then? I assume that all the 'how many are left' searches on the internet glean their information from DVLA.

How many of each TR are currently registered with the Register, is that a published stat?

Cheers,

Tim

 

[Motorsport Mickey]

“How many of each TR are currently registered with the Register, is that a published stat?”

” There be dragons here”

I fear that some owners of TR5s might find they actually own 2 or 3 different cars not all of them originating from a TR5 !  In most cases entirely innocently, but never the less, this area of contentious debate could find a number of them many thousands of pounds the wrong side of what the car is worth once it’s identity is proven.
There’s a world of difference between a car with a replacement panel from a different model, used for a repair back in the 1970s, because no other was available, and a deliberate fudge to claim a car is something it isn’t. We all are aware of the many Mini Coopers and Ford Lotus Cortina’s never mind Type 35 Bugatti’s which exceed the numbers actually built by quite a few.

As a normal TR owner “ unknowing” to the considerable detailed changes,  between 4a/5/6 I would certainly pay an expert to help confirm the actual model of a car I wished to buy.

Mick Richards

 

[Phil Read]

My 250 is simply registered as TRIUMPH on the V5c, no model.

[Andy Moltu]

I guess a Heritage certificate might be something to seek if looking for a 5?

Of course it won't identify those cars that have been built around a log book rather than a restored chassis.

A bit too tempting to buy a 250 (or even a suitably modified 4A if you are that way inclined) and aquire the log book of a dead 5.  Convert to RHD and bolt on the PI kit.

The DVLA will assume its been off the road for years unless for some reason they knew it had been crushed. All you need is an old photo with reg number, check the MOT & Tax status on line. Then apply to the DVLA. If it died in the early 70s its previous owners may well be residing inside the pearly gates to and there is a significant chance a bitza has been legitimised. The number of the engine might get updated at the DVLA to the new on without incurring a Q plate.

Then it gets flogged on at TR5 prices to an unsuspecting punter who doesn't know the nuances that differentiate between a 250, a 4A with a 2.5 engine and the real deal.  

You could argue that many/most TRs are bitzas as few if any have their original panel sets. Perhaps a rebuilt chassis or an exchange one. An exchange diff and gearbox.....

The difference is that a restoration of a car is just that rather than creating a replica car that never existed back in the day. Nothing wrong with replicas so long as they don't pretend they are the real deal.

[ntc]

I know for fact that some dealers have sold log books in the past for silly money as I said never buy without taking advice from someone who knows what they are looking at 

[Stagpowered]

On 4/30/2023 at 10:27 AM, Phil Read said:

My 250 is simply registered as TRIUMPH on the V5c, no model.

Just been to look at my V5c and it also states  just Triumph with no model. Obviously been a problem for years as mine was first registered 18/5/93 having bought it the previous year. I used to work a lot faster in those days, full restoration in 9 months!

[Nigel A]

This is how mine appears

Nigel

 

[Phil Read]

XYY must be a number saved for these cars. Mine is XYY332F

[stuart]

57 minutes ago, Phil Read said:

XYY must be a number saved for these cars. Mine is XYY332F

Its from the unused original series of registration numbers that are slowly being used up as age related non transferable plates now theyve used up all the Scottish ones they used to use.

Stuart.