Triumph TR5 Review

Announced on 3 October 1967, the TR5 PI was shown that month at the London Motor Show, at Earls Court. Motor Sport's report gave Triumph's claims for speed, power and torque and listed the new hood (soft top), the stiffer rear suspension and the larger brakes. Its editor, Bill Boddy, set it against the MGC, and held back: "I will reserve judgment, however, until I have driven both these cars." The magazine's "Matters of Moment" column, looking at the show's advertising, asked who would not wish to go motoring in a TR5 with the long-haired blonde of Triumph's advertisement. Motor described the car on 7 October, and Car in its October issue under the title "Boots and All Take No Notice of the Pictures: The TR5 Is All Male", but neither piece has been read.

Then came a wait. Motor Sport had meant to test the TR5 against the MGC, and in March 1968 it explained why it could not:

Most of the period tests are known only from indexes, chiefly the list of sources at the end of Severson's history, which names the pages on which R. M. Clarke's Brooklands Books collection reprinted them. Their figures survive in Wikipedia's article but in no test that has been read.

The Autocar test is known only from Chris Harvey, who dates it 4 April 1968 and records that Autocar was "very enthusiastic about the increase in performance". Two lines from Autosport and Car and Driver reach us through Moss Motoring in 2015, which quoted Autosport calling the TR5 "without doubt the best Triumph yet".⁠source 3​source 2​source 1​source 8​source 9​source 10

Motor Sport's is the one period test read here in full. Its test car, a soft-top TR5 PI in Valencia blue, arrived at the start of July 1968 for a fortnight, and its tester, D. C. N., covered 3,354 km (2,084 miles) in four days following the Gulf London Rally and then 1,252 km (778.1 miles) more.

He praised the hood, "one of the best of its type that I have seen … almost totally flap-free and extremely weather-proof", and the brakes, for which "moderate pedal pressure was all that was necessary for a most impressive stop". The engine was smooth, the Michelin XAS tyres held well in heavy rain, and the car was comfortable on long runs. The handling had an "inbuilt tendency towards understeer", though there was power enough to bring the tail round.

The rest he criticised. The dashboard was "a rather cheap-looking affair of dull-finished wood with a prominent join in the middle"; the dip switch was on the floor; the gearbox (transmission) seemed "stiff and notchy", though he allowed that "a difficult gearbox is half the fun"; the throttle was slightly sticky and the tickover failed; the poppers of the hood cover were brittle, the wipers missed a patch and lifted at speed, the horn and headlamp flasher gave trouble, grit got into the front brakes, and the boot (trunk) was small. Over the whole test the car returned 21.8 mpg (imperial). His verdict:

One tester's line on the ride survives in two books: Michael Richards and James Taylor both quote an unnamed test of the time, in which "the wheels tend to hop over any but the smoothest of surfaces".

The price D. C. N. gave in his verdict differs by tenpence from the one in the magazine's data panel, and the specifications give Triumph's prices. Within weeks the car was gone from the line, and at the London show that October Motor Sport asked: "Was it British Leyland policy which banished the sports Triumph TR5 to the "carriage work" section?" Its editor, Bill Boddy, reviewing his year in February 1969, had driven a TR5 only briefly: "I only covered a few miles in a Triumph TR5, on which a colleague commented fully and favourably."⁠source 1​source 11​source 12​source 13​source 14

Americans saw a different car, and the press was unimpressed:

A few period reviews, Severson adds, found the TR250 slower than the TR4A, probably because the lower-geared axle option of the TR4 had gone, except to special order, and the testers grumbled at "the overly familiar styling, dated body structure, and a suspension that still didn't seem quite sorted". Harvey found one exception: Road & Track, reporting in December 1967, was "not too upset" that America did not get the injected engine. Moss Motoring, in 2015, quoted Road & Track finding that the engine "could hardly run more sweetly", and Car and Driver putting the case against: "to pay an extra $500 for a nearly identical but slower car doesn't make much sense". The owners had the last word; their survey and their complaints about the sealed carburettors are on the TR250 page.⁠source 3​source 2​source 9