Triumph GT6 in real life?

[XG332]

I have fancied something old and intersting since i started driving. I have looked at a few classics on the web but then i spotted a Triumph GT6 in a petrol station next to me. And instantly loved it.
They seems very well priced, insurance isnt ridiculous for my age (18) and they seem like something ok to work on.

But what are they actualy like?
Anybody had one?

[al1991]

Based on that picture alone, you should definitely get one

[Wacky Racer]

Very easy to work on, especially the six cylinder two litre lump, because of superb access with the forward hinging bonnet, just beware of the dreaded rust bug, even the newest examples are around thirty years old now.

Plenty of info on the web...look before you leap.

Lovely classic cars....

[kambites]

Crude and slow by modern standards, as you'd expect. They make a nice noise though, and are great fun.

They're mechanically fairly simple so the biggest problem is likely to be rust. Lots of rust.

[Chris71]

A reputation for somewhat wayward handling I believe? Could be fun...

What I do know is that Triumph bits are fairly plentiful. There's a company called Rimmer Brothers that'll supply just about everything you need to build a whole new Spitfire (or, I suspect, a GT6) so you don't need to worry about spares in the way you would with some classics.

Like you say, you can't beat classic car insurance at a young age, which is a major plus (I speak from experience picking up my first kit car at 19 and classic at 21...) You'll struggle to insure anything modern and fun.

If you're prepared for the extra commitment a classic will take to maintain and you're fairly sensible behind the wheel (with RWD, no traction control/ABS etc.) then I'd say 100% go for it.

[XG332]

Looks like my new camera will have to wait.

[matt12023]

I had one as my daily driver for 2 years, when i was 23/4 , great car, obviously gorgeous
, parts are really easy to get hold of from rimmers or canley classics. only let me down once when the lead from battery to starter rubbed and shorted on the body, but that was just some rubbish diy by a bodge monkey. other then that it was excellent

do it, do it now

[Parrot of Doom]

What a beautiful little car. Did they do a soft-top?

[XG332]

Parrot of Doom said:

What a beautiful little car. Did they do a soft-top?

Yes they did, they are a little bit harder to find. A spitfire would look closest.

[eldar]

Handling can be interesting, odd bit of unexpected oversteer. Simple but quirky electrics. Rust can be a major problem.

The engine is good, reliable and smooth if not particularly powerful. It can be uprated to 2.5l, and an overdrive unit can be fitted to give 6 or 7 gears.

All in all one of the better cars of its time.

[Hammer67]

My old Mk2. Draughty, rattly, creaky and cramped. Hot, smelly and unreliable. Great engine and easy to work on (unless you have to do anything inside the cabin). Good ones now are IMO overpriced as demand is strong especially for tax free cars. Buy carefully as there are lots of sheds masquerading as summer houses about.

[carl_w]

Mk2 definitely looks better, Mk3 they put that awful corporate Triumph 2500/Stag rear end on.

Would be great if you could drop a BMW straight 6 in, the 3.0 should suffice. Would probably need substantial work on the suspension and brakes though!

[kambites]

I think each revision had completely different rear suspension, so they will drive very differently?

[saaby93]

XG332 said:

Parrot of Doom said:

What a beautiful little car. Did they do a soft-top?

Yes they did, they are a little bit harder to find. A spitfire would look closest.

Oh no they didnt ( pantomime mode)
Although over the years either a GT6 bonnet has been fitted to a spit or a spit rear body to a GT6
2.5PI lump is pretty quick

[kambites]

Convertibles are all after-market, although I don't think it was a hard conversion given that the GT6 was basically a spitfire.

[Mighty Flex]

my friend has one, there is always somthing wrong with it, but it is a lovely car when the important things work.

[Hammer67]

kambites said:

I think each revision had completely different rear suspension, so they will drive very differently?

Yep thats pretty much correct. Mark 1 had swing axle, needs respect same as my Mark 1 Vitesse. Mark 2/early Mark 3 had rotoflex same as Mark 2 Vitesse. Later Mark 3 had IIRC a swing spring set up. TBH all of them are ancient designs now and the 2 litre engine can easily overcome the grip levels so its arse out fun/end swappage all the way.

[matt12023]

it was bloody twitchy in the wet, short car, skinny skinny tyres amusing though

go for the best body condition you can though, mechanical stuff is easy to tinker with, rust is just heart breaking and the reason my car after it was a chimeara at least the rust is hidden from view on those : p

[Spitfire2]

Don't think anyone's mentioned the heat yet ...... can be like a mobile sauna with the engine/exhaust and gearbox heat.

A few of the GT6 drivers I know wear shorts for long drives.

I'd have one in a minute mind - and my vote is for the Mk 3 square-tail shape per the OPs picture.

As others have said - regular tinkering is to be expected.

D

[Twincam16]

saaby93 said:

XG332 said:

Parrot of Doom said:

What a beautiful little car. Did they do a soft-top?

Yes they did, they are a little bit harder to find. A spitfire would look closest.

Oh no they didnt ( pantomime mode)
Although over the years either a GT6 bonnet has been fitted to a spit or a spit rear body to a GT6
2.5PI lump is pretty quick

Hmmm. I didn't think they did either, until I happened upon a 'GT6' roadster (badged as such) owned by a bloke living in my neighbourhood.

Could be a GT6-engined Spitfire, could be a genuine ultra-rare GT6 roadster that was never marketed (could happen - witness the factory-built TR7 Sprints), I just don't know.