2002Tii VS Triumph Dolomite Sprint

[Armond]

Writer Jamie Kitman from Automobile Magazine April Edition does a head to head comparison between the car that made BMW and the car that should have made Triumph. He basically prefers the Triumph over the Tii of which he owns both. Here is a quick synopsis.

The Triumph looks better

It's Faster 16VSOCH 2.0L

It steers better

it's more luxurious

pick up a copy..its a good read.

[eastsidebimmer]

Better Yet, read it here!

http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/driven/1004_triumph_dolomite_sprint_vs_bmw_2002tii/index.html

[m-racer]

I lived in the UK for a number of years and have driven a couple of Dolomite Sprints. My impressions are quite different. Although they are neat little cars. the high roof line makes them look unbalaced in my opinion. While interesting, they are less purposeful in appearance than the 02. Beauty is in the they eye of the beholder and someone has to love the ugly girls. More lux, yes they are. Who cares? Want wood, cut down that hickory in your back yard. They are British which means that they rot even more rapidly than German cars of the period. I am a graduate of British cars and have had a lot of them (MGA twin cam, MG 1100, AH 100-6 and 3000 BJ7, XKE MK1, TR 250 and TR6). I moved on to (ITALIAN !!!!) Alfas because they were more reliable (if you can believe that), before I found 02's in 74. I would suggest that Kitman take both on a 5k roadtrip and see how he feels about it after the Triumph dies the first time it rains and after he had re-built the carbs in the parking lot of wherever he breaks down. By the way, Kitman has a penchant for odd cars and has never been a fan of our Marque. Always pisses me off that he ended up with a tii that nice.

[robsanab]

thanks, nice informative article, I enjoyed it...

I concede on most of his judgments (since I haven't driven one), however... and I'm trying to be unbiased about this... I don't see how it wins on looks. Maybe I'd have to take a close up look at one in real life. I looked through a batch of pictures of the Triumph, and I am a lover of the TR's, but there is some awkwardness in it that isn't present in the 2002. I do like it, it reminds me of an elegant Datsun 510... but even then, I like the 510 better due to it's simplicity. The interior, I don't see it either... 02 has better lines... it just flows better... even looks more comfortable. Hell, what's that bar going across the Dolomite at the knees... looks painful to me... even my girlfriend could wack her shin on it as she crosses her pretty legs, which she can do in my '02.

[gracer]

I tried several Brit. cars in the "sixtys", @ 6'6" none fit. When I test drove the 1602 I was sold. Looks be damned. I had found my sporty car. The bonus was the reliability and the performance and I fit. I had to move the seat back in my Ford and Merc. for comfort. All I had to do in the 1602 was remove the plastic stops on the seat tracks. I have had to reinforce the tracks to keep from bending them. G

[Benjamin A.R.]

I don't think the dolomite is faster. If the author wants to claim that it is, he should do a 1/4 mile, 0-60, set times on some stretch of curvy road, do a slalom course, and skidpad test just like all the good car reviewers do. In my opinion, he sounds like a sourpuss who's upset that the 2002 killed off the big British sports cars of the time. (if their poor build quality hadn't done that already)

[73touring]

In fairness the dolly sprint was a nice piece of kit. First 16 valve production car. Not as robust mechanically as a tii id say but possibly slightly quicker and my prefrence would be the 02 by a considerable bit. Not all british cars were bad. The Rover P6 was a NK killer both n refinement and performance the 2000tc with 125bhp and the buick derivied 3.5 was and is properly quick. The mini speaks for itself. Its also widely belived that BMW robbed their independent rear suspension off the Triumph.

[glemon]

I don't think the dolomite is faster. If the author wants to claim that it is, he should do a 1/4 mile, 0-60, set times on some stretch of curvy road, do a slalom course, and skidpad test just like all the good car reviewers do. In my opinion, he sounds like a sourpuss who's upset that the 2002 killed off the big British sports cars of the time. (if their poor build quality hadn't done that already)

While I don't totally disagree, I think a better way to compare is by looking at contemporary road tests, as it is hard to find 40 plus year old cars that perform as they did when they left the factory, poking around on the internet, the contemporary figures for 0-60 for the Triumph are quoted in the mid 8 second to low 9 second range.  Road and Track says 9.8 seconds for a 73 tii, found a couple other sites that don't list the source of the test, one says 9.9, the other 8.4.  Road and Track was somewhat conservative compared to other magazine's tests, so my best guess, based on this and similar displacements and power to weight ratios is that the acceleration was probably pretty much a wash, and which was faster would depend on the vagaries of production differences from car to car and the driver,

 

Looks are subjective, but I certainly think the 2002 looks better, the Triumph being pretty dumpy/nondescript/70s in style.

 

Probably shouldn't comment on the handling, haven't driven the Triumph (or a tii for that matter), one of the other test I read characterized the Triumph as VERY tailhappy, which I suppose can be fun, but that description, coupled with the solid rear axle, doesn't make it sound very smooth or sophisticated.

 

If you have never driven a car with the Laycock overdrive unit it is great fun (even though not a real efficient way to get a fifth gear) allowing a higher ratio in the top two or three gears with a flick of a switch, allowing for relaxed cruising and better MPGs, I would score that and the "what the hell is that?" factor when you take it to the local cars and coffee as the only clear wins for the TR.

[jrkoupe]

screw the article……..I love the comments here…….lol….m/racer rocks it.

 

 

 

many yrs ago……a british mag did the same comparo……I have it…..Ill find it.

 

 

 

 

I do see a bit of Cortina in it……

 

 

 

 

 

…..but I prefer the 02 for looks…no contest. It also reminds me a bit of an over styled japanese sedan of that era…..

 

 

 

 

Edited February 21, 2014 by jrkoupe

[SydneyTii]

The problem I have with the article is that its not comparing apples really.

 

He takes a euro import Sprint and compares it to a USA delivered Tii.

 

If he wanted a true comaprison he would compare the Sprint to a euro spec Tii, the one that Mike McCartney lists as low 8's to 60mph. In this respect the Tii is a much better car to compare. The Sprint is a lovely 70's car, but they have manay many faults, poor brakes, average suspension, etc but they do go well. The euro Tii is actually a touch quicker.

[Conserv]

An amazing revival of a four-year-old thread! Go for it!

Steve

[cda951]

As long as we are reviving an old thread.....

I found that story informative and interesting, as I didn't know much about the Dolomite before. It is a shame when a genuinely good idea is quashed by ineptitude at the top (see GM until recently).

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but if anyone is comparing car X to my favorites (Porsche 911 and BMW 2002), all one has to do is point to the racing provenance of each. That is something that cannot be argued with.

[73touring]

Like the mk2 escort! Again 02 is my hero but hard to argue with.

[Benjamin A.R.]

In fairness the dolly sprint was a nice piece of kit. First 16 valve production car. Not as robust mechanically as a tii id say but possibly slightly quicker and my prefrence would be the 02 by a considerable bit. Not all british cars were bad. The Rover P6 was a NK killer both n refinement and performance the 2000tc with 125bhp and the buick derivied 3.5 was and is properly quick. The mini speaks for itself. Its also widely belived that BMW robbed their independent rear suspension off the Triumph.

My sister owns a '72 mini, and let me tell you, that thing has been an absolute nightmare mechanically! My 2002 is faster, more practical/reliable, cost less than 1/4 the price, and yet somehow has just as much personality (which in my opinion is rare in German cars, especially modern ones). Minis are also VERY famous for flipping if they get into a slide. Just watch a few 70's Nurburgring races, damn things are flipping over like hamburger patties! The Dolly didn't come out until '72 versus '68 for the 2002, so how did BMW steal the rear suspension? Even if they did, the designs are different: the 2002 had semi trailing arm vs live axle and multi-link in the Triumph. Brit cars are okay, my list of favorite comparable cars has a couple British fords on it: the Mk.1 Ford Lotus Cortina and the Mk.1 Ford Escort RS1600. I'd still take a '69 BMW 2002ti Alpina over both. I don't really like the Dolly all that much, but not as much as I dislike the Datsun 510. There's the car to talk about if you want to talk about stealing designs! Someone mentioned racing and here's a great video that I just remembered from MPZRACEVIDEO, he's got some other great content to check out too!  

 

[73touring]

The TRs had independent rear suspension very close in design to the bm and proceeding it by quite a few years and this is the suspension I was referring to. On the mini note current prices for mins are a reflection of current demand and not the price at the time. I cant speak of other markets but a tii was the same price roughly as an e-type jag in Ireland. A mini was only about 500 pounds! I had a mk 3 mini 1983 last of the 10 inch wheels. Was a blast to drive on tight twisty roads. Was a low mileage car will about 20k on the clock. Had its faults. Leaky selector seals very bumpy ride ect and very buzy on the motorway at 80