I actually gulped for a second when I read the tip line for this car, “Beautiful 1973 Triumph GT6“. It’s a context issue, beautiful condition? Absolutely! Beautiful lines? Ah, let’s talk about it. I had forgotten about the GT6 until I saw this listing – out of sight and out of mind in my case, I guess. That being so, it seems that I need a GT6 education brush-up so let’s delve into this Triumph. It is located in Palm Desert, California and is available, here on eBay for a current bid of $17,900 with 33 bids tendered so far.
I think where I got hung up in my underwear is that I had forgotten about the GT6’s Spitfire origins. Assembled in Coventry, England between 1966 and 1973, the GT6 was built in three different iterations, Mark I, Mark II, and Mark III with a total build of about 40K copies. Being a 1973 model places our subject car in the Mark III category.
The seller states that this GT6’s condition is the result of a frame-off restoration performed by an experienced father/son team in 2016. The seller includes, “The paint is in really good condition, cleans up great. There’s no rust or bubbles but there is a knick that you can see in one of the linked photos (roof). Other than that, the work was a professional job and looks nice“. Yes, it does look nice and that shade of blue is just perfect. The immediate issue that catches my attention, however, is the front bumper/hood gap – something’s off. But that’s really the only noted exception. Fortunately, there is no sign of the dreaded tin worm, a malady that is so familiar to British cars of this era. The chrome, stainless trim, and argent-finished steel wheels are perfect. The “beautiful” issue is that old beauty being in the eye of the beholder business. The quarter windows, the extensive C-pillar extension, and their integration into the rear quarters is a bit “awkward” to my old eyes. It’s as if things were really going really well for the designer on the front half of the car but then started to come apart on the back half. Subjectively speaking, it’s that design balance that one subconsciously notices about a car that is consciously missing with the GT6. The seller mentions that this Triumph has encountered a “mini-slam” by lowering the car 1/4″.
Power is provided by a 79 HP, 2.0 liter, in-line four-six-cylinder engine. Short of the mention of the installation of a full, stainless steel, dual exhaust system, the seller has little to say about this GT6’s mechanicals. He does state, “Very fun driving experience, handles like a go-kart and will happily cruise down the highway…” The seller has provided a pair of videos to give prospective bidders a little idea of how this GT6 runs. Video 2 in particular, has captured the fantastic engine tone of the previously noted exhaust system. As is usually the case, a four-speed manual transmission puts the “go” to the rear wheels.
As for the interior, I’ll get to it quickly, it’s perfect. I don’t know how much more that I can add. Besides the visuals, the seller mentions that a retro head unit, and speakers, with Bluetooth capability, have been installed but no physical cuts or alterations to the interior were made. The carpet, upholstery, dash, and instrument panel need no attention.
I’d rate the beautiful restoration that this Triumph has experienced as “spectacular” – now if I could only get over the GT6’s visuals… What do you think, am I being too hard on this car’s lines; do you like it, dislike it, or are you indifferent?
Like you said, beautiful car… but the engine is a 6 cylinder. About as good of a design as you’d want in any car. Doesn’t have an angle that doesn’t look good.
Talk about slow on the uptake, I even noticed the SIX sparkplug leads for the GT SIX, and still wrote four, sheesh!
Thx, fixed.
JO
No problem… everything is slower these days. Nice write up.
Gorgeous lines (IMO)!
I like the lines of these,but think they look better
with the back panel painted a semi-black.
Poor man’s XKE.f
I got stuffed into a ditch by a pal lifting mid-corner in an older one of these. I still like them, though!
I always loved the look of the Mark I, but they blew it with the remodeling of the rear on these later additions. That being said, I personally love the front and the roofline; as someone else stated a poor mans XKE. I had two different friends in high school who owned Mark I models, and in the insanity of youth allowed me to occasionally borrow them. They were an absolute blast to drive!
I actually prefer that back of the newer ones.
They do not rust like the spitfire because they have no convertible top to leak. Very fun cars and can be very quick with some tweaking. I have one and it is waiting for a new engine using the 8000 rpm billet crank I had made.
8000rpm – wow! Any idea how much that’ll improve performance vs. stock?
What’s the stock redline?
Quick indeed. One held the track lap record for it’s class at Mid-Ohio for several years.
I bought a ’69 GT6 plus after scraping up the $600 back in “81. Once I got into it, I never had so much fun. My British wife felt right at home in this far too small for me car. Had to replace the tranny once, took it out on my lap while sitting in the passengers seat. Painted the car bright red and had a blast with it. But I do not miss those Stromberg carbs.
Sold new for about $3200.00. Money sure has changed! It costs at least 30 grand to do this by yourself- and a ton more if totally sublet. Another English car- Labor of Love being given away. No wonder 33 bids. Keep it- Drive it- Enjoy.
Known in the UK as the poor man’s e type
Not to be rude Jim, but don’t forget that the front end lifts forward at two hinge points. It could be that they overlooked some sagging in the assembly during rework – which given the quality and look of their work is hard to understand. Closer inspection might reveal what can be done to correct this.
matt
Great cars to work on. Pop the hood. Sit on the tire and everything is there to work on. Beautiful example. Glad to see the price climbing.
Martin… don’t remember if the 6 block has 360 degree thrust bearings or not but the 4 cyilinders don’t. If you don’t, machine the upper half of the main bearing area and put two more in.
My cousin had a newish TR6 needed some cash and traded into a GT6. I thought it was great but he thought the design was a bit unhappy. I think the similarity to the Spitfire was a bother. In NZ ours came with 100hp, plus the independent rear sp probably a better drive than the contemporary MGB GT.
How does one do a “ frame off” restoration? Lift the car up in the air with a strap and drop out the frame?
I believe the term is “ body off”, as that makes much more sense. JMO-
Except there is no frame on a GT6
Looking at the E-Bay pictures it sure appears that there is a frame.
Not true. Body on frame. Not unibody.
There IS a frame on a GT6.
The Mark II had 104hp. The Mark III got strangled by emissions controls.
I had a Spitfire when I was a teen. It was a blast. I like the look of the coupe too.
Ended:Mar 21, 2021 , 5:49PM
Winning bid:US $25,077.00[ 65 bids ]
I had a ’72, way back when, with the real IRS instead of the swing spring. Mine was a non-O/D car that I installed O/D. If you know what you’re doing and have the access to it, you can put the 2.5 TR-6 engine in the car. You need to modify the pan to clear the front two rods, get the right intake to match the head with the 1 3/4 carbs, and use the rear plate, flywheel, & clutch. Talk about a sleeper! At least it was back in the day. I had a lot of fun with that car! And yes, they are a full frame car. I always wanted to use a MkIII GT-6 hood & chassis and throw a convertible tub on the frame but I never got ’round to it. Oh, and those hood to bumper clearances are infinitely adjustable so that you can *never* get it quite right!
I find the upside down C2/C3 Corvette rear suspension interesting. Quarter window C pillar ugliness probably a nod to headroom.
The ’67-’68 MkI GT-6 cars and the late production ’73 MkIIIs had a similar suspension to the ‘Vette although it was a true swing axle, but the ’69-’72 cars had a genuine IRS.