The Triumph TR7 was a wedge-shaped sports car introduced in the mid-1970s. Powered by a 4-cylinder engine, it was joined in 1978 by the TR8, which essentially was the same car but with a V8 powerplant supplied by Rover Cars. The TR8 sold in smaller numbers and was discontinued in 1981 along with its less-powerful cousin. Located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, this nice runner is available here on eBay for $8,500 OBO.
As with the TR7, most of the estimated 2,750 TR8s were sold in North America. Since both Triumph and Rover were owned by British Leyland, sourcing hardware for the TR8 was easy. Based on the 215 cubic-inch Buick V8 from the early 1960s, the Rover engine was much lighter in weight and better suited to the “swoopy” Triumph. In 1980, when the seller’s example was put together, carburetors were still used, and the motor put out 133 hp.
Besides the engine upgrade, TR8s were fitted with bigger brakes, a more robust gear ratio, and had the battery relocated to the trunk due to cramped quarters. TR8 coupes were built in smaller numbers than the convertible (which the seller has). Estimates are that fewer than half of all TR8s made are still around (maybe 1,000 drop-tops and 200 coupes). Most of the 1,000 will be found to have 5-speed manual transmissions.
We get the impression that the Rover engine in this “Silver Bullet” is original but has been rebuilt and treated to some extra goodies (hotter camshaft and headers, for example). We’re told this TR runs great and has plenty of spunk. The body and interior seem to have no issues other than normal wear after 45 years. Some extra stock parts will accompany the sale as the car approaches 100,000 miles.
Around 1981 a co-worker got one of these in a very sharp British Racing green. He immediately painted it a very ugly silver. It was almost the color of that “Spray Chrome” and done in a backyard garage. He always said he thought it looked better. As it turns out it was stolen and he got cuffed and stuffed at work. The car was towed out of our parking lot with a sling wrecker and the front end dragging the ground.
I think of that car every time I see one of these. Sad.
That’s a helluva story.
Have a friend up the road with one and the only thing he doesn’t like is the bumpers. He talked about building some fiberglass replacements but I don’t know if he ever did it. He did say right after his first autocross that he lowered the car slightly with different springs and put heavier front and rear sway bars on. Said it handled like a wheelbarrow on his first event as there was no “sports car” in it. Did say it’s a great cruiser.
Back in the late 70s early 80s I watched as John Buffam sped his through the woods to victory many times. A wheelbarrow indeed.
Buffam could have competed with a wheel barrow he was that good. His cars had similar updates similar to my friend’s. The Brits never made a car race ready but you could really do a lot to make one fast.
It’s Buffum if you care.
I do care. It’s been over 45 years since I typed his name. Lucky I didn’t misspell anything else.
I have a 1978 pre-production coupe with an automatic. I did not know the numbers had fallen so much.
I owned one of these for a number of years and it was an excellent cruiser. Wide comfortable seating, not unlike a 280SL and that lovely V8 burble. Decent sized trunk made road trips doable too.
There were a number of people who could make these way faster and handle better too…RPI in Ohio was one and Woody Cooper in MA was the other I recall. This car looks like it’s in pretty good shape overall. Important to check these out for rust. This was around the time BL was shutting down and quality control was almost non-existant…
The interior looks decent on this one, but there are seat covers on the seats. They should match the door cards with the blue plaid material in the inserts. These also came with a different intake manifold and a couple of carbs mounted on top of the motor. Many people did what this owner did and put a short stack with a 4bbl on it…easier to tune and seemed to give the gars a little more oomph too.
Yes the bumpers are clunky and it can ride a little higher thanks to the laws at the time, but they do work well if you park in public spaces.
Mine had a/c and it’s nice to have when you’re in some humid/wet conditions. I can’t tell if this one has it or not.
Price for the condition seems fair. These have never had a large following, so likely could sell for even less.
I’ve long thought about having one of these, pulling the Rover 3.5L engine and replacing it with a Zero Deck Height GM-3800, Series II/III Hybrid (Series 2 short block with Series 3 heads-with larger quench pads to further quell detonation) and a T-5 Transmission. Being a V6, it’s shorter than the V-8 Rover 3.5L, yet larger in displacement. The 3800 is lighter and stronger than the earlier 3.8 Litre (it has a shorter deck height and connecting rods than the original 3800, even-distance, centered cylinder bore spacing-just like an LS engine-and a Balance Shaft to cure the secondary imbalance. They were factory rated as having horse power was 205 HP @6000 RPMs in the Series-2 and 209 HP in the Series-3.
The 3800 would be great ! We got a factory supercharged 3800 in Australia , was that available in the US ?
Or you could keep it Rover by dropping in a 4.6 liter V8 from a P38 Range Rover. And use all the same engine mounts and gearbox fixings, with zero fabrication needed.
The TR7 never interested me but this light little dinky toy with a well tweaked 3500 V8 would go like stink. The TR8 weighs around 2500 pounds compared to the Stag with the same engine coming in at 3000 pounds.
Not the same engine , the Stags 3.0 litre has a cast iron block , completely different engine , it’s basically 2 x Dolomite 4 cylinder engines , quite heavy & notoriously unreliable , especially here in Australia with lots of overheating issues
I stand corrected. Makes me want the TR8 even more.
Always liked the idea of these — a modern Sunbeam Tiger. They did use carburetors but only on the 49-state 1980 models, which had dual Zenith-Strombergs. California-spec ’80s had fuel injection. That changed in ’81 when they all had fuel injection. Modified cars like this one with the Edelbrock intake and carb won’t pass CA smog, which limits their marketability in CA where presumably you would need to find one with FI or the original carbs.
Edelbrock still makes an intake manifold for the Buick/Rover 215 V8, either to upgrade the two-barrel intake on your 1961-63 GM Y-Body to a four-barrel, or to scrap the dual Strombergs these came with for something easier to tune, like an Edelbrock four-barrel carb, LOL!
https://www.edelbrock.com/performer-rover-intake-manifold-for-buick-olds-215-v-8-engines-2198.html
Would the California Air Resources Board (CARB) accept a retrofit with “four-barrel” throttle-body injection, such as a Holley Sniper or Atomic EFI setup? Add both the injection and an electronic ignition kit, with air sensor feedback, and it would do a lot to cut emissions, if the CARB would sign off on the retrofit.
Good question. My guess (and it’s only that) would be no unless it was OKd for this specific application. The only aftermarket EFI system approved for CA that I can find is MSD’s Atomic and the approval is limited to 1987 and older GM vehicles with a carbureted V8. I can find no CA approval for the Holley EFI. Regarding this Triumph, the headers would also cause it to fail a CA smog test and it would need the cats, air pump, etc. if those have been removed.
I agree with the Buffum comments. I know, as I ran against him in 1980. He and I went out on the same stage in the POR that year. I flew off the road and got stuck in the mud about a mile sooner than where he hit the tree about 4-5 feet off the ground. I still have a piece of his crashed car on the wall of my garage. I like these cars and one of the local British car club members has a carburetor version.
I still remember when BL sold the last of the TR6’s alongside the new TR7 “the shape of things to come”?
It was the shape of things to come for BL alright!
I don’t know which car was the better seller in that crossover year between the TR-6 and the TR-7, but I know which one I would have bought if I wasn’t a broke high school student back in 1976, and the TR-7 wasn’t my first choice. While the TR-7 styling was “polarizing”, either love it or hate it, it was new at the time. I kind of liked the TR-7’s wedge look, but a lot of people hated it. No, my preference was for the TR-6, because in many ways, the TR-7 was a mechanical step backwards for the brand. The TR-6’s I6 engine was both smoother and more powerful than the TR-7’s four-cylinder mill, and the TR-6’s IRS setup was clearly superior to the TR-7’s solid rear axle. I have mixed feelings about the switch from body-on-frame construction in the TR-6 to unibody construction in the TR-7. Yes, unibody construction was lighter and cheaper to build than a body-on-frame car, but was also harder to repair and in the TR-7, at least, rusted out even faster than the TR-6’s frame, LOL! Dropping the Buick/Rover 215 aluminum V8 into the TR-7 to make the TR-8 helped the engine issues, but that was a classic case of “too little, too late”.