Triumph's 1800/2000 Roadster: Not a Total Failure

Standard Motor Company's managing director Captain John Black supplied motors to Jaguar and its predecessor SS Cars since the beginning, and for a short while after World War 2.  By the end of the 1930s it was clear that Jaguar was becoming more a competitor than a client.  So Standard bought the ruins of the Triumph firm in 1944 with the idea of using the brand with its sporting image to provide sporty cars to help compete with Jaguar in that market segment.

The German bombing of Coventry, England in 1940 destroyed Triumph's facilities along with much else in the city.  So postwar Triumphs had to start from scratch, using motors and other material from Standard.

Besides a sedan (saloon), a Triumph sports car line was planned -- what became the Triumph Roadster, the subject of this post.

Postwar United Kingdom was in a bad way economically, and the socialist government rationed carmaking materials based on the cars' export potential, so as to bring home (especially) U.S. dollars.  Black clearly had his eye on the export market when the Roadster was developed.  Yet the production Roadster was far more English than American.

Given that Triumph 1800 Roadster production started in 1946, the ability of the American market to absorb English sports cars was unknown.  As it happened, the MG TC that entered production in 1945, sold well, despite having right-hand steering along with many prewar English details carried over from the TA and TB models.  This was unknown in 1945 while the Roadster was under development; in retrospect Black's gamble was reasonable despite the low sales of British sports cars in the USA prewar.

What the Roadster was likely not, was intended competition for the famous Jaguar XK120 sports car that did not enter production until 1948.  Perhaps car industry scuttlebutt gave Standard hints of the coming XK, but by the time it was introduced, the Roadster was on its way out.

Nevertheless, it's interesting to compare the two cars because they were in the same general market segment.

Production: 4,501 Roadsters made 1946-1949; XK120s (1948-1954),  open 7,606, drop-head 1,767 -- total 9,373 (fixed-head Jaguars not counted because Triumph did not use that body style).  On a per- production year basis: Triumph 1,125, and XK120 1,339.  Not a large difference considering the reputations of the two cars.

The link above notes that the Roadster was wide, providing three-abreast seating that required a non-sporty steering column-mounted gear shift lever.  This contributed to the Roadster's chunky overall appearance.  But note: its wheelbase was 100 inches (2540 mm), width 64 inches (1626 mm), and the XK120s wheelbase was 102 inches (2591 mm, width 61.5 inches (1562 mm).   Not great differences.   Where the Jagiar shined was its performance due to its new, powerful inline-six cylinder engine that made it one of the fastest production cars in the world at the time.  Meanwhile, Triumph Roadster top speeds were less than 80 miles per hour (about 130 KPH).

In many ways, the Triumph 1800 and 2000 Roadsters were attractive cars in the late-1930s context.  They were styled by Frank Callaby.

Gallery

1948 Triumph 2000 Roadster - HandH Auctions photos
Front fenders are bulbous.  I've always been fond of grilles being set at or behind the front axle line (I blame that on 1936 Cord 810s).

The trunk zone is large, heavy-looking.

That's because it houses what the British call a "dickey" seat ("rumble seat" in Yank talk).  Prewar Triumph Dolomite roadsters had this feature, and it was carried over to this design.  There's even a raisable windscreen, something seldom or never seen on 1920s and '30s American cars.  The spare tire is mounted on the after lid.  I'm not sure where luggage space might be.

Profile view with the dickey open.

1949 Triumph 2000 Roadster - HandH Auctions
General view with the top raised.  Though the front fenders are large, the engine compartment is narrow -- an interesting contrast.

1948 Triumph 1800 Roadster - for-sale-car photos
Now for a scaled-down walkaround.  The supports for those wonderfully-large English headlights are a bit crude-looking.

A nice, low look.  The wide, flat windshield has three wipers.

That high aft area spoils the design.

The front fenders look fine from this perspective.  I don't consider their shape a defect, though their size might be.

That dickey seat is the real problem.  It wasn't something most potential American buyers wanted or needed.  It added to the price of the car, something that usually hinders sales volumes.  The lack of trunk space was another item Americans wouldn't much like.  As for styling, lower, more tapered rear fenders echoing the front fender shape, along with a trunk lid profile to essentially match, would have made the Roadster a much more attractive and successful car.