Triumph 2000 Reviews from Australia and New Zealand

1973 Triumph 2000 TC 2.0 Twin Carb

Model year1973
Year of manufacture1973
First year of ownership2010
Most recent year of ownership2011
Engine and transmission 2.0 Twin Carb Manual
Performance marks 4 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 3 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
5.5 / 10

Summary:

Good car, but bit slow and thirsty

Faults:

Replaced alternator.

Replaced ignition coil.

Steering became very loose.

General Comments:

The seats feel like you're in a lounge.

Performance is very average when cold, and a bit better when it is warm, but I wouldn't call it a fast car.

It sounds FANTASTIC. When sitting on idle, the rumble is amazing from a 2L, and changing from 3rd to 4th gear is incredible.

Drinks fuel like a cow drinks water. Sluuuuuuurrrrrp, gone.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 4th June, 2011

4th Jun 2011, 17:51

I think it's cool people still run old Triumphs like this to be able to review them, fair play! By the way, I happen to have an old What Car mag from 1974, and when it was new your 2000 put out 86hp, did 0-60 in 14.6 seconds, and topped out at 100 mph, so it was fairly average for performance even back then. Still very cool though!

8th Jul 2012, 18:45

I have sold the car now. I am young and needed something more reliable and more fuel efficient. Before selling, I was having troubles with reliability where the engine would die, then not start again. The AA were baffled and thought the coil was shorting, even though it was a brand new coil. It turned out to be the ballast resistor; replaced it and it was going great again. But it was its time to go. Onto a Nissan Primera 2L now, which is a very different experience.

17th Dec 2012, 12:14

While I agree that its top speed was quite less that its competitors, you should take into account that it was designed to provide 90% of its max torque at 1200 RPM, and it had mid range acceleration at such levels that only competitor engines of greater displacements could match it. Personally the 10 mph that Rover had was quite useless. 90-95 mph is a very good cruising speed. Especially with overdrive, which drops the engine noise considerably. A feature that Rover lacked, and noise would tire the passengers after some hours of cruising at 105 mph.

Furthermore, you cannot be sure what condition your engine was in. You had high consumption, and this could be an indication that your engine was not optimally adjusted or it had serious compression loss. This could explain the power loss. My MK1, which is in very good condition, has a very good acceleration and does 25 MPG, which is acceptable and not so 'thirsty'. I suggest you try another example of the MK1 in a better condition.

1977 Triumph 2000 TC 2.0 litre straight 6

Model year1977
Year of manufacture1977
First year of ownership2009
Most recent year of ownership2011
Engine and transmission 2.0 litre straight 6 Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 6 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.8 / 10
Distance when acquired72000 kilometres
Most recent distance87000 kilometres
Previous carFiat Uno

Summary:

Love it

Faults:

New front shocks, old ones were seized.

New rear brakes and master brake cylinder.

New muffler.

New clutch plate and flywheel.

New gearbox mount.

Overhauled alternator.

New choke cable.

New R/H outer tie rod.

New indicator flasher unit.

General Comments:

Although it needed a few things done to it to get it roadworthy, this has definitely got to be one of my favourite cars. It has a charm that you just don't get with modern cars.

It's built like a tank, anything you crash into will come out second best.

It's not that flash on fuel, but hey, it's a 6 cylinder.

Very comfortable and roomy interior.

Doesn't have much in the way of interior features, but what did in the 70's.

Gets a lot of looks and comments around town.

OK, so it's not the fastest accelerating car on earth, but you will get up to some pretty high speeds, and have a lot of fun doing it..! Manual and no power steering = real driving.

Plus.. It's rear wheel drive..! That means fun..!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 7th April, 2011

1965 Triumph 2000 Sedan 2.0

Model year1965
Year of manufacture1965
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2005
Engine and transmission 2.0 Automatic
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.8 / 10
Distance when acquired80000 kilometres
Most recent distance100000 kilometres
Previous carAlfa Romeo GTV

Summary:

Gone, but not forgotten

Faults:

Leaky brake wheel cylinders.

Couldn't buy a battery for clock, no longer produced.

Rear window rubber perished and leaking.

Rear parcel shelf and boot water damaged.

Fitting, filling and painting replacement driver door supplied with the car.

All door seals needed replacement.

General Comments:

Bought this car from my brother, whose wife had been driving it when someone ploughed into the driver's door. She wouldn't drive it again, and it sat in his yard deteriorating for years. I paid $500.00 for it.

After some general maintenance it passed registration and was my daily driver until written off when an idiot did a U-turn in front of me without indicating.

An altogether delightful old car. The deep red leather was still good, and the walnut fascia panels reminded me of an era when motoring was conducted with greater style. It had a strong and willing engine, adequate handling characteristics, and I loved the high seating position.

Having owned a couple of Triumph Heralds in my youth, I can attest that this vehicle was in another class entirely, and one could be forgiven for imagining them to have been made by a different company. The straight six borrowed from the 1950's Vanguards was utterly bulletproof.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 13th June, 2010

Average review marks: 7.1 / 10, based on 8 reviews