The Triumph Dolomite Club - Discussion Forum

Hello I'm a member. I've previously owned a 1980 1300 and have just purchased a 1980 Sprint. Does anyone know if these later models were effected by a fault in British Steel of that year, that I've read about?

They used poorer quality Russian (Soivet?) steel that was more prone to rusting. Yet another example of penny pinching by the BL bean counters.

Maybe, but British Steel was also effected by heavy industrial action during that time, BL had to look into other suppliers who could guarantee a supply - if that meant seeking a source abroad then that's what had to be done.

I broke up a 1981 1850, my car now wears it's "face" and there was very little rust overall in it, but I am sure someone will be along to give their experience of a similar car which will be the opposite?

DoloWIGHTY wrote:Maybe, but British Steel was also effected by heavy industrial action during that time, BL had to look into other suppliers who could guarantee a supply - if that meant seeking a source abroad then that's what had to be done.

I broke up a 1981 1850, my car now wears it's "face" and there was very little rust overall in it, but I am sure someone will be along to give their experience of a similar car which will be the opposite?

The only car I have ever failed (or had fail) its first MOT on corrosion was a 1981 W reg 1500 HL! All 4 front subframe mounting points in the chassis rails were holed at just 3 years.
I'm not so sure about blaming the steel though, in my experience some years are just better than others and the trend seems to be international.
My theory is that it has to do with the amount of industrial action happening at Speke in those days and their tendency to leave unpainted steel outdoors while they went for their extended tea breaks!

Steve

Carledo wrote:

DoloWIGHTY wrote:Maybe, but British Steel was also effected by heavy industrial action during that time, BL had to look into other suppliers who could guarantee a supply - if that meant seeking a source abroad then that's what had to be done.

I broke up a 1981 1850, my car now wears it's "face" and there was very little rust overall in it, but I am sure someone will be along to give their experience of a similar car which will be the opposite?

The only car I have ever failed (or had fail) its first MOT on corrosion was a 1981 W reg 1500 HL! All 4 front subframe mounting points in the chassis rails were holed at just 3 years.
I'm not so sure about blaming the steel though, in my experience some years are just better than others and the trend seems to be international.
My theory is that it has to do with the amount of industrial action happening at Speke in those days and their tendency to leave unpainted steel outdoors while they went for their extended tea breaks!

Steve

^^ see!

R, S, T plate cars seem to be rustier You see plenty of early rusty cars too. All were rust prone irrespective of age just some see worse than others.

I think if you google the term "rimmed steel" you will find the answer. Rimmed steel was widely used in the car industry for when it was cast it was allowed to cool in a manner that allowed a rim or skin of almost pure iron to form on the surface. A sort of wrought iron surface which is much less prone to rusting. When this ingot was rolled out into a sheet it had a very thin wrought iron surface which therefore was less likely to rust.

I have no idea whether BL were using rimmed steels at this time but if they were and changed to another supplier and did not specify a rimmed steel then there is every chance they would rust more quickly.

You folk were the leaders in steel making, the revolution started in your country. There are probably people with a great deal more knowledge than me, in your country, who can answer the question better than I can.

I am not sure that it was where the steel came from, more likely the specification of the steel used.

Robert

As a long time casual obsever and owner of all things Triumph I would say that 74/5 was a watershed. Anything up to N generally lasts better than
P R S and T. Things seemed to improve again for V and W, but that might just be because when impressions were formed, the V's and W's were newer.

There are some other model specifics. On Dolomites for example the front wings got better protection on later models. My older 72 car is rustier at the front than a V reg one I own, but better everywhere else....
Paint also features, so a vermillion one I have is a good deal better than a Brooklands slightly newer one, which scabs when its doing nothing. Every time I polish it the rag comes out green, whereas polishing the vermillion one, the rag comes off polish colour with hadrly any orange at all. So it stands to reason the better paint is going to last longer.

So my vote would be for something 72 (tax free of course) and Pimento or Sienna or Honeysuckle.

Stags don't seem to have the same year differences though. They all rust regardless and an S is likely to be as good as a K or L. With thise its much more down to individaul cars and caring or otherwise owners.

Jonners

Jon Tilson wrote:As a long time casual obsever and owner of all things Triumph I would say that 74/5 was a watershed. Anything up to N generally lasts better than
P R S and T.
Jonners

That was very true of a few makes of cars. I particularly remember that N reg and earlier Renaults lasted much better than later ones.

77 is top of my hitlist as one of he very worst years for steel worldwide.
Postwar the very best year doesn't help any of us, its 1959!

I've had several of both years in different makes and models, (including a 77 VW Passat estate, also rotten as a pear!) and all have born out this theory.

Steve

Carledo wrote:77 is top of my hitlist as one of he very worst years for steel worldwide.
Postwar the very best year doesn't help any of us, its 1959!

Steve

Helps me. That's when my TR3 was built!!