It depends how you look at these cars. I think Triumph were actually trying the Japanese idea of "selling cars with stripes." Before anyone howls it down, think about this. Previous TR's were actual sports cars. Not comfortable, but pretty "sporty". While SO many people SAY they want a "sports car" - MOST actually want a "personal vehicle" which is comfortable and makes people THINK "wow; look at that guy in the sports car." The American market started this with lush comfortable cars that looked sporty, but were as sporty as a seat at the opera. Even Ferrari toned their cars down to pander to that market (only a bit, thankfully) but they did pander to those rich enough to dictate what they wanted. Enter the Japanese. Now; yes, there were a few GT's we didn't get here in the 70's; but by and large the Japs took sedan underpinnings and made "sports cars"........................ So - a Corona remoulded with a sporty look became the Celica. Now - I LOVED those cars....... but the average person who SAID "sports car" wanted EXACTLY what the first Celica was............ easy to drive, stripes and gauges, and FELT "sporty". Anyone who took the rose coloured glasses off KNEW they were really driving a Corona....... but who cared? They looked great!!!!!! So - Triumph look at that. They had the amazing Dolomite Sprint engine (first production 16 valve in a mass road car) and while it made it into a few (very few) test and enthusiast cars ("TR7 Sprint"), the TR7 got the "sedan engine" version that was in the standard 1850 Dolomite. The Sprint was sold as a "sports saloon" - but the 1850 was NEVER expected to be a sports sedan. But that same 1850 stretched to 2 litres was? Nah, not really. Problem was, while the average Jap buyer was used to getting sedan engines in the "sporty body" (Celica buyers were quite happy with the "LT" sedan engine. The Japan market got the "ST" and "GT" engines, we never did), Triumph people expected a sports car engine; NOT a "sedan car engine" - and especially one in a very mild state of tune. Here's an example - when I bought my E type - I asked why no one had bought it. He said the previous 3 people "couldn't drive it properly". He asked one guy "Have you driven any sort of sports car before?" Guy said "Of course! I have a Nissan Pulsar SSS!" So yes; he has driven a "car with stripes." Don't get me wrong. Later on we got some far more advanced Celicas and Nissan offerings with sportier pedigrees. But the era we are talking when the TR7 was competing was the era of the "sedan engine going into supposed sports cars." But consider this - TR7 sales (whinged about FOREVER) outstripped the previous TR6 sales. Yep - they sold 112,000 TR7's.......................... compared to 90 odd thousand TR6's - so maybe their "give them simple/most people just want to LOOK sporty" stance was actually right from the marketers point of view. Even Holdens own "Monaros" and "SS" had IDENTICAL engines to any other V8 and were just a "stripes and gauges" pack by the time HQ/HJ and later came along during the same era. I drove a TR7 for 6 months and it never felt sporty to me. It FELT like a sedan. I have owned a Dolomite Sprint for almost 20 years. THAT felt more like a sports car with it's "chuckability" and revving engine. THAT is what a TR7 was expected to be like by people who wanted a TR6 successor. But all this has little to do with why/why not the TR7 failed. By this stage the Brits could not build a mass produced car. It was that simple. Stags that didn't have the casting sand washed out of the block? What the? That is not a "back then no one could foresee" thing - that was slackness and stupidity pure and simple. I read that during the North American release of the TR7 range they sent 53 cars to release/press drive across the US. The article said that less than a dozen of them ran properly - and it was "up to the dealers to get them going." That was one magazine report - but that story is repeated elsewhere. HOW could any CEO think that that was vaguely acceptable? WHY would anyone buy cars like that? The TR7 was different in it's wedge shape (maybe too early?) but later Celicas used similar shapes successfully. The "sedan car engine" was shunned by TR customers - but the Japanese used that idea for early "sports cars" (actually "personal" cars) for many years. I think the TR7 was mainly let down by an industry that was hell bent on destroying itself with "short sighted strike/stuff the management/we'll show them!" mentality, while upper management led with a bewildering array of increasingly stupid decisions that meant that ANY car would have languished........and MOST of them did. I have had a Stag for 25 years. The changes they made during the time they were produced are just beyond belief and defy logic; still, they went ahead. The TR7 being different was the tip of a British car industry indifference that hardly anything survived. But I LOVED this ad :-)