Austin 1300 GT vs Triumph 1300 TC

The Home of the Bigger Brothers, BMC 1100s, 1300s, A40s, A35 etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
mab01uk
Posts: 5160
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:08 pm
Location: S.E. England

Austin 1300 GT vs Triumph 1300 TC

Post by mab01uk »

AROnline - Tested : Austin 1300 GT vs Triumph 1300 TC
"There’s a lot of talk about premium small cars these days, but we’ve been here before. The Austin 1300 GT and Triumph 1300 TC are two that were playing the game more than 50 years ago…
But which was the best in 1970 – and what’s the preferred choice today? Keith Adams decides."
https://www.aronline.co.uk/reviews/best ... l-saloons/

Image
User avatar
mk1
Site Admin
Posts: 16468
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 11:30 am
Location: York-ish
Contact:

Re: Austin 1300 GT vs Triumph 1300 TC

Post by mk1 »

Good review!

The GT is best, because it's the worst :lol:
Mark F
General dogsbody.
User avatar
111Robin
Posts: 1731
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:59 pm
Location: Aberdeen Scotland

Re: Austin 1300 GT vs Triumph 1300 TC

Post by 111Robin »

I often drive my dads Triumph 1300 FWD and have my own ADO16, and to be honest I enjoy driving the Triumph more but it's hardly a good comparison with both now being over 50 years old. I just find the Triumph transmission better plus the suspension feels far more planted and not any less comfortable than the 1100. The brakes on the 1100 are far better though, and the Triumph's calipers have been rebuilt and new discs/pads fitted but the 1100 is still far superior. The Triumph is definitely a bit more "up market" but the Wolseley gives it a good run for its money. If I were driving long distance I'd take the Triumph, despite being a life long fan of the ADO16.
Polarsilver
Posts: 1592
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 1:22 pm
Location: Silverstone not far away

Re: Austin 1300 GT vs Triumph 1300 TC

Post by Polarsilver »

GT was best as it gave up its Engine for a better purpose and that memory lives om .. the remains just Rust In Peace :shock:
User avatar
111Robin
Posts: 1731
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:59 pm
Location: Aberdeen Scotland

Re: Austin 1300 GT vs Triumph 1300 TC

Post by 111Robin »

I suppose the Triumph FWD transmission was on a losing battle against the proven BMC setup, otherwise it was a good system (apart from the doughnuts on the drive shafts), shame it never made it onto any other platforms after the 1300/1500 FWD.
User avatar
Glacier white
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:02 am

Re: Austin 1300 GT vs Triumph 1300 TC

Post by Glacier white »

The truth is that by 1970, the ADO16 was due for an update. Yes it was exceptional in the early 1960's, but at the end of the decade it was obvious that there were superior technical solutions on suspension and driveline on offer.
User avatar
Costafortune
Posts: 1262
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:26 am
Location: Sheffield On Thames

Re: Austin 1300 GT vs Triumph 1300 TC

Post by Costafortune »

The Fiat 128 and VW Golf is what BL should have been making, simple cars that were good to drive and cheap to build. The Alfa Sud is the epitome of car design of that era. Ride, handling, performance, interior room and boot space, all on steel coil springs. As soon as that arrived, Hydrolastic was obsolete and BL should have dumped it.
Post Reply