Good morning! Welcome to your mid-week edition of Shitbox Showdown. Today is all about an arcane form of induction known as twin carburetors. We’ve got two prime examples for you, but first, let’s see which Kansas truck you chose:
Another day, another landslide Mopar win! You guys feeling all right? It’s just that typically… well, anyway. Normally I’d greatly prefer a GMT400 to a Dakota, but considering the condition of these two particular trucks, I think the Dakota is worth the extra $600.
Now then: If you want a gasoline engine to make more power, you need to give it more stuff to burn. These days, with electronic fuel injection, it’s easy; you just say, “Hey ECU, put more stuff to burn in the engine.” But in earlier ages, the way to give the engine more air and fuel to burn was to use bigger, or more, carburetors. Larger engines got a little crazy with this: V8s in the 1950s and 60s came equipped with crazy setups like “dual quads” (two four-barrel carbs) or “six-packs” or “tri-power” (three two-barrel carbs from Chrysler and GM, respectively). Chevy’s Corvair flat-six could be had with four single-barrel carbs. Italian V12s took the cake with six two-barrel Weber carbs, or one barrel per cylinder. And almost every little British sports car sported two side-draft carbs on its four-cylinder engine.
Nowadays, tuning a multiple-carb setup seems like some mystical black art to most people. I’ve even met “hardcore” British car people who replace the twin carbs with a single Weber downdraft carb, because it’s “easier to tune.” But I’ve found just the opposite to be true; typical single-barrel side-draft carburetors have very few moving parts, stay in tune once you get them tuned, and can be tuned by ear with a screwdriver and an open-end wrench once you know what to listen for. Besides, they just look cooler. So today, we’re celebrating the twin-side-draft carb setup with one British sports car, and one Swedish sedan sporting British carbs. Let’s see what you make of them.
1980 Triumph TR7 convertible – $3,500
Engine/drivetrain: 2.o liter overhead cam inline 4, five-speed manual, RWD
Location: Orinda, CA
Odometer reading: 97,000 miles
Runs/drives? Has been sitting for a year, ran great before that
As an MG guy, I’m supposed to hate the TR7. In the 1970s, in the midst of serious labor and financial woes, British Leyland could only muster enough funding to replace either the MGB or the Triumph TR6. “Project Bullet,” as the car was known, was supposed to be the new MG sports car, but ended up going to Triumph instead, probably because the simple MGB was cheaper to keep cranking out than the more complicated, more expensive TR6. In the end, it didn’t matter much anyway; MG closed its doors in 1980, and Triumph only lasted two years longer.
The TR7’s biggest claim to fame is the first of two Swedish/British connections we have to talk about today. This engine, developed by Triumph, was supplied to Saab for use in its 99 model starting in 1968. Strangely, it didn’t see the underside of a Triumph bonnet for another four years, until the 1972 Dolomite sedan. For the TR7, Triumph punched this engine out to two liters, and equipped it with twin Zenith-Stromberg variable-venturi carbs. It faces forward and drives the rear wheels – unlike Saab’s weird backwards front-drive arrangement – through a five-speed gearbox.
This TR7 has been parked for a year, for reasons unknown. The seller says it was running and driving fine when parked, so it doesn’t sound like a mechanical issue sidelined it. More likely life just got in the way; surplus “fun” cars are usually the first thing to get neglected when things happen. At least they’re up front about it. But a year isn’t that long for a car to sit; I’d guess that with some fresh gas, this puppy would fire right up. Assuming, of course, that they’re being honest about its pre-storage condition.
Cosmetically, it’s in nice shape. The orange paint (there aren’t enough orange cars) looks nice and shiny, the interior looks good, and it sits on nice Panasport wheels with newer tires. The back window is cloudy, but you can’t see that when the top is down.
1965 Volvo 122S “Amazon” – $4,500
Engine/drivetrain: 1.8 liter overhead valve inline 4, four-speed manual, RWD
Location: San Rafael, CA
Odometer reading: 66,000 miles (but not accurate)
Runs/drives? Just fine
This car is officially known as the Volvo 122S everywhere except its home turf. Owing to a trademark dispute with a German motorcycle company, Volvo wasn’t allowed to use the Amazon name anywhere except Sweden. And these days, I imagine that guy who runs that website might take issue with the name as well. Regardless, in classic car circles, this is, and forever will be, the Volvo Amazon.
This car’s B18 engine, a five-main-bearing pushrod design, is famous for its durability. Irv Gordon’s legendary Volvo 1800S, the car with the highest documented mileage ever, is powered by the same engine. Feeding this rock-solid motor is a pair of British-made (there’s our other connection) Skinners Union variable-venturi side-draft carburetors. These little marvels make no sense if you’re used to typical fixed-venturi carbs, but once you understand how they work, they’re kind of genius. SU and and Zenith-Stromberg carbs of various sizes could be found on everything from Austin-Healey Sprite four-cylinders to massive Jaguar V12s in addition to these Volvos.
[Editor’s Note: I used to have a Volvo 1800S with twin SUs, like this, and I loved them, but they did leak at times, and when they did they dripped right onto the hot exhaust manifold below, making some alarming smoke signals. Other than that, though, I love these weird bottle-looking carbs. – JT]
This Volvo’s mileage is an unknown quantity; the odometer reads 66,000, but the seller says that isn’t accurate. Its condition can be ascertained from the photos, though, and it’s pretty damn good. I see a few paint blemishes, and some wear on the inside, but overall, it’s a good-looking car. It’s the sort of classic you can enjoy without worry, because it’s not too nice. I’ve driven a couple 122s, and they’re no one’s idea of a sports car, but they are fun to drive in their own stately way.
I do wish we had some bigger and better photos of it. But from what I can see, and what the ad says, this sounds like a good deal on a cool old classic car.
So there they are, two classics with engines fed by a pair of black-magic carburetors. One runs perfectly, and the other is likely only some fresh gas and a tune-up away from purring like a kitten. Which one is right for you?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
TR7s weren’t common in Orange County, CA where I grew up, but they weren’t rare, either. Always thought they were very good looking cars, especially in yellow.
Gotta go with the TR-7, we had 2 1980 models, one standard, one Spyder (special edition) man those are fun cars! Tossable, easy to work on, top down fun.
Duty-bound to say that the TR8, a TR7 with the Buick/Rover V-8, was bitching.
Nothing beats a sporty English two seater. I mean unless it is a TR7, ugly orange non running car with dual carbs. Oh but a pretty little Running Volvo 122? Sure beats those triangles any day.
I was always told I should hate the TR7, but I kind of like it in orange, but the bumpers ruin it. Weren’t these also the ones where they jacked up the suspension height to meet US headlamp requirements? Anyway I voted for the Volvo. That said, I saw an honest to goodness TR8 a few months back. It sounded goooood. I was so excited when I saw it people thought I was insane. I figured those suckers were like Sasquatch.
The TR7 was a heap of shit when it was new. The Volvo was not.
Thus, the Volvo gets my vote.
More than 3 decades ago, my dealer drove an Amazon somewhat like this. White, with red interior, but no bumpers—or shocks. They weren’t shot: they just weren’t there. Oh-and helper-springs in the rear: PO was a geologist who needed the extra weight capacity. So, my guy lived in a terraced neighborhood: steep main street with each crossing street being a bit of a launch-ramp for the next section. Taking a left onto his street, it always felt like my side would end up scraping the road, then the rear would hit the flat and the oscillations would start and our heads would scribe little circles in the vertical axis while we laughed uproariously— he sold good stuff.
I’ll take the Volvo-but I’d absolutely buy the best shocks I could find: I’d probably have been carsick if I hadn’t been so high
Mine drove an Opel GT. THATis a fun car.
You just triggered a long-forgotten memory: four lanky HS guys smoking up in a Datsun B210. We must have looked like clowns when exiting that poor little car.
Thanks for that-now I’ll be randomly chuckling throughout the day
My 90’s dealer drove a P1800!
“likely only some fresh gas and a tune-up away from purring like a kitten”
Famous last words
“And the air conditioning just needs a recharge.”
“Replacement”
May I please revoke my vote for that godawful Plymouth a couple of days ago so that I can vote for both of these? As a lot of others are noting, this is a rare case of “I want them both!”
If forced to pick one, I’ll go with the TR-7. We have my wife’s Accord for a reliable piece of transportation, so the safe-and-sane Volvo is not as needed as the unsafe-and-less-sane British roadster.
Anyone know if there’s some sort of aftermarket kit to take care of those hideous rubber bumpers?
Something like this?
https://thewedgeshopstore.com/european-fiberglass-bumpers-front-rear-tr8-tr7/
Hell, YES!
Here’s a place that is great for taking care of those TR-7s with the ugly rubber bumpers:
https://youtu.be/-RCx1BtkSRM?t=335
Is the rear window on the TR7 delaminating from the top? In the rear view picture there is a clear gap to the right of the middle.
Volvo for me
It looks more like the zipper that goes around the sides and top of the window has failed.
Well, I happen to own a TR8 (waiting on a rebuilt engine) and a TR7 (with a Dolomite engine) and I have to say that I would sure as heck want to drive either one of these cars than that fugly Volvo.
The Triumph interiors looked like that coming out of the factory. Plus it will only run well for one day. Then get parked again. If only that Amazon was orange…
Vulva for me. The TR7 looks like the interior needs help? Seats look like they are growing their own some sort of fungal infection.
Old Volvo’s are cool. Old Lucas electronics are not. Volvo it is.
In that case I have some bad news for you concerning the OEM source of some of the 122’s components.
The only Lucas product that didnt suck was its vacuum cleaner.
Like many responders I’d take either choice happily but I think overall despite the hassles the TR7 would be a bit more fun. If the Volvo comes up Friday in a second chance vote I’m probably going for it.
I like Triumphs, but I hate the TR7. I’d take the Volvo. Not only is the Volvo likely to have a lower CdA value, but it is a more well-built car overall and doesn’t look like a doorstop. It would make for a fine EV conversion, IMO.
These are both pretty solid choices. I voted for the Amazon because I have a soft spot for old Volvos, but I’m not supper committed to that vote as an orange wedge shaped sports car tickles my fancy as well.
TR7 all the way over here. That thing is amazing. Super cheap too!
While I like the TR7, I would choose a known runner like the Volvo for 1k extra. Plus I would probably spend 2k on parts for the TR7 to run again.
I know the Volvo is the smarter buy since it runs right now, but a clean British roadster is hard to resist. I say that even knowing I will have an abusive relationship with the Triumph.
Step on me, mistress. Leak your hot oil all over my face.
I just can’t get past the looks of the TR7. The TR6 looked SOOO much better.
If the TR7 would run, even if it was rough, that’s where I’d go. But the owner that can’t be bothered to start it up is a major red flag. “Ran when parked” is “Does not run” at any time frame.
The Amazon is absolutely acceptable as a consolation prize.
My heart says TR-7 but my common sense say Volvo. I’ll take the Swede since I can’t afford both.
“twin SUs, like this, and I loved them, but they did leak at times, and when they did they dripped right onto the hot exhaust manifold below, making some alarming smoke signals.”
This is how I lost my TR6. She was running beautifully that day, humming along without a care in the world. Then it all ended. The fuel line came off the front carb and poured gas onto the exhaust manifold. At least I think that’s what happened, there was no evidence left. The carbs completely melted.
As for today’s vote, went Amazon just because it’s different.
Had that happen to my JH but lucky me it was one of the weeks i couldnt get it to start. But my garage took forever to air out.
Hmm, which one…
All this carb talk makes me want some bread and maybe a cookie.