How reliable are modern Triumphs?

Yes, that is true. Bloor actually "owned" BOTH Triumph companies. The original company which made the old Triumphs known for breaking down, but also known for their sound and feel and "character" I am proud to have owned a 1966 Example. The "new" Triumphs do not use anything but the name, and in the case of the Bonneville, some of the styling form the old bikes. They are brand new. Bloor actually went to Japan, and copied their designs and manufacturing methods. There is some good in this, the bikes are reliable. The bad is they are somewhat like all other Japanese bikes, bland and lacking in excitement. The sport bikes are about equal to Japanese, meaning they do their job, nothing more, nothing less. The biggest cost of using the Japanese motorcycle industry model however, may be that Triumph is building disposable bikes, not designed to be inexpensively and easily rebuilt over and over like the original bikes, and there may be parts availability issues for older models. And unlike the originals, there really isn't much of an aftermarket for the new ones, past accessories and cosmetics.

John Bloor is a businessman, not a motorcycle enthusiast, So I'm assuming he went with the easiest way to make the most money, while still keeping the company (but not necessarily the current bikes) sustainable.

So, anyway, I work at a multi-line dealer. I suggest you find one and ask the shop guys about which bikes are reliable and all that. I know what we'd tell but-but see for yourself. It'll let you find out all kinds of things.

Modern Triumphs are purdie solid, but I've known of a few peeps who got stranded when their stator or rectifier went out. Besides that, the engines & trannys are 'bout as good as anythang out there; 'cept yer FZ6 which is lower maintenance, and damn near bullet proof.

Great chart, Harley's at the top.
They actually are purdie reliable when kept stock, and ridden properly. Funny how far down BMW is; those are the bikes I usually see broken down on the side of the road.

I changed a guy's oil at the shop a couple years ago who was traveling around the world on his bonnie. He had about 95k on his, and it had never been opened.

Never had so much pressure to not strip a drain plug.

Minor issues with my '07 speed triple. Stator/RR (which was common issue 05-07). Other than that it's been solid and that 3 is a joy.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

2009. So not an old bike, PO bought it as a left over, rode if for a year then traded it in.

Hang on, let me get this straight:

- Hinckley Triumphs are not Triumphs
- They are copies of Kawasaki's
- They lack character
- There is no after-market

OK, Jerry, you just jumped the shark.

Sounds like Jerry has never ridden or owned a Hinkley Triumph. I have an' 01 Speed Triple with 43,000 trouble free miles, that has a ton of aftermarket parts. It has boatloads of character. In fact, I can't imagine ever selling it, it is so much fun.

Each of the five modern Triumphs I have owned have exhibited inherent design and manufacturing faults - in every single one of them the egnine would stop running within 250 miles after I put fuel into them. Even worse if I rode them in the dirt or mud, they would become dirty....

thats funny!
Not a lick of trouble with mine eather.
Time to change the tires,and give the wheels a scrub,
Good for another year.

No, the point of what I said is that Hinckley Triumphs ARE real Triumphs, because there is an actual physical connection with Meridian Triumph. One guy owned them both.

Triumphs are NOT copies of Kawasaki's (Though the Kawasaki W650 and W800 are pretty good copies of a Triumph), but Triumph does use Japanese design and manufacturing techniques (the dreaded Deming way) which PROBABLY means they also follow the Japanese business plan of planned obsolescence, building bikes that cannot easily be repaired or rebuilt, and cutting off the parts availability after a certain amount of time. Even when the parts are available, it almost always costs more to rebuild such bikes than to buy a new one, because not only are the parts ridiculously expensive, but you can rarely replace individual parts, and machine cases, cylinders, heads, etc. to fit over/undersized parts. Contrast that with the Harley EVO engine, which was DESIGNED to be easily and cheaply rebuilt several times.

As the former owner of a Meridian Triumph Bonneville, they most definitely lack character compared to that. They are a lot smoother, quieter, more refined, and like the quirks that characterized the original Triumphs. But they have gained reliability. I ran into a 2010 model today while looking at a Sportster. It looked good enough for me to give it a good going over, and fit me better than the Sportster. To bad it lacked the noise and vibration of the one I had, or I would have bought it on the spot.

I am not familiar with the Triumph aftermarket, but I doubt there is one, or will be one, to supply parts when todays bikes are 50 years old, like, well, like Harley. I can BUILD a complete 50 year old Harley from nothing but aftermarket parts. That is certainly not the case with Japanese bikes. Do you think it will be with the newer Triumphs? BTW, most parts are still available for the Meridian bikes. You can drag one out of a barn and completely restore it to like new condition.

I was looking at a speed triple with 46k miles on it and on the fence.....went over to the bmw dealer to shop around. Saw a speed triple sitting out front and asked if it was for sale but it belonged to one of the service guys who had 80k miles on it. He said the only thing ever to go wrong was a water pump gasket


People are stupid about mileage and expectations of how long bikes last. I was getting a new tune at the triumph dealer and a customer was looking into a used R6 but freaked out that it had 8,500 miles on it. He said he wasn't going to pay $6500 for it since "it only had a few thousand miles of life on it." The sales lady said that was lower than average for the year and that she had 60k miles on her bike. Customer couldn't believe it

Meh I wouldn't want to restore an old barn bike anyway, because after I spent $5,000 rebuilding it completely from the aftermarket I'd still have a Meridian Triumph. Pissing fluids all over the place and rattling parts...like carbs.... off an inopportune times. (yes, I had a 68 Bonnie I did lose the left carb while riding one day). Or better I watched a guy "over tickle" his carbs when he stalled it out at a light. Caught the fucking bike on fire.

For that same 5 large I can by a old bonnie classic that will run danm near trouble free for 100,000 miles and I don't even have to carry a full set of whitworth tools, two sets of plugs and a rudimentary wiring kit to get the fucking thing home.

I guess its a matter of perspective.

My Speed Triple has something like 115,000 miles on it, and 95,000 on the motor, and the only reason the motor is less is that I swapped the internals out when I found out the Daytona's had higher specs cams and sleeves and such.

Since then the valve covers have come off only for regular valve checks.


My 2009 675 has about 60% of its mileage on the track and other than the regulator every other issue has been something I broke.

I guess I missed that bevel head Triumph that they copied, when was that built again?

This thread is funny . . . . . .

the 05 Bonnie and 07 Tige rin our motorpool have been fun, reliable, and great return o teh inventment made in them.

The fact that I will not be able to build one with overpriced aftermarket parts in 50 years says absolutley nothing of interest to me. If I had wanted to buy a future classic, I would have bought something that is already a classic.

specualting on what wuill be valuable in the future leads to things like Indy 500 Pace Car replicas . . . .

I wanted a motorcycle, and am happy with the choices made.

This stuff gets over-thought at times. If you really want to know, go ask the guys that work on them. Multi-line techs, the professional kind, will tell you all you need. They see many different bikes. I ask Butch, the guy at our local dealer who has worked on Triumphs since 1962. Still sets them up and does the carbs on the bikes that still have 'em.

It's Meriden - M E R I D E N

Meridian is in Mississippi - M I S S I S S I P P I

Sheesh!

I had a number of T140E and T140D Bonnevilles over the years and had very little trouble with them.
They are old now, so will all have problems unless fully restored.
The 1979's had electronic ignition, were oil tight, modern carbs rubber mounted (not bolted directly to the head), oil in frame held LOTS of oil and kept it cool.
Those bikes were about 100 pounds lighter then the new ones and made a little less power.
The new ones sure seem to be well made, I never had a single problem with mine, it just was not a very fun bike.
As BAD as most sportsters are, they are more fun then the new Bonneville's in my book.

Right on, Brett.
I feel like the old bikes get maligned, and people forget to talk about what cadillacs they could be on the open road.
They float along in a way the new ones just don't. I guess you could have the suspension reworked on a new one though. But the old ones have some very redeeming qualities, apart from the usual verses of the same old sad songs sung about them. And that's a shame because their good qualities are very good and soulful.

My 2000 Sprint ST and 2001 Sprint RS both had strange, intermittent electrical problems. My Speed Triple has been trouble-free, but it's also practically brand new. I think reliability and build quality are excellent, but probably still a half step below the Japanese. The black paint on my S3 will scuff if you just look at it hard.