Comparison
The Stag and its rivals
In 1970 the Triumph Stag offered something no rival quite matched: four proper seats, a folding roof and a V8 burble, for around £2,000. The cars buyers cross-shopped it against each beat it on one measure — the Mercedes 280SL on prestige, the BMW on power, the TR6 on price, the Scimitar on practicality — but none combined all four the way the Stag did. Here is how they line up.
At a glance
| Car | Engine | Power | Body & seats | Price new (approx.) | In a line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Triumph Stag | 3.0 V8 (2,997 cc) | 145 bhp | Four-seat convertible (+ optional hard-top) | ~£2,000 (1970) | The only affordable four-seat V8 drop-top of its day |
| Mercedes-Benz 280SL (W113 'Pagoda') | 2.8 fuel-injected six | ~170 bhp | Two-seat convertible (Pagoda hard-top) | ~£4,000 (about double) | Prestige benchmark — at twice the money and half the seats |
| Reliant Scimitar GTE (SE5) | 3.0 Ford Essex V6 | 138 bhp | Four-seat sporting estate (fixed roof) | ~£2,000 (similar) | As practical, rust-free GRP body — but no roof down, no V8 |
| BMW 3.0 CS (E9) | 3.0 six | 180 bhp | Four-seat coupé (fixed roof) | ~£5,000 (dearer than an Aston DBS) | More power and polish — but a fixed roof at double the price |
| Triumph TR6 | 2.5 injected six | 150 bhp | Two-seat roadster | ~£1,400 (cheaper) | Brisker, cheaper, in-house — but two seats and far cruder |
Prices are indicative UK figures when new, for relative comparison only.
Versus the Mercedes-Benz 280SL
The ‘Pagoda’ was the car the Stag was conceived to undercut, and it did so dramatically: a 280SL cost roughly twice as much, and for the money you got two seats rather than four. The Mercedes counters with its badge, its build quality and its jewel-like fuel-injected six — around 170 bhp against the Stag’s 145. But if you wanted to seat a family and still drop the roof, the Stag did it for half the outlay, which was rather the point.
Versus the Reliant Scimitar GTE
The closest British rival on paper: a four-seat sporting GT at similar money, with a torquey 3.0 Ford V6 of 138 bhp and — thanks to its glassfibre body — none of the Stag’s appetite for rust. What the Scimitar can’t offer is a folding roof or a V8; it is a fixed-roof estate with a workaday Ford engine. Practical, characterful, and famously Princess Anne’s choice — but a different sort of car once the sun comes out.
Versus the BMW 3.0 CS (E9)
Karmann-built, Hofmeister-elegant and quick — the coupé made up to 180 bhp — the E9 was a class above in polish, and priced to match: in Britain a 3.0 CS could cost more than an Aston Martin DBS or a Jensen Interceptor. It is a fixed-roof coupé, though, and more than double the Stag’s price. Where the BMW is the connoisseur’s coupé, the Stag is the accessible convertible.
Versus the Triumph TR6
The in-house question every Stag buyer faced: why not the cheaper, brisker TR6? Its Lucas-injected 2.5 straight-six gave a genuine 150 bhp and real pace. But the TR6 is a two-seat roadster with a fold-it-yourself hood and a much harder edge; the Stag is the grown-up’s Triumph — smoother, roomier, better-mannered, and V8-smooth with the roof down. Different missions from the same showroom.
Where the Stag wins
Line them up and the Stag’s case is clear. It is the only car here that is both a four-seat convertible and V8-powered, and it was priced at or below most of them — half the money of the German pair. It was never the most powerful (that is the BMW), the most prestigious (the Mercedes), the cheapest (the TR6) or the most practical (the Scimitar). It was the one car that did a little of all of it, wrapped in Michelotti’s styling and that V8 burble. The reputation that later dogged it came down to the cooling system — a fixable fault, covered in detail elsewhere on this site — not the concept, which was arguably the cleverest of the lot.
Related reading