Commando vs Trident - long term reliability (2016)

A long time ago, I purchased a new 1974 Commando in 1975. I used the bike for the next four year as my primary means of transportation while attending college,and accumulated about 30K mileage in that time; I was meticulous with maintenance, especially oil changes, and with the exception of some electrical gremlins, the Commando was very reliable. Today, with about 40K miles on the engine, it has never been apart (excluding transmission and gearbox) , and the bike still runs as sweet as when new. The compression may be down a little, the oil pressure is still good.

Now for my question. In 1975 I was split between a new Commando and a new Triumph T150, both were deeply discounted 1974 models. I ultimately went with the Commando. Many decades later, what is the collective experience for long term mechanical reliability (ie. mains, valves-guide, rings, etc.). In other words, how many miles would the average Commando rider with proper maintenance performed expect from his bike before a serious engine refurbishment? I always thought the Trident a superior engine design, but in retrospect the Norton actually be have been the better long distance rider.

Your experience in this would be appreciated, (empirical experience please - opinions have a dilutive effect on reality).

Regards,

HJ Faircloth

'74 Norton Commando; '72 Trident;
Norton has had its exhaust threads "repaired" (PO) and is being torn down for a proper job this time (thanks to Comnoz). That's pretty much it at 17,000+ miles for anything outside of routine maintenance.
'72 Trident had recurring issues with cracked swivel lash adjusters, causing duress to the valve stem tips. Also, the strange, high-pitched vibration at highways speeds became a great annoyance after the one hour mark, whereas the Norton will go about three times that without feeling like I need a break. I know that falls out of the realm of maintenance/reliability, but it's still a concern for me, as I put quite a few miles on my rides.

Nathan

You bought a Commando in 1975 and now you think maybe you should have bought a Trident instead?

A Trident is basically a 500 twin with another cylinder tacked on. It does have a robust 1-piece crank, but the rest of the parts are small-bike delicate. Center cylinders and pistons wear prematurely due to heat stress which the factory oil cooler does not seem to alleviate. Tridents make a wonderful booming sound on acceleration and are fairly smooth when set up properly. But you made the right choice in 1975.

I bought a new 850 Commando in June 73 . It was always a bad starter with an intermittent lost spark . In my innocence I changed the coils , ignition switch , ballast resistor and anything else I could think of. With hindsight I'm pretty sure it was a bad connection in the red cutout button , an easy fix . At 2500 miles the bottom fell out of the oil tank , I could see daylight where there should have been oil. Apart from that a lovely reliable bike. Where are you DTT 176 L ? In 76 I bought a 75 Trident with 4000 miles on the clock . After putting on another 3000 it was smoking so much I had to strip it , the centre piston had lost a circlip and the pin had scored the centre liner so deep it needed a new liner. Both inlet and exhaust cams and followers were scrap , mains were shot and the crank needed grinding . The whole engine looked like it had been running on grinding paste . Abuse or poor / non-existant quality control ? Who knows . I've had 2 Tridents and 4 Commandos , they are both wonderful but for me the Norton has it , if nothing else they are easier and cheaper to work on if / when it all goes wrong .

In olden days I rode a Trident 1973. Seized the middle cylinder twice. Once as stock and second as
an 850 bore kit. But after that no problems to speak of. A daily rider for many years. The valve
guides arent long lived though as mentioned and many small bothers were modified, such as replacing
the ball type tappet adjusters with solids and lash caps.
A few years ago bought the same thing again. Full rebuild on the whole thing. Found that the clutch
was tough to adjust properly due to the pieces being less than true. That was settled on the lathe.
I will say now it is pretty close to a correct Trident and it is smooth and fast and easy to start.
It is also heavy. But although I have a fully rebuilt 850 Commando the Trident usually is the one I
use as it just feels more confident on the road. And Im a very small person.

I would say that long term you would likely be better off with the Commando if both were completely
rebuilt. Not by a whole lot though. And I find the Trident easier to work on believe it or not. Suspect
that the QC on T150v was not all that great. Some seem thrown together others are fine.

Finally, the Trident isnt a 500 with another pot but rather a 250cc BSA three times over. It is a long
stroke engine not a short stroke like the 500.

An old Dude that sold & serviced Triumphs back then told me many owners were unaware of the paper oil filter element (previous Trumps only had screen strainers on the suction) hidden above the exhaust collector, and hence rarely or never changed it. (it had no bypass provision, when it was full of sludge, oil flow was reduced) THAT, he said caused the fabled center cylinder failure. Just passing that along. Comments? Opinions? :?: :idea: :mrgreen:

Never heard that. But it does point out that fact that most back then were not up to speed
as mechanics. Some of it youth and some of it no money to buy proper tools and parts.
Add in NO INTERNET to get advise and guidance.

Almost everyone here can and will do basic maintenance. If they get stuck most advise is
very good.

I had T160CK02328 ... a 1975 T160. (so not a T150, but still a Trident) Sounded fantastic, very stable at speed, actually started with the electic start, and just beautiful to look at. I've even seen it on ebay a couple times now.

However, the fuel economy was like 30 MPG (barely) , the clutch was really hard to set properly (perhaps mine should have been checked on a lathe) and I was tired out after riding it for an hour. I sold it at AMA "vintage days" in like ... circa 1998 for a measley $2500 (ouch !!!) Randy Baxter was the new owner, I'm guessing he made out. Wish I never sold it, as I still think they are that pretty to look at, not so much to ride though IMO.

The Commando is a way better bike IMO, you bought the right bike for sure. At 55 years old I've had eight Nortons. 8) ... but only the one Trident. Cheers.

Nater_Potater said:

'74 Norton Commando; '72 Trident;
'72 Trident had recurring issues with cracked swivel lash adjusters, causing duress to the valve stem tips.
Nathan

Click to expand...

I'm a bit puzzled by the repeated references to swivel type valve adjusters. All the T150 engines would have used the normal Triumph solid pin and locknut adjuster. The 75 T160 went to captive ball adjusters, similar to the late Ducati adjusters to try to fix the valve tip wear problem.

I own a T150, T160 and an 850 Commando. While the Trident is a more complex engine (probably the most complicated of any of the classic British designs), I do find them far easier to work on than my Norton. They are heavier and more expensive to maintain, rebuild or race though, which is why I want to use my 850 as my track bike.
/Steve in Copenhagen

concours said:

An old Dude that sold & serviced Triumphs back then told me many owners were unaware of the paper oil filter element (previous Trumps only had screen strainers on the suction) hidden above the exhaust collector, and hence rarely or never changed it. (it had no bypass provision, when it was full of sludge, oil flow was reduced) THAT, he said caused the fabled center cylinder failure. Just passing that along. Comments? Opinions? :?: :idea: :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

If neglect were the case, I'm sure it was a contributor. But even properly maintained, just like the rear cylinder on a Harley, the wind-starved center cylinder of a Trident (or Rocket 3) is gonna wear out before the other(s). Japenese air-cooled 4s alleviated this somewhat by placing the camchain tunnel in the center, giving the wind more opportunity to do it's cooling task. You'll notice as liquid-cooling became de rigeur, the camchains migrated to the end of the crank to make the engines more compact.

Iv'e owned about 10 Tridents in the last 40 years, and when younger abused them all. The centre cylinder is no more likely to give problems as the outer ones. I've had my share of piston failures and not one was the centre, it was always a timing or drive side. This centre cylinder problem is an old wives tale.
The single worst feature of any Trident is usually the owner not maintaining the bike properly, and that normally starts with the bikes being hammered from cold.
The engine if assembled correctly is reliable, and both my 990 cc T160s give approx 45/50 mpg .
I agree the engine is very expensive to rebuild properly, but a Commando isn't exactly cheap either.
Tridents and Commandos are both great bikes, that have their limitations. If I could change one thing on a triple it would be to lose 100 lbs off it. I don't have a modern bike, if I go a long distance it is always by 850 Norton or 990 T160.
sam

Again Id like to see data on the middle cylinder heat and wear problems. I tend to agree that other things are responsible for
problems there like the carb, or in olden times, the timing. Now much of the timing issue is gone because of EI.
T150V came with the swivel ball type adjusters. I never had trouble with them but some do.
And you sure are correct about being too heavy although suspect that it makes them nice to ride out on the road.
The list of small things that need to be re-engineered or replaced is fairly long. But that was the way it was back then.
Except that the Trident is the last of the Old Age when you had to fettle and fiddle all the time and it was suddenly up
against Honda and Kawasaki fours.
Game over.

I've never had problems with the centre cylinder in my '72 T150.
I did have head gasket failures before changing to a big bore kit.
Apart from the valve guides wearing out quickly ( after 15000 miles they are shot) it has been very reliable.
On the road he triple feels like a more solid bike but it uses a lot of juice, especially in standard form.
With big bore kits it seems more frugal although I've never measured petrol consumption.
Possibly one doesn't have to rev a big bore 4 speed bike as much.
I find my '72 Commando more comfortable to ride and nimble although it is not as comforting as far as reliability goes.
Most problems can however be ironed out in both bikes but it is the Commando which causes more pride of ownership.
It is also the better looking bike (at least it is in my opinion)

I've recently started lusting after a T160. A very handsome bike with a gorgeous motor.
Thanks for ruining it for me (and saving me a fortune).

mschmitz57 said:

I've recently started lusting after a T160. A very handsome bike.
Thanks for ruining is for me (and saving me a fortune).

Click to expand...

Dont say that ive always wanted a t160 and i bought one 4 months ago i absolutely love it and my 750 commando cheers baz

I had a Trident 160 and I loved it. I cafe-ed it and mounted a 650 tank. The only trouble I had was with the law. I was a street racer and didn't think the speed limits applied to me. I developed a bad habit of running from cops - I finally got caught and thrown in jail (which I realized was a good thing). I sold it and swore I'd never buy another bike - so I talked someone into giving me a junked back alley Atlas. I ported/tricked it out and did the rest of my racing on the track. I've been riding Nortons ever since.

I have a 920cc Norton Commando and a 930ccTrident T160.
I have put a lot of work into both bikes which are exceptionally reliable and economical on fuel. The only un-repairable breakdown at the road side in the last ten years for Norton and seven years for the T160 was the Tri Spark and shredded primary drive belt on the Norton. The Norton and T160 will achieve more than 60 mpg (imperial gallons) when touring two up. I live in the UK and in the last six years have travelled to either southern and northern Germany and mid France every year without any breakdown.
The centre cylinder "problems" are a lot of bollocks as far as I'm aware, I haven't had any problems and know a lot of triple owners who have never told me of this happening to them.
The Trident is smaller height wise and heavier than the Commando, and so very good for vertically challenged people like me.
The Trident is slightly more complex than the Commando .....well there's three of everything isn't there? It's also slightly more expensive to maintain.

They are both very different character-wise and both need "riding" unlike most of the modern bikes, and I'm glad that they're different as it keeps them interesting for me. The Norton has more low torque whereas the T160 loves revs (and really goes when thrashed).

If I had to sell one it would be a very difficult decision but would probably be the Trident, purely on economics and I've had Norton's (apart from a small break) for the last 37 years.

I own one of each, and I love them both. I've read volumes on the reliability issues on each, and like the vast majority of Commando owners, I've gone through the most rational, affordable upgrades I can on my 69 Trident. First was a complete lower end overhaul - crank grinding, sludge trap cleaning, flushing out the oil cooler, and careful re-assembly. I use a quality oil filter cartridge, drain the sump and clean the screen on a regular basis. Also, a judicial warm up is in order with these things. I use the oil pressure gauge as a temperature guide before I put the spurs to it. Once good, the lower ends on these remain that way for a long time, but only with good maintenance. A friend holed his center pistion on a Rocket III some forty years ago, but that was still running points on a high speed road trip, and when the center timing went south, that was it. I'm running one of the very early Tri Sparks, and it has been brilliant. (this is the one with the separate black box) I've got the clutch as good as I can get it. Did the Big D primary modification to get more lift, use a conical tipped pull rod, and a good cable. Doesn't grab, slip or drag, but very "manly" pull compared to a well set up Commando. I've got the carbs in very good condition, slide wise, and carefully set-up, but I never was happy with the low speed running until I drilled the carb gantry for take off ports to use vacuum gauges. That was a game changer. So, when I look at questions like this, it points out the similarities between the two. Both need a number of things done to them, to make ownership and durability something you can live with. Later models are usually better, but some of them have issues due to "improvements" made by the factory that maybe weren't all that great, and need fixing. (early T150V gearboxes, and MIKIII valve guides come to mind) All things being equal, the Trident is a shrieking, howling, good time on a fast street ride. I'm always, um, exercising it. The Commando has that Jekyll and Hyde personality where it has the monster torque at low speed the Trident can't match. When the revs climb, it's no slouch, either. I probably prefer tooling around on the Norton, there I said it. That doesn't make the Trident a lesser bike.

Brithit said:

...the Trident is a shrieking, howling, good time on a fast street ride. I'm always, um, exercising it. The Commando has that Jekyll and Hyde personality where it has the monster torque at low speed the Trident can't match. When the revs climb, it's no slouch, either. I probably prefer tooling around on the Norton, there I said it. That doesn't make the Trident a lesser bike.

Click to expand...

Agreed. After spending many miles around the Boise valley on our '72 BSA B50MX, then occasionally riding Dad's Norton (now owned by me), the Triple's lack of bottom end took some getting used to. Once you got it on the cam, it sure did sing!

Nathan