Kelvin,
Only two problems with your theory re TR-7/8.
1) No matter what engine you put into it sooner or later you still had to
look at the ugliest car ever produced!
2) The Triumph was produced at a strike ridden plant that could never
produce a quality product. The public new it and stayed
away in droves..... Days lost to strikes at MGs were NIL! Fact.
One further point, old it may have been, but the MGB out lasted the Triumph
(stand corrected here). Also do not forget that the TR 7/8 was an evil
understeering beast from which major components tended to fall off
periodically! (See point 2)
Cheers (in a friendly flamed way)
Murray Arundell
Brisbane Aus,
----- Original Message -----
From: Dodd, Kelvin <doddk@mossmotors.com>
To: Tic Tac Group <uga4300@hotmail.com>
Cc: <mgb-v8@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 4:18 AM
Subject: RE: MGB-V8 History
> Zach:
>
> I will jump in.
>
> I don't think mismanaged is the best way to put it. The MGB
> platform was very dated by the time the V8 concept came out. There was no
> money for updating the platform to a more modern design. The MGB V8 was a
> smooth, powerful, expensive engine installed in a unrefined outdated
> chassis. Keep in mind the MGB chassis was designed in 1961. It was then
> 1973. The press complaints at the time of introduction said it all. The
> car had a harsh suspension, too much windnoise and a low level of interior
> luxury for the price. They loved the engine, but were disapointed with
the
> dated platform. The target market was young executives, who wanted a
flash
> high performance vehicle. The MGB GT V8 was competing with cars such as
the
> Ford Capri V6 which had similar performance, seated 4 and had a higher
> available trim level, for a lower cost. Despite the lovely motor and
marque
> fame, the MGB GT V8 was just not competitive in the marketplace.
>
> Now we look back with rosy fogged hindsight and make silly comments
> about the car that would have saved MG. An MGB has a wonderful vintage
> flavor to it. That flavor is what makes it a beloved machine. Vintage
> flavor does not sell automobiles in a competitive mass market. British
> Leyland was not The Morgan Car Co. It could not support a limited market
> low volume vehicle.
>
> Now I am going to get flamed out the wazoo. The best thing IMHO
> that BL could have done was to dump the MGB and use a crystal ball to
ignore
> the roll over debate and get the TR8 convertible into production before
> 1974. The TR7 shell was a well developed modern structure with well
located
> suspension. Interior space and comfort were good. Ride quality was
> excellent (too soft by some standards). The TR8 in hard (preferably
> fastback) or soft top could have given the competition a run for the
money.
> Just as the Capri was available with a lower level engine, the TR7 with
> suitable 4 cylinder would have been an excellent entry level vehicle. The
> original Saab 99 engine was designed by Triumph. If the engine
progression
> had of been paralleled, many of the design flaws in the TR7 2.0L would
have
> been solved. Could you imagine a 16 valve version of the Triumph engine
> with the same reliability as the Saab 900 engine. Instead of allowing the
> MGB to soldier on with reduced power and antiquated handling, could you
> imagine a line of TR7 platform vehicles. Starting with a base 8 valve, up
> to an injected V8. Body styles including CVT, fastback, or sportwagon
(ala
> Jensen Healey). Ok, this is from a die hard MGB fan. But I keep my eyes
> wide open to the limitations of the MGB design.
>
> regards
>
> Kelvin.
>
>
> Kelvin.
>
> >
> >
> > Quick question: When BMC produced the MGB-V8 how was it
> > mismanaged and what
> > could they have done better?
> > Thanks for your time
> > Zach
> >
>
|