Ok, I never said I liked Triumphs, I just like the TR6 and the TR4A as cars
in general.
Just like I like Ferraris (not Lambos). The only thing I can say for my
demented MG thinking is that the second LBC I sat in was a TR4A. I really
don't mind rubber bumper MGBs either, but they look really crappy in
certain colors.
TR7s and 8s are ugly as hell, I don't care what engine is in it. Sh*t, who
CCed the last message to the TR list. Now, TR guys don't bomb my mailbox
with hate mail.
Regards,
Kai
----------
> From: Owen Michaels-Hardy <omhardy@ozemail.com.au>
> To: The Richards <smrm@coastalnet.com>
> Cc: mgs@autox.team.net; tr8@mercury.lcs.mit.edu; Triumphs@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: Kai's Triumph Flaw
> Date: Wednesday, November 13, 1996 9:50 AM
>
> The prejudice of LBC owners when commenting on another make or model
never
> ceases to amaze me. The uninformed waffle has raised my hackles in
defence
> of the pure from the purile.
>
> I have owned a few MGs (MGB Mk1 Roadster, MKII Roadster, ZA Magnette,
MkIV
> Magnette, MG 1100) and through cars owned by my father I am familiar with
> the TC and TF. Each has its own quirky character and many flaws that
could
> be frowned on - but I would never refer to any of these cars as CRAP in
the
> offhand manner in which you refer to the TR6, TR7&8.
>
> I currently own a 1980 TR7 Sprint (16 valve 2.0ltr) and think the lovely
> little wedge is just gorgeous and an absolute thrill and pleasure to
drive,
> and in relfecting on 10yrs of MGB driving versus the TR7 I would say the
TR
> is superior in many respects. I wonder if you have ever driven one?
>
> >The numbers of TR7s sold says more about the seventies than it does
> >Triumphs.
>
> I think the number sold reflects the world's desire for Lovely British
> Sports Cars and the fact that the TR7 was something new compared to the
> 1960's styled and engineered MGB.
>
> >Then, to know that Abingdon was shut down in favor of that
> >gawd-awful TR7. . .
>
> It is NOT true that Abingdon was shut down in favor of the TR7 as about
the
> time Abingdon was disposed of the TR7&8 were also discontinued. What is
true
> is that in the early 70s, MG's plans for new models were put on hold in
> preference to the wedge design developed by Triumph (when quite clearly
the
> market could have stood models from both marques).
>
> >Anyways, the first TR7s were crap. Later they worked out some
> >of the problems and made it less ugly in convertible mode (isn't worthy
of
> >the word roadster). TR8 was a passable creation, but just.
>
> It is true that the early TR7s suffered problems but these were mostly
> quality in assembly rather than design related. There are many people who
> would argue against your inference that the Coupe design is ugly (I
myself
> am inclined to look at the Interceptor and the Jensen Healey and feel
> slightly off-colour) but I don't think you would find many people who
could
> look at the Spyder/Drop Head Coupe and call it ugly, and we certianly
never
> use that quaint anachronistic word "Roadster" to describe it. The TR8 was
> much more than JUST a passable creation - just go out and drive one then
> come eat humble pie.
>
> > Still, if you get a TR6 you'll at least get to know just how
'independent'
> >a rear suspension can be! After a few years they all tend to look like
dogs
> >squating to urinate.
>
> Regarding TR6's independent rear supsension - hop into one and take it
> through a fast set of winding esses - it certainly feels safer and gets
the
> power down to the wheels faster (and Safety Fast was the MG catch cry!).
> Pity MG never thought of it, or perhaps it was just too complicated for
> simple minded MG owners to work on ;). If TR6's look like dogs squatting
to
> urinate, perhaps that's why CATS only go on/near MG's and never Triumphs!
>
> FLAME OFF
> A well maintained and respected TR7 is no more or less reliable than any
> other LBC. They are about as easy to work on as an MGB and parts are just
as
> expensive and available. The cars are certainly cheaper to buy, but to
date,
> haven't started to appreciate in value. Apart from the fantastic shape
and
> modern suspension design the TR7's best features are what can be done
with
> performance. Put in the Sprint 16 valve motor and 200 bhp can be achieved
> (compared to 140 bhp from Stage 5 MGB tuning), or go the whole hog and
put
> in the V8 to achieve 300+ bhp. Do donuts on your neighbor's lawns, or
watch
> the yuppies' jaws drop when you blow their BMW 318 away at the lights,
> burning rubber in every gear - now there is satisfaction that cannot be
> achieved in any MG except the MGBV8.
>
> Owen Michaels-Hardy, Sydney Australia
> 1980 TR7 FHC Sprint
>
> ORIGINAL POSTING IN FULL BELOW
> At 07:41 AM 13/11/96 -0500, you wrote:
> >Kai,
> >
> >The numbers of TR7s sold says more about the seventies than it does
> >Triumphs. It was the dark ages of the automobile. I got knocked about a
bit
> >for my rubber-bumper predjudice, but I was driving a 67B when those
things
> >first hit the road in 74/75 and haven't ever recovered from the jolt to
my
> >system. Then, to know that Abingdon was shut down in favor of that
> >gawd-awful TR7. . . if the car scene had been a political system I would
> >have gone underground and become a resistance fighter -- wait, that's
sort
> >of what I did. Anyways, the first TR7s were crap. Later they worked out
some
> >of the problems and made it less ugly in convertible mode (isn't worthy
of
> >the word roadster). TR8 was a passable creation, but just.
> > Still, if you get a TR6 you'll at least get to know just how
'independent'
> >a rear suspension can be! After a few years they all tend to look like
dogs
> >squating to urinate.
> >
> >Michael (just set in his ways)New Bern, NC
> >67B (with chrome bumpers as God intended)
> >74 Interceptor (60s design that held the line into the dark ages)
> >
> >
> >
>
|