Personally, I think I leave you all to fight it out among yourselves and go
for a Hurricane instead.
Having watched this thread for the last 48 hours or so, I've been in tears
of laughter watching you guys slugging it out. Way better than mens or
ladies singles finals at Wimbledon any day.
What most people seem to have overlooked (and if some haven't, then I
apologise in advance) is that we're surely comparing apples and bananas.
Here we have a young man, who wrote in to both lists in good faith asking
for advice. I have seen a lot of people attempt to give him objective
comment based on their own experiences and obvious preferences. A great
deal of it has been very sound and well reasoned. However, it is saddening
to note that some remarks posted to the lists have lacked meaningful and
objective comment and have gone far more for marque support - and little
else "because it's a Triumph" or "because its an MG.". This young chap who
can't wait to get his hands on an LBC should be encouraged - but I've not
yet seen anyone guiding him towards considering comparisons on a more like
for like basis. I'm guilty of not doing that because I wrote to him
directly myself. An MGB is an excellent car. Always was - always will be
for as long as all you loyal supporters out there, wherever you are,
continue restoring the rust buckets you keep finding and Heritage continues
making the body shells for those that are way past redemption. In my view,
a direct comparison, size for size, engine for engine etc etc is to
consider either a TR4A or a TR250 against a B. At least, the year overlaps
are more or less in line.
Then we come to Spitfire. Again the objective comparison should be against
a Spridget. That is what the car competed against when it was in
production. No-one in British Leyland anywhere in the world ever claimed
the Spitfire should compete with the B. How can you compare Mozart with
boiled cabbage and I'll let you all argue which is Mozart and which the
vegetable.
Regular readers to the Triumph list will know my earlier career path with
Triumph in the UK - but I'll go further than that when British Leyland
merged its corporate showrooms in London into one. This took place in late
69/early 1970. Until the merger of facilities, we manufacturer employed
salesmen, obviously had our product preferences. But when we then started
working alongside our hitherto competitors (with whom we were very good
friends anyway prior to merger) we sold ALL these cars alongside one
another and WITHOUT preference. Spridget and Spitfire had strong brand
loyalties but both types had their plus and minus points, and yes, they
were built to a price. Cars are still built to a price today, in case some
hadn'y noticed. They competed head-on against one another - but they were
NOT built to a price/quality level. Indeed, the manufacturing cost of
building bodies for BMC Sports cars vis a vis Triumph Sports cars was not
too dis-similar - even though their respective constructions were totally
different. The MGB was, for a long time, a convenient half-way house
between the smaller and the larger sports car range in a spectrum from
Spridgefire to B to TR5/6 to Healey 3000/MGC and then to the heady heights
of Jaguar E Type. It had a unique market niche and even greater popularity
when the TR4A went fuel injected and left the 2 litre lump scene. Until
that happened, the MGB and the TR4 were obvious and very real competitors.
NEVER - EVER did British Leyland or its member companies try to suggest B
and Spitfire competed against one another. How could they?
Finally, the comparison made by someone about the B's superior engine and
the implication that the spitfire 1500 was/is/might be a bag of nails - I
would say this. With the greatest respect, Sir - do your research and stop
talking out of your armpit. The ubiquitous 'B' series engine had a three
bearing crank and because it caused so much trouble in the early MGBs, went
five bearing in 1965ish. Thereafter, the problems were cured. The Spitfire
engine was only a three bearing unit and in its final guise at around
1500cc was being pushed to the very limits. Ye, Gods, it started out as a
three bearing 850 cc unit just after the war, so for someone to claim it is
not as durable as the 'B' series which started life many years earlier as a
larger engine anyway AND THEN HAD TO HAVE 2 EXTRA main journals put in it
in 1965 is utter twaddle.
Both cars are as good as and as bad as the other in their own individual
ways and for anyone to claim one is better than the other because "it's an
MG" or "because it's a Triumph" are doing nothing to help an enthusiastic
younger man make a rational choice in a very confusing arena. I wish him
luck with WHATEVER car he chooses. I just hope (for his sake) that if he
submits more questions to these lists for help, he has the maturity to
distinguish between constructive comment/advice and badge- loyal hysteria
allied to ill-informed opinion/cant which fortunately (and hopefully)
appears to be in a minority
John Macartney
|