Hello John:
You have made some excellent points. However as the one who is "talking
out of his armpit" you have agreed with my point regarding the durability
of the engines. The MGB engine was improved by the addition of the extra
bearings in 1965, after a very short production time in this car, and it
subsequently became among the most rugged and simple British engines ever
built. The Triumph engine was increased in size steadily until it reached
a point where it became unreliable due to its design. Follow this list for
a while and you will read many horror stories about Triumph 1500 engines.
This tendency to make "too much of a good thing" out of British engines was
not restricted to automobile engines. One only has to look at the balls up
in the British motorcycle industry where old designs were continuously
enlarged beyond their design limits until they became rough, overstressed
and unreliable. Good examples of this are found in the 750 engines of
Norton, Triumph, BSA, and certainly the largest engines of the others.
I am not unfamiliar with British engineering having owned and restored all
or part of the following machines:
'57 AJS Model 20
'67 BSA Spitfire
'70 Norton Commando
'71 Triumph TR6R
'49 Austin A40
'50 Standard Vanguard
'54 Jaguar Mk.VII
'55 TR2
'57 Lagonda 3 Litre
'58 Wolseley 6/90
'61 Jaguar Mk.2 3.8
'62 Sunbeam Alpine
'65 Austin A60
'66 Austin A60
'66 Rover 2000TC
'70 MGB
'70 MGB
'73 MGB
'76 TR7
In addition to the vehicles I have owned, I have been involved in the
restoration of Hillman, Vauxhall, TR3, MG Midget, Triumph Spitfire
automobiles. I have taken them apart, rebuilt engines and repaired bodies
and put them together.
To suggest that the Triumph engine was a better one because it wasn't
modified during its production run - and the MG engine was - is
ludicrous. Incidentally, both engines originated at the same time, as the
MG engine was developed from the Austin A40. The Triumph engine wasn't
improved because the money wasn't there. As was typical of a failing
British industry, they kept on pushing them out the door until no one would
buy them. One only has to look at the collapse of the entire British
motorcycle industry and most of the automobile industry during the '70s to
see that.
John McEwen
>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
|