In a message dated 28/11/01 9:18:45 AM Pacific Standard Time,
owner-mgs-digest@autox.team.net writes:
> > Yup too. In my opinion, the last really good Triumph
> > was the TR250 (TR5). :-) You gotta like a car with
> > a tractor engine.
> >
>
In my opinion (for whatever it's worth), the TR 250 was a piece of c__p!
All of the IRS cars had poorly specced rear spring rates, something they
never did fix as long as the cars were in production, but the 250 had the
heavier 6 cylinder engine, with no significant improvement in power or
performance over the 4 cylinder predecessor (which was the 'tractor engine',
not the 6), a result of the US smog regs of the day.
The TR6 as delivered in non-North American markets had around 50% more power,
and was worlds apart in terms of feel and driveability, notwithstanding the
aforesaid suspension shortcomings.
BTW, I say this not as an MG loving, Triumph hating sports car owner, as you
might suspect, but as a long time fan of both marques. I have owned TR-2,
TR-3, TR-3A, TR-3B, TR-4, TR4A, and Swallow Dorettis, and have driven all
other models including TR-6, TR-7, and Stag.
The TR-7 is frankly beneath contempt in terms of sports car enjoyability, and
the gutless (though obviously less so) TR-8 is little better - it shared the
low output 135 bhp V8 with the MG V8, when they should both have had the SD1
spec engines.
Just so as not to play favourites, I also feel the same way about jacked-up
rubber bumpered Marina engined late MGBs.
On the other hand, I like TR-3s and MGAs (a lot) and also own an MGC, which
makes an interesting comparison with the TR-6. On the whole, I prefer the
MGC, which might surprise many people.
Bill
///
/// mgs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
|