Trevor Boicey writes:
> Compare an MGB to a TR4, and it's hard to beleive they are from the
>same era. Both are charming cars, but the MGB was still sold until 1980
>and frankly didn't look TOO out of date when it did.
The TR4 was an evolution from the TR3 (which was designed in 1952!)
whereas the MGB (designed in 1962!) was a clean sheet design (influenced,
I believe, by the XKE).
> Thinks like unibody construction, which my 1958 MG Magnette has and
>Triumph never really got a handle on.
I beg your pardon. Don't discount the wegies. The TR7/8 put the MGB
to shame in reguards to structural integrety and the asthetics are a
matter of personal opinion. I, quite frankly, like the wegies, but for
different reasons than why I like the preceeding TR line.
> I like Triumphs, but they seem to have a history of "not getting
>it quite right". They engineering independent suspensions without
>actually acheiving the level of handling that they should have with
>them. Triumph also did things like make the TR6 engine which, even
>though it's a six, doesn't really outperform most other company's
>fours including MG (with similar carburation).
Chalk that up to the US EPA. The European models would run circles
around the US TR6's (and the MGB's)
> PI is another example, Triumph delved into PI but again, never
>quite got it right.
MG never PI'd ANYTHING!
>Look what they did when they tried to make a V8 engine (Stag).
What V8 did MG develop?
> I like Triumphs, but I also have three octagon mobiles and they
>deserve a LOT of credit. They are all fine, with the honest exception
>of the engine in my Midget which is... you guess it, a triumph
>design.
> Quite honestly, I think Triumph had it done well with the TR3
>and just slipped from there. Think about it, what "innovations"
>does the last carbed TR6 really have over a TR3? Roll up
>windows? A dubious independent suspension? Not much to show for
>two decades of development.
Although MG was cash straped by world standards, compared to Triumph
MG had very deep pockets, indeed. Triumph developed the TR3 in the
immediate post war era when there was a lot of room for improvement in
the state of the automobile. Triumph was the first on the scene in
this market segment and had a very successful product. It is only
natural that the following products not deviate far from the original.
The MG Midget is little changed from the original Bug Eye (Frog Eye)
Sprite!
You have to give Triumph points for trying. Triumph developed an
independent suspension (two, infact), MG did not. Triumph developed
their own V8 engine, MG did not. And Triumph had fewer resources than
did MG. What did MG do after designing the MGB? They inhereted the
Austin Healy Sprite And rebadged it. Then they stole the Spitfire motor!
> (let's ignore wedgies for now)
Ignoring the wegies (and the Stag) is top prejudice the case. To
do a fair comparison of the companies would require comparison of
contemporary auto's. The TR3 and the MGA (which has a frame of wood),
the TR4 and the MGB, the Spitfire and the Midget, the TR7 and ???,
the Stag and ???. MG took the safe comfortable route and just
continued to produce the same old stuff while Triumph continued to
develope new stuff and for what? To get a black eye for not being perfect?
>Trevor Boicey
>Ottawa, Canada
>tboicey@brit.ca
>http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
I think we have deviated from the original question: Should someone buy
a spitfire or an MGB for a project car?
Discusion about the MG being a more modern car misses the point. If a
more modern car were the object then get a CRX or a Miata. The reason
we like lbc's is because they have the little quirks that are not found in
more modern cars. My opinion is that he should buy the best example of
whatever cars he finds that he can afford. After all, they all are fun!
Dave Massey
St. Louis, MO, USA
105671.471@compuserve.com
P.S. This is not a flame, just a zealest defence of my second favorite
marque
(I can't afford a Jaguar at this time) ;-)
|