>
>I know this is a Triumph group, but let go the bias, and tell
>me what both sides think.
>
>ken
You know... it's not really a rivalry like Ford vs Chevy... I mean we all
show a certain affinity for lost causes by owning any British car.
There is a lot of good natured cross-marque ribbing that takes place (one
of our august body would "rather eat worms that drive an MG"). Both marques
have their strengths and weaknesses. You can't beat any of the T-series MGs
for "cute" (unless you have a bug-eye Sprite a Mini, or a Morris Minor).
Triumphs seem to appeal to the "I don't care if it's loud and crude so long
as it goes fast crowd."
Triumphs seem to be more agricultural, and basic. Whereas MGs seem more
refined. Back in the 50s and early 60s, I think you would be more likely to
find a component hi-fi (with the tubes and wires and speakers hanging out)
in a Triumph owners "pad" (am I dating myself or what?).
The MG owner would be more inclined to wear tweeds, smoke a briar, and sip
single malt. Where the Triumph owner would have a soggy stogie clamped in
his teeth, wear a T-shirt and jeans, and drink beer.
As a long time Triumph fan and a "relatively" recent Triumph owner, I
think we Triumphsti suffer from a lack of recognition. I can tell you I do
get a bit fussed when I have to tell the third or fourth person in an
afternoon "It's not an MG... It's a Triumph".
But I haven't a malicious bone in my body... I'll pull over to help an MG
owner with his car just as quickly as I would a Triumph owner. After all,
we're just fellow LBC owners. We owe it to our respective marques...
We Triumphisti are bigger than any rivalry. We mustn't gloat over MG...
er... shortcomings...
(well... maybe just a little gloating):*)...........
Greg Petrolati
Greg Petrolati Champaign, Illinois
1962 TR4 (CT4852L)
That's not a leak... My car's just marking its territory...
|