Well, owning both...
The TR-8 was/is a mean car in various forms of competition, from
autocross to hill climb, to an SCCA rally championship. (I've got
a great pic of Buffum with a number of inches of air under all four
tires!) Excuse my colloquial southern expression, but ain't no way
a 'B will keep up with an TR-8 in basically any kind of motor sports.
(And I for one think that "sports car" means exactly that--a car you
use for sports.) A V-8 TR-7 once hit over 311 km/h on the Mulsanne,
I don't think a 'B could do that powered by all four of the Rover
alloy V-8 engines I've got!
The TR-7 out sold the TR-6 (in fewer years of production), and people
stayed away in droves?
Looks? Purely opinion. I'm not the only one who's had baffled looks
when I tell folks mine's a '77. A lot of younger enthusiasts really
like 'em, they've almost got a Ferrari/exotic car look to them. Whether
you like it or not, BL's "shape of..." adverts where pretty much right.
Practically *all* production cars of the '70s understeered like a
proverbial pig.
Build quality and design quality are two different things. As an engineer,
I deal with this one all the time. :/
Only one of the TR-7 plants had labor problems (at a time when most
of the UK suffered from same). The later cars had much better build
quality, but by then, they had a bad reputation, which means, yes,
they had the worst warranty return problem of an BL vehicle.
Really hard to compare 'B to Wedge handling, out of the box both are
fun, but not something I'd care to bet on in competition. The 'B
can be modified to handle great, but then if you're moding stuff,
the wedge can be built to be as good or better than any modern car,
because, in many ways, the 7/8 was a modern car.
Which do I like best? Probably my 'B. Why? It was my first car.
The TR-7? My wife has latched on to it. She's 9 years younger than
I am. She loves the MGs and Healy Sprite look, but the wedge, to her,
just looks more modern and aggressive.
This is one thread that constantly crops up on various Brit car lists.
The TR-7 did not kill MG or BL, a number of factors did. The TR-7
was not a horrid car, it was a machine that was supposed to be a V-8
(ever wonder why the engine bay is so big?) that was built by people
who didn't care with an engine that was selected by committee.
Just my friendly flames,
-Keith Wheeler
Team Sanctuary http://www.TeamSanctuary.com/
At 06:59 AM 12/8/99 +1000, murray arundell wrote:
>Kelvin,
>
>Only two problems with your theory re TR-7/8.
>
>1) No matter what engine you put into it sooner or later you still had to
>look at the ugliest car ever produced!
>2) The Triumph was produced at a strike ridden plant that could never
>produce a quality product. The public new it and stayed
>away in droves..... Days lost to strikes at MGs were NIL! Fact.
>
>One further point, old it may have been, but the MGB out lasted the Triumph
>(stand corrected here). Also do not forget that the TR 7/8 was an evil
>understeering beast from which major components tended to fall off
>periodically! (See point 2)
>
>Cheers (in a friendly flamed way)
>Murray Arundell
>Brisbane Aus,
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Dodd, Kelvin <doddk@mossmotors.com>
>To: Tic Tac Group <uga4300@hotmail.com>
>Cc: <mgb-v8@autox.team.net>
>Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 4:18 AM
>Subject: RE: MGB-V8 History
>
>
>> Zach:
>>
>> I will jump in.
>>
>> I don't think mismanaged is the best way to put it. The MGB
>> platform was very dated by the time the V8 concept came out. There was no
>> money for updating the platform to a more modern design. The MGB V8 was a
>> smooth, powerful, expensive engine installed in a unrefined outdated
>> chassis. Keep in mind the MGB chassis was designed in 1961. It was then
>> 1973. The press complaints at the time of introduction said it all. The
>> car had a harsh suspension, too much windnoise and a low level of interior
>> luxury for the price. They loved the engine, but were disapointed with
>the
>> dated platform. The target market was young executives, who wanted a
>flash
>> high performance vehicle. The MGB GT V8 was competing with cars such as
>the
>> Ford Capri V6 which had similar performance, seated 4 and had a higher
>> available trim level, for a lower cost. Despite the lovely motor and
>marque
>> fame, the MGB GT V8 was just not competitive in the marketplace.
>>
>> Now we look back with rosy fogged hindsight and make silly comments
>> about the car that would have saved MG. An MGB has a wonderful vintage
>> flavor to it. That flavor is what makes it a beloved machine. Vintage
>> flavor does not sell automobiles in a competitive mass market. British
>> Leyland was not The Morgan Car Co. It could not support a limited market
>> low volume vehicle.
>>
>> Now I am going to get flamed out the wazoo. The best thing IMHO
>> that BL could have done was to dump the MGB and use a crystal ball to
>ignore
>> the roll over debate and get the TR8 convertible into production before
>> 1974. The TR7 shell was a well developed modern structure with well
>located
>> suspension. Interior space and comfort were good. Ride quality was
>> excellent (too soft by some standards). The TR8 in hard (preferably
>> fastback) or soft top could have given the competition a run for the
>money.
>> Just as the Capri was available with a lower level engine, the TR7 with
>> suitable 4 cylinder would have been an excellent entry level vehicle. The
>> original Saab 99 engine was designed by Triumph. If the engine
>progression
>> had of been paralleled, many of the design flaws in the TR7 2.0L would
>have
>> been solved. Could you imagine a 16 valve version of the Triumph engine
>> with the same reliability as the Saab 900 engine. Instead of allowing the
>> MGB to soldier on with reduced power and antiquated handling, could you
>> imagine a line of TR7 platform vehicles. Starting with a base 8 valve, up
>> to an injected V8. Body styles including CVT, fastback, or sportwagon
>(ala
>> Jensen Healey). Ok, this is from a die hard MGB fan. But I keep my eyes
>> wide open to the limitations of the MGB design.
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Kelvin.
>>
>>
>> Kelvin.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Quick question: When BMC produced the MGB-V8 how was it
>> > mismanaged and what
>> > could they have done better?
>> > Thanks for your time
>> > Zach
>> >
>>
>
>
>
|