We have to keep this in perspective. The TR7 was sold in the latter half of
the 1970s into the early 80s - the same time that people were buying flare
pants, Izod shirts, and avocado colored refrigerators. Nearly ALL cars
developed and sold in the late 70s suffered from a severe case of the
uglies, but that's what people wanted back then.
Go find a copy of David Knowles' "MG - The Untold Story" and check out the
photos of the Broadside project car. This was an attempt to update the TR7
styling when sales started to drop. The main thing they did was to get rid
of the ugly crease down the side of the car, and it still looks good today!
I would have bought one of those with the Rover V-8 in a minute!
As for the TR7 engine being an engineering marvel, I defy anyone to sing its
praises after having to change a water pump (stupidly buried in the block,
with seals that allow the water to mix with the oil when they fail) or to
remove a cylinder head when the angled studs have seized in place.
MGB-GT V-8s Forever!
Paul Kile
-----Original Message-----
From: Kai M. Radicke [mailto:kradick1@ic3.ithaca.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 3:03 PM
To: murray arundell; Dodd, Kelvin; Tic Tac Group
Cc: mgb-v8@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: MGB-V8 History
> 1) No matter what engine you put into it sooner or later you still had
to
> look at the ugliest car ever produced!
I will dispute that. Based on sheer statistics, those buying the TR7
apparently did not think it was ugly... it was the best selling Triumph
sports car in the TR series. The TR6 sold ~ 90,000 or so in 7 years? While
the TR7 sold something like ~135,000 in it's 5 year run.
> 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.
The TR7 was produced at two plants, the first of which was had terrible
quality control issues and numerous strikes. Later, post 1977 I believe,
production was transfered and the quality of the cars went up.
The TR8 could have been the car to save British Leyland, but BL would have
needed at least another stylish saloon platform to salvage it's position in
that market. The TR8 got excellent reviews, and one stands out particularly
in my mind, because it was compared to the Corvette in performance
figures... and given what we can achieve with our RV8s, we all know that
the TR8 could have been easily tuned to match and beat the Corvette's
figures for very little money.
What the TR7 and TR8 lacked as an independant rear suspension. That solid
rear axle had to go. Great for rallying, as seen in much BL rally usage of
the TR7 V8 and Sprints. IMHO, and people have done this, BL could have fit
the Jaguar IRS, IRS subframe and axles shorted of course... but using the
same components.
As for what the BL could have done to better the numbers for the MGB V8.
Well, imagine the pains of trying to produce a profit making sportscar with
a V8 just as your entering an oil crisis (I mean what chance then did the
MGB V8 ever have of getting imported into the USA? And as you can see...).
I think a stripped down GT with the bare essentials, keeping the standard
four cylinder engine, would have made a nice "Honda fighter" in the USA.
The MGB V8 was the right idea, 10 years too late.
The TR7 engine was an engineering marvel, it even won much a coveted design
award in Britain.
1970 should have been the year for a new big sportscar from MG. However,
you had the merger a few years previous (twice in fact; British Motor
Holdings and then the formation of British Leyland). And the focus was not
on producing new models, it was on maximizing profit on the current
models...
--
Kai M. Radicke -- kradick1@ic3.ithaca.edu
'74 Triumph TR6 -- http://www.pil.net/~felix
|