Robert Shaffer wrote:
> > My advice to the original poster was that if acceleration
> > is very important to you, the correct choice is "neither". The
> > TR6 is marginally faster, but both are very slow cars by
> > todays standards.
>
> My general philosophy has been that acceleration, power, etc. is
> only important if that's what gives you a rush. I'm not saying that I
> don't like getting kicked in the back with 200+ hp, but from my limited
> experience with LBCs there is something to be said about the sterility
> of today's horsepower plentiful cars and an LBCs reassuring, and often
> mind numbing vibrations, sounds, etc.
Agreed fully.
However, I think the logic used to rule out the acceleration
advantages a modern car has over a TR6 is also valid between an
MGB and a TR6. Perhaps even more so, because most modern cars
are much faster than TR6/MGBs, while the TR6 is only marginally
faster than an MGB with both in equal tune.
TR6s and MGBs are different in handling, sound, looks, interior,
style, so many things that are very important. They are only
slightly apart in acceleration.
Logically, if acceleration is so important that it becomes
the deciding factor between a TR6 and an MGB, then acceleration
is likely higher on your list than many of these things, and
perhaps you are best served with another car.
Back to your point, the "rush" is not measured in numbers
anyways. The TR6 is slightly faster in numbers, but who is
to judge "the rush". If a modern car can do 0-60 in 6.5
seconds and provide much less rush than a TR-6 doing
it in 11 seconds, then who is to say the MGB doing it in
a bit more is less thrilling?
--
Trevor Boicey
Ottawa, Canada
tboicey@brit.ca
http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
|