triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: MGB vs. TR6

To: "Robert Shaffer" <rshaffer@gmu.edu>, "Trevor Boicey" <tboicey@brit.ca>
Subject: Re: MGB vs. TR6
From: "John Peacock" <pearesto@totcon.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 00:19:19 -0800
Cc: <EPaul21988@aol.com>, <triumphs@Autox.Team.Net>

----------
> From: Robert Shaffer <rshaffer@gmu.edu>
> To: Trevor Boicey <tboicey@brit.ca>
> Cc: EPaul21988@aol.com; triumphs@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: MGB vs. TR6
> Date: Saturday, October 25, 1997 10:55 PM
> 
> >   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.  Yeah, you get that nice rush of
> "wow, that's impressive acceleration" from today's cars, but that's
> about it.  After driving a Taurus SHO and a MG, I have to admit that the
> MG seemed more entertaining than the SHO.  Ok, you go 0-60 in 6.5
> seconds, but then it's ho-hum I wonder what's on the radio.   The MG
> just had so much more personality to everything it did.  An LBC demands
> your attention.  Oh well.  Just a few comments from a novice. :)
>                                               
>                                                       -Robert Shaffer

My TR8 does all of the noise thing, in fact sometimes you cannot even hear
the radio, and it does a bit better than 6.5 to 60mph.

I just keep sticking that foot in my mouth.  Sorry again.

John

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>