Dave Massey wrote:
>
> Trevor Boicey writes:
>
>
> > Compare an MGB to a TR4, and it's hard to beleive they are from the
> >same era. Both are charming cars, but the MGB was still sold until 1980
> >and frankly didn't look TOO out of date when it did.
>
> The TR4 was an evolution from the TR3 (which was designed in 1952!)
> whereas the MGB (designed in 1962!) was a clean sheet design (influenced,
> I believe, by the XKE).
>
> > Thinks like unibody construction, which my 1958 MG Magnette has and
> >Triumph never really got a handle on.
>
> I beg your pardon. Don't discount the wegies. The TR7/8 put the MGB
> to shame in reguards to structural integrety and the asthetics are a
> matter of personal opinion. I, quite frankly, like the wegies, but for
> different reasons than why I like the preceeding TR line.
>
> > I like Triumphs, but they seem to have a history of "not getting
> >it quite right". They engineering independent suspensions without
> >actually acheiving the level of handling that they should have with
> >them. Triumph also did things like make the TR6 engine which, even
> >though it's a six, doesn't really outperform most other company's
> >fours including MG (with similar carburation).
>
> Chalk that up to the US EPA. The European models would run circles
> around the US TR6's (and the MGB's)
>
> > PI is another example, Triumph delved into PI but again, never
> >quite got it right.
>
> MG never PI'd ANYTHING!
>
> >Look what they did when they tried to make a V8 engine (Stag).
>
> What V8 did MG develop?
>
> > I like Triumphs, but I also have three octagon mobiles and they
> >deserve a LOT of credit. They are all fine, with the honest exception
> >of the engine in my Midget which is... you guess it, a triumph
> >design.
>
> > Quite honestly, I think Triumph had it done well with the TR3
> >and just slipped from there. Think about it, what "innovations"
> >does the last carbed TR6 really have over a TR3? Roll up
> >windows? A dubious independent suspension? Not much to show for
> >two decades of development.
>
> Although MG was cash straped by world standards, compared to Triumph
> MG had very deep pockets, indeed. Triumph developed the TR3 in the
> immediate post war era when there was a lot of room for improvement in
> the state of the automobile. Triumph was the first on the scene in
> this market segment and had a very successful product. It is only
> natural that the following products not deviate far from the original.
> The MG Midget is little changed from the original Bug Eye (Frog Eye)
> Sprite!
>
> You have to give Triumph points for trying. Triumph developed an
> independent suspension (two, infact), MG did not. Triumph developed
> their own V8 engine, MG did not. And Triumph had fewer resources than
> did MG. What did MG do after designing the MGB? They inhereted the
> Austin Healy Sprite And rebadged it. Then they stole the Spitfire motor!
>
> > (let's ignore wedgies for now)
>
> Ignoring the wegies (and the Stag) is top prejudice the case. To
> do a fair comparison of the companies would require comparison of
> contemporary auto's. The TR3 and the MGA (which has a frame of wood),
> the TR4 and the MGB, the Spitfire and the Midget, the TR7 and ???,
> the Stag and ???. MG took the safe comfortable route and just
> continued to produce the same old stuff while Triumph continued to
> develope new stuff and for what? To get a black eye for not being perfect?
>
> >Trevor Boicey
> >Ottawa, Canada
> >tboicey@brit.ca
> >http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
>
> I think we have deviated from the original question: Should someone buy
> a spitfire or an MGB for a project car?
>
> Discusion about the MG being a more modern car misses the point. If a
> more modern car were the object then get a CRX or a Miata. The reason
> we like lbc's is because they have the little quirks that are not found in
> more modern cars. My opinion is that he should buy the best example of
> whatever cars he finds that he can afford. After all, they all are fun!
>
> Dave Massey
> St. Louis, MO, USA
> 105671.471@compuserve.com
>
> P.S. This is not a flame, just a zealest defence of my second favorite
> marque
> (I can't afford a Jaguar at this time) ;-)
Gentlemen, don't forget the Brits, were first out with commercial jets
also, they just forgot to pressurize them and then poof away they blew.
|