Brian Sanborn wrote:
The rigid axle TR4 with the super torquey 4 cyl engine is a
much more real "blood and guts" britsh sports car experience
than the TR6. The horsepower and torque rating of an
emmisions choked TR6 are only slight different than a TR4
and IMHO the TR4 delivers a more throaty LBC engine sound,
handing and total driving experience. It has much of the
original flavor of the TR3 with a more comfortable and
modern body.
I'll agree with Brian's general comments for the TR6 - with one important
proviso. The US spec TR6 was indeed mild in comparison to the fuel injected
version that was available for the rest of the world. The TR4 and 4A were
terrific cars in every way. When 1968 came and North America only saw the
TR250 (start of emission control) and we saw the TR5PI - that was where the
ways parted and they continued into the different versions of the 6. Until
the 4/4A went out of production, IMHO there wasn't all that much to choose
between the Triumph and the MGB. As the TR5 and 6 with fuel inj came in, I
feel Triumph moved up one big notch into the Healey 3000 class. The saddest
thing was that the MGC was so hastily cobbled together in comparative terms
that it never quite made it back to restore the status quo. A great shame
because by that time the inter-make fun had started to drain away too fast.
I drove both the injected 5/6 and MGC on many occasions - and there wasn't
really any comparison. MG fans will certainly disagree with this view but
the Triumph was a truly transformed car with the addition of those 50 odd
extra horses over the 4/4A. Now, when you start talking about the Rover V8
(Ken Costello's version - not BL's later attempt) going into the MGB, here
was a car that was INTERESTING !
John Mac
Book 1: http://www.toolbox.ndirect.co.uk/triumphbook
Book 2: http://www.toolbox.ndirect.co.uk/crocus
Triumph Over Triumph magazine: http://www.cyberware.co.uk/~chips11
|