Ken
I won't try to speak for others. I love the Triumphs. Someday, budgets and
kids permitting I'll get my TR3, and GT6. (My son wants a spit.)Meanwhile
I'll work on the one model I really love. TR250s. But I must admit, I do own
an MG too. A 1958 MGA... made back when they had real frames and a classic
roadster body style. Its not fast or powerful, but it is fun to drive (big
criteria) and IMHO a beautiful car to look at. I don't like the MGBs or
others that followed. Even if they put V8s in. I think they are too
ubiquitous.
Both Marques are subject to rust, but I think that with the Triumphs, with a
separate frame, someone like me can have a reasonable chance of restoring a
car.
But, like everything else, we have our own preferences for any one of a
number of different reasons. If you're looking for power you can find all
kinds of ways to put more ponys to the wheels. Regardless of what kind of
car you do it to. If you're looking for something fun and unique, something
that will turn heads, something your kids want you to will to them
(yeah....like that's going to happen) you can't go wrong with a Triumph. And
yes, I think the average Triumph has enough power for what I want to
do.....so far. (Wait a year or two.)
But welcome...
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Shapiro - Kenneth J. [mailto:kshapiro@umd5.umd.edu]
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 1999 9:20 AM
To: triumphs@autox.team.net
Subject: Triumphs vs. MGs...whatsa scoop?
OK...I just bought my first Triumph (1970 GT6). Though I've
owned and restored many other cars (Corvette, Porsche, Lotus),
a Lotus Europa was my only venture into the Lucas world of
darkness. So, I'm curious, what's the general comparison
between Triumph and MG? As a "newbie: into this arena, it seems
that Triumphs have always been more powerful. Is my perception\
accurate? How does body work compare...is one more rust prone
than the other? Was quality comparable or not.
I know this is a Triumph group, but let go the bias, and tell
me what both sides think.
ken
|