The prejudice of LBC owners when commenting on another make or model never
ceases to amaze me. The uninformed waffle has raised my hackles in defence
of the pure from the purile.
I have owned a few MGs (MGB Mk1 Roadster, MKII Roadster, ZA Magnette, MkIV
Magnette, MG 1100) and through cars owned by my father I am familiar with
the TC and TF. Each has its own quirky character and many flaws that could
be frowned on - but I would never refer to any of these cars as CRAP in the
offhand manner in which you refer to the TR6, TR7&8.
I currently own a 1980 TR7 Sprint (16 valve 2.0ltr) and think the lovely
little wedge is just gorgeous and an absolute thrill and pleasure to drive,
and in relfecting on 10yrs of MGB driving versus the TR7 I would say the TR
is superior in many respects. I wonder if you have ever driven one?
>The numbers of TR7s sold says more about the seventies than it does
>Triumphs.
I think the number sold reflects the world's desire for Lovely British
Sports Cars and the fact that the TR7 was something new compared to the
1960's styled and engineered MGB.
>Then, to know that Abingdon was shut down in favor of that
>gawd-awful TR7. . .
It is NOT true that Abingdon was shut down in favor of the TR7 as about the
time Abingdon was disposed of the TR7&8 were also discontinued. What is true
is that in the early 70s, MG's plans for new models were put on hold in
preference to the wedge design developed by Triumph (when quite clearly the
market could have stood models from both marques).
>Anyways, the first TR7s were crap. Later they worked out some
>of the problems and made it less ugly in convertible mode (isn't worthy of
>the word roadster). TR8 was a passable creation, but just.
It is true that the early TR7s suffered problems but these were mostly
quality in assembly rather than design related. There are many people who
would argue against your inference that the Coupe design is ugly (I myself
am inclined to look at the Interceptor and the Jensen Healey and feel
slightly off-colour) but I don't think you would find many people who could
look at the Spyder/Drop Head Coupe and call it ugly, and we certianly never
use that quaint anachronistic word "Roadster" to describe it. The TR8 was
much more than JUST a passable creation - just go out and drive one then
come eat humble pie.
> Still, if you get a TR6 you'll at least get to know just how 'independent'
>a rear suspension can be! After a few years they all tend to look like dogs
>squating to urinate.
Regarding TR6's independent rear supsension - hop into one and take it
through a fast set of winding esses - it certainly feels safer and gets the
power down to the wheels faster (and Safety Fast was the MG catch cry!).
Pity MG never thought of it, or perhaps it was just too complicated for
simple minded MG owners to work on ;). If TR6's look like dogs squatting to
urinate, perhaps that's why CATS only go on/near MG's and never Triumphs!
FLAME OFF
A well maintained and respected TR7 is no more or less reliable than any
other LBC. They are about as easy to work on as an MGB and parts are just as
expensive and available. The cars are certainly cheaper to buy, but to date,
haven't started to appreciate in value. Apart from the fantastic shape and
modern suspension design the TR7's best features are what can be done with
performance. Put in the Sprint 16 valve motor and 200 bhp can be achieved
(compared to 140 bhp from Stage 5 MGB tuning), or go the whole hog and put
in the V8 to achieve 300+ bhp. Do donuts on your neighbor's lawns, or watch
the yuppies' jaws drop when you blow their BMW 318 away at the lights,
burning rubber in every gear - now there is satisfaction that cannot be
achieved in any MG except the MGBV8.
Owen Michaels-Hardy, Sydney Australia
1980 TR7 FHC Sprint
ORIGINAL POSTING IN FULL BELOW
At 07:41 AM 13/11/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Kai,
>
>The numbers of TR7s sold says more about the seventies than it does
>Triumphs. It was the dark ages of the automobile. I got knocked about a bit
>for my rubber-bumper predjudice, but I was driving a 67B when those things
>first hit the road in 74/75 and haven't ever recovered from the jolt to my
>system. Then, to know that Abingdon was shut down in favor of that
>gawd-awful TR7. . . if the car scene had been a political system I would
>have gone underground and become a resistance fighter -- wait, that's sort
>of what I did. Anyways, the first TR7s were crap. Later they worked out some
>of the problems and made it less ugly in convertible mode (isn't worthy of
>the word roadster). TR8 was a passable creation, but just.
> Still, if you get a TR6 you'll at least get to know just how 'independent'
>a rear suspension can be! After a few years they all tend to look like dogs
>squating to urinate.
>
>Michael (just set in his ways)New Bern, NC
>67B (with chrome bumpers as God intended)
>74 Interceptor (60s design that held the line into the dark ages)
>
>
>
|