bill;
ive got one of each and like em both..for multiple reasons.tr3 ugly is to
the beholder, i guess..i think its great to jump in the tr3 without having
to open a door, if i feel fighter pilotish..it may not fit together like a
rolls, but it goes like hell, and i dont worry about stone nicks.
it takes abuse and keeps on cookin'
there are a lot of people that would like to have one..ugly as it is.
and it aint a m**ta.no flame intended from here,just another say
dick fontaine
48mgtc
62tr3b
"he who dies with the most toys,wins"
i want to come in 2nd.
the sun almost shines today in florida
On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, William Eastman wrote:
> My limited experience here (2 MG's, one Tr*umph, plus lots of looking)
> allows me to make the following observations.
>
> In general, brand T stuck to more traditional English features longer such
> as separate chassis / frame or wood dashboards where MG's moved on to unit
> construction / metal or plastic dash. This is good and bad from both
> sides. The unit body is stronger and lighter but the separate frame is
> easier to fix. People like to look at a wood dash.
>
> MG's tend to use better materials than brand T. The MGA had leather
> interior and aluminum moving body parts where the TR-2 shared it's engine
> with a tractor.
>
> MG's tended to be assembled with much more care than brand T. On My MGB
> the doors and everything fit very well with very narrow panel Gaps. Anyone
> who has tried to restore an MGA can appreciate the craftsmanship it took to
> assemble its body. My Spit looked like it was thrown together on Friday
> just befor the bars opened. The body was designed to avoid the tight
> tolerances necessitated by the MGA or MGB- look at the way the boot and
> bonned designs on Brand T avoid or hide panel matches.
>
> Mechanically, MG's tended to be well developed (better engineered?) uses of
> older, proven technology whereas Brand T was known to graft on poor
> attempts at modernization- ie TR independant rear suspension.
>
> Although neither would be called reliable by today's standards, MG's are
> more reliable than Brand T. My experience and literature backs this up.
>
> In stock form, Brand T was usually more powerful than the comparable MG.
> This was usually because they used a bigger engine, not because of better
> technology.
>
> Last but not least, MG's tend to be very precise and responsive to drive.
> The Transmissions have short, direct throws and the steering is wonderful.
> Brand T tends to be more sloppy, in my opinion.
>
> As you can probably tell, I prefer MG's. I do like the look of the TR-6
> and was looking for one at one time. Also, I fit in a Spitfire where a
> Spridget is a little tight. I think Tr2 / 3's are about the ugliest cars
> ever made and besides, we used to have Ferguson tractors on our farm and
> aren't they about the same thing? I think they just add fenders and change
> the gear ratio and viola! instant TR2 :>)
>
> Flame me if you must be you know these statements to be true- well maybe
> not the tractor part per se.
>
> Regards
> Bill Eastman
> 61 MGA
> Asbestos shorts
>
|