mgs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: NICE TR7 (???)

To: mgs@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: NICE TR7 (???)
From: WSpohn4@aol.com
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 18:13:50 EST
In a message dated 28/11/01 9:18:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
owner-mgs-digest@autox.team.net writes:



> > Yup too.  In my opinion, the last really good Triumph
> >  was the TR250 (TR5). :-)  You gotta like a car with
> >  a tractor engine.
> > 
> 



In my opinion (for whatever it's worth), the TR 250 was a piece of c__p!
All of the IRS cars had poorly specced rear spring rates, something they 
never did fix as long as the cars were in production, but the 250 had the 
heavier 6 cylinder engine, with no significant improvement in power or 
performance over the 4 cylinder predecessor (which was the 'tractor engine', 
not the 6), a result of the US smog regs of the day.

The TR6 as delivered in non-North American markets had around 50% more power, 
and was worlds apart in terms of feel and driveability, notwithstanding the 
aforesaid suspension shortcomings.

BTW, I say this not as an MG loving, Triumph hating sports car owner, as you 
might suspect, but as a long time fan of both marques. I have owned TR-2, 
TR-3, TR-3A, TR-3B, TR-4, TR4A, and Swallow Dorettis, and have driven all 
other models including TR-6, TR-7, and Stag.

The TR-7 is frankly beneath contempt in terms of sports car enjoyability, and 
the gutless (though obviously less so) TR-8 is little better - it shared the 
low output 135 bhp V8 with the MG V8, when they should both have had the SD1 
spec engines.

Just so as not to play favourites, I also feel the same way about jacked-up 
rubber bumpered Marina engined late MGBs.

On the other hand, I like TR-3s and MGAs (a lot) and also own an MGC, which 
makes an interesting comparison with the TR-6. On the whole, I prefer the 
MGC, which might surprise many people.

Bill

///
///  mgs@autox.team.net mailing list
///  or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: NICE TR7 (???), WSpohn4 <=