[Top] [All Lists]

RE: MGB vs. TR7 as son's first car( Now in defense of RBBMGs

To: MGS@Autox.Team.Net
Subject: RE: MGB vs. TR7 as son's first car( Now in defense of RBBMGs
From: Donald Scott <>
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 10:42:03 -0800
At 08:58 PM 12/29/97 -0800, you wrote:
>Donald Scott wrote...I would not take a TR7or a rubber-bumper MGB unless it
was a gift. 

I'm sorry . . . I didn't mean to insult owners of rubber-bumper B's.  I have
driven differen't years of B's, and the earliest cars are so much more fun
to drive.  The best ones are '67 and older- they just drive like a sports
car should.  I've owned '67's and '71, '72's, and '74's and the '67's are
much better cars than the later ones.  (UK spec cars did not have emission
requirements like US cars, so didn't have reductions in power like ours.)
After having worked behind the dashboard in replacing light switches was
enough to convince me of the superiority of the '67 over the later cars.  In
fact, a couple of months ago, my friend let me drive a customer car- a
restored '65 and it was absolutely wonderful to drive- and it really went
fast (for an MG).

My good friend has a British car repair shop, and I've seem the
rubber-bumper B's in his shop and talked to him about them.  He thinks that
the newest B's are terrible cars, and that's where I obtained my opinion as
to their reliability.  Between the Stromberg carbs, emission controls,
catalytic coverters, raised ride height, and those crappy rocker switches
that burn out, I find the rubber-bumper cars not too appealing.  In fact, I
regret having taken on the restoration of my '73 B GT; I should have started
with a '67 or older car. 

I drive a Miata now and it is in spirit more like the older B's.  

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • RE: MGB vs. TR7 as son's first car( Now in defense of RBBMGs, Donald Scott <=