Brian,
A wise man once told me the best way to increase the value of a TR7 is to fill
the tank with gas. Buy an MG.
Chris Delling wrote:
> John-
>
> I would agree with your perception that the early TR7's did suffer from
> terrible quality and workmanship. 1977 and 1978 model TR7's are
> acknowledged as being amongst the poorest quality cars ever built anywhere.
> They also featured a very thrashy, poorly designed 4-speed tranny.
>
> With the move of the production to new facilities (without labor relations
> problems that plagued the original facility), the introduction of the 5
> speed tranny, and the roadster body, these cars became very good all-around
> cars, albeit with "modern styling", that remains a subject of debate.
>
> I still prefer the MGB for a number of reasons. However, I do believe that
> the later TR7 convertibles are every bit as much a sports car as the MGB,
> and with their modern suspensions, and more powerful motors, are very
> capable, comfortable cars.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
> At 06:37 PM 12/28/97 -0600, you wrote:
> >Hi Brian,
> >
> >I saw your posting needing knowledge of the TR7. I've held my tongue during
> >the last TR7 thread but if you considering one I have to speak out.
> >
> >Back in college, and this was between 1976 - 80, I was working part time at
> >small foreign car repair shop in Indiana. We worked on lots of MGs and
> >Triumphs of all years Since the nearest dealer was over 60 miles away in
> >Indianapolis, we did work on many cars that were pretty new.
> >
> >The MGB is a good British sports car. There are none better. It has a
> >strong drive train and is simple to work on. Properly maintained, it is
> >very reliable in spite of the battle stories you read here. It's downfall
> >these days is that the newest examples are now nearly 20 years old. Rust is
> >it's enemy. The older chrome bumper cars were a little less complicated
> >than the later ones if you have a choice.
> >
> >Triumphs in general are also fine cars. I thought the TR6 in particular was
> >nice but I never owned one. The TR7 on the other hand was junk even when
> >new. The cars I saw were very low milage. There were all sorts of little
> >problems that made them difficult to work on. An example is one I went to
> >set the timing on and found the distributor body siezed in the block due to
> >corrosion. The sun roofs leaked. Paint flaked off the headlamp covers. The
> >Lucas electronic ignition had a fault that would shut down the car (though
> >the MGs were also having the same trouble). Those are just the problems I
> >recall. Besides being ugly, the car felt (and was) cheap.
> >
> >There was a small TR7 club in town at that time. They took a trip to Brown
> >County, Indiana which was about a 150 mile round trip. 14 TR7s set out 8
> >returned under their own power. These were almost NEW cars! I think this
> >incident more than anything set my opinion. I have to doubt ANY TR7 has
> >actually improved with age.
> >
> >I will now go back over here and lurk in my dark corner.
> >
> >John Morris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----------
> >From: John McEwen[SMTP:mmcewen@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca]
> >Sent: Sunday, December 28, 1997 11:03 AM
> >To: Brian Furgalus
> >Cc: mgs@autox.team.net
> >Subject: Re: MGB vs. TR7 as son's first car
> >
> >>I subscribed to this list in an effort to gain some more knowledge of the
> >>TR7. It has always been my understanding that the MGB is a much more
> >>reliable means of transport. I couldn't possibly afford to get him a TR8,
> >>they're quite expensive here. So, I guess my question is, which one is
> >>better for a young driver? Which is more practical? Easier to work on?
> >>More fun??? Thanks!
> >> Brian Furgalus,
> >> Avon Lake, Ohio (Suburb of Cleveland)
> >>____________________________________________________________________
> >>Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com
> >
> >Hi Brian:
> >
> >I own an MGB and have recently purchased a TR7 Coupe and am doing a
> >continuing comparison report on the MG list which I am copying this message
> >to.
> >
> >The two cars are a bit like apples and oranges. The MGB is a traditional
> >British sports car with all the quirks and foibles associated with its
> >Lucas electrics and archaic engine and suspension. It can be very reliable
> >if properly maintained and is a very satisfying car to own and drive.
> >
> >All MGBs are relatively simple to maintain and restore. They will teach a
> >young man - with proper guidance from an interested and knowledgable parent
> >- the art of maintaining and repairing machinery. They will give him an
> >intimate understanding of the functions on an internal combustion engine
> >and the associated bits that surround it. MGs will also teach him
> >patience, manual dexterity and basic engineering principles. They will
> >teach him to be resourceful and to have faith in his own ability.
> >
> >MGs are an excellent choice in terms of the availability of replacement
> >parts and reproduction pieces of all sorts. They have adequate power and
> >decent handling so that he shouldn't endanger himself due to inexperience
> >behind the wheel. They have also proven themselves to be quite stout in
> >case of mishap - for an open car.
> >
> >They are comfortable and roomy and quite weather tight if the top is in
> >good shape. The trunk is adequate for most things and space behind the
> >seats when the top is up will hold a good deal of gear.
> >
> >The TR7 coupe is a much more modern car internally and externally. The
> >construction is more modern and the coupe is tighter to the weather. It
> >has a better heating and ventilation system than the MG, with a powerful
> >fan and good internal ventilation system. The interior is quite
> >comforatable with good seats and good driving position. The dashboard is
> >very modern-looking with lots of plastic panels, useful storage bins, and
> >well laid-out instruments and controls. It has a large glove compartment
> >and console cubby. Both cars use similar multi-stalks to operate lighting
> >and wipers. The TR7 has no room behind the seats but does have a large bin
> >under the rear window - which is heated. The windshield is very large and
> >offers excellent visibility.
> >
> >The TR7 uses a Saab-derived OHC cam slant four of 2 litre displacement
> >which runs very smoothly and makes good power. It uses a mechanical fuel
> >pump which is a real improvement over the Lucas electric version in the
> >MGB. The engine is generally very accessible and easy to work on -
> >especially because of the forward-opening hood on the car. The engine uses
> >Stromberg carburetors which are less desirable than the SUs on the MG but
> >probably do a more efficient job of mixing fuel Gas mileage in the TR is
> >better than the MG by about 3 mpg in average city driving.
> >
> >The suspension of the TR is much more sophisticated and modern than the MG.
> >It uses Macpherson struts instead of coils with lever shocks. These are
> >cheaper and easier to replace than the equivalent MG bits. In the rear,
> >the axle is better anchored and uses modern tubular shocks. The TR rides
> >and handles better than the MG but requires a bit more skill at higher
> >cornering speeds. The TR is a faster car and has better acceleration but
> >this is not unusual for a larger engine. The TR also revs much higer than
> >the MG with its 7,000rpm redline. It has excellent brakes which are power
> >assisted unlike the earlier MGs. It is much less demanding to drive a TR
> >than an MG.
> >
> >The TR has an inferior transmission - until the addition of the Rover
> >5-speed in later cars. The early transmission is an Austin Marina unit
> >which was not up to the work demanded of it. It is difficult to shift well
> >and the clutch is difficult to operate smoothly. Part of the trouble lies
> >in engine and transmission mounts and support rods. The differential was
> >also inferior to the job at hand and was subsequently replaced in later
> >model. The car is noisy inside as a result of these poor pieces and the
> >noise is amplified by poor or absent sound deadening material.
> >
> >The styling of the two cars is very different. The MG is classic roadster
> >while the TR is '70s Japanese. Most people hate the wedge. The advantage
> >is that the droop snoot is very easy to see over and the high rear gives
> >incredible storage space. The car has a big trunk for a sports car. The
> >ugly bumpers are very forgiving in the parking lot shunt and aren't much
> >uglier than rubber-bumper MGs.
> >
> >Pricewise, the TR (especially the coupe) will be cheap and the MG
> >relatively expensive. The TR will have more expensive parts, and they will
> >be less easy to find, but the bonus is that you will find TRs in junkyards
> >where you won't find MGs.
> >
> >My recommendation is simple. Don't buy the kid a sports car at all. Buy
> >him a rusty, full-size Chev pickup truck. When he has his accident - and
> >he will - he will walk away. He'll probably even drive away, which is more
> >than the car he hits - or hits him - will be able to do. When he has
> >driven successfully for two years, let him go out with you and buy the car
> >he likes. You'll sleep at night and he will appreciate what he has. Keep
> >the pickup. You'll both use it for the rest of your lives.
> >
> >John McEwen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
Harris
'59 Bugeye Sprite (Buick V6 powered!)
|