Allen Nugent wrote:
> Brian, perhaps if you had already finished your automotive eng. course you
> wouldn't need to ask. In my opinion, Triumph was technically and
> stylistically ahead of MG by 5-10 years, from the TR2 onwards (at least!).
I don't think this is really possible to back up.
Compare an MGB to a TR4, and it's hard to beleive they are from the
same era. Both are charming cars, but the MGB was still sold until 1980
and frankly didn't look TOO out of date when it did.
Thinks like unibody construction, which my 1958 MG Magnette has and
Triumph never really got a handle on.
I like Triumphs, but they seem to have a history of "not getting
it quite right". They engineering independent suspensions without
actually acheiving the level of handling that they should have with
them. Triumph also did things like make the TR6 engine which, even
though it's a six, doesn't really outperform most other company's
fours including MG (with similar carburation).
PI is another example, Triumph delved into PI but again, never
quite got it right. Look what they did when they tried to make
a V8 engine (Stag).
I like Triumphs, but I also have three octagon mobiles and they
deserve a LOT of credit. They are all fine, with the honest exception
of the engine in my Midget which is... you guess it, a triumph
design.
Quite honestly, I think Triumph had it done well with the TR3
and just slipped from there. Think about it, what "innovations"
does the last carbed TR6 really have over a TR3? Roll up
windows? A dubious independent suspension? Not much to show for
two decades of development.
(let's ignore wedgies for now)
--
Trevor Boicey
Ottawa, Canada
tboicey@brit.ca
http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
|