fellas, fellas.....
it's obvious mr. mcewen is trolling here. the only way a b looks better
than any spit (even the later ones) is if you're in need of new glasses, or
have the spit confused with a spridget. now the mga, there's a good
lookin' car! <asbestos on>
don't give him the satisfaction. ;-)
at least that's my unbiased opinion.
scott
(who, to borrow a line from ford, would rather push his spit than drive a
b)
----------
From: John McEwen <mmcewen@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>
To: Gano, Ken <kengano@advant.com>
Cc: triumphs@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: MGB vs. Spitfire!! - The Truth
Date: Thursday, March 05, 1998 11:25 AM
Hi Ken:
No, Brian didn't post this to the MG list. I find the discussion quite
amusing. Comparing a Spitfire to an MGB is apples and oranges. The two
cars are completely unlike - in spite of having two seats, four cylinders
and a soft top.
The MGB is an extremely strong, very well-built unit body automobile with a
powerful 1800cc engine of proven worth. The suspension components are
rugged and very reliable and are far stronger than the demands put upon
them. The transmission and rear end are equally durable. The car is
simple to service and all parts are easily accessible. The engineering
design is old but well-proven. The car was never cheap but was
inexpensive.
The Spitfire is a body on frame automobile constructed with price as a
goal. It has an extremely flimsy body and very light stamped frame which
is subject to terminal rust. The suspension components are light and
flimsy and frame attaching points are equally flimsy with simple stamped
and spot-welded sheetmetal being the primary material. The suspension is
subject to rear spring sag and most Spitfires resemble old VW beetles from
the rear. The rear ends are weak and the transmissions are weaker. The
1500 engine in Spits is a disaster waiting for a place to happen unless it
is regularly rebuilt to accommodate poor design.
Accessibility to engine components is better on the Spit but as with most
forward-tipping hood designs is awkward to work around - especially at the
front. The Spit is simpler, less well-equipped car and is thus easier to
repair. Both cars are mechanically similar until we reach the rear
suspension. The B is more traditional and easier to deal with here. It
doesn't have as many parts and they are far longer-lived. Both cars suffer
from spring sag but the Spit is far more affected.
Spitfires should be compared to Spridgets in terms of market placement but
- other than interior space - are inferior on most counts. Anyone
attempting to place a Spitfire on the same footing as an MGB has obviously
never seriously owned, examined or restored both cars.
The same comments regarding the frame, body and suspension structure can
also be made about most TRs although the larger cars have tougher
drivetrains.
As to the "fun" factor - either car would be quite acceptable but the MG
would be preferable in terms of ruggedness.
Parts availablity for the MG is second to none - and is probably better
than any other car in the world. The Spit has fewer parts available and
they tend to be more expensive. There were more than twice as many MGBs
built than Spitfires thus used parts availability is also better.
In terms of appearance there is no contest. The Spit is a particularly
toad-like, cheap-looking little car while the B is a far nicer and more
unified design. This is especially true with later rubber bumper cars -
neither of which is wonderful. The Spit has two-piece fenders with the
joints hidden by a simple molding like an early Japanese motorcycle
muffler.
Asbestos suit and deflector shields on. Especially looking for flames from
Oz.
John McEwen
>Brian:
>
>I would be interested to know if you posted a similar question to the MG
>list, and if so, what kind of response did you get?
>
>kengano@advant.com
>downstate illinois
>1959 TR3A TS57756L
>1959 Model 10 Sedan TBE9239LDLB
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas A. Strange <jantoms@vbe.com>
>To: lennon80@usa.net <lennon80@usa.net>
>Cc: triumphs@autox.team.net <triumphs@autox.team.net>
>Date: Wednesday, March 04, 1998 7:11 PM
>Subject: Re: MGB vs. Spitfire!!
>
>
>>
>>Brian Furgalus wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm a HS Junior and am about to make the big purchase! I have decided
>>> to buy a hobbby car to tinker with over the summer months, since I plan
>>> to go into Automotive Engineering. This would be great experience! I
>>> spoke to a prof. of the above mentioned, and he said the restoration of
>>> either one of these cars would provide great background to the course.
>>> So, it has been narrowed down by me to two cars. The Good ol' MGB, or
>>> the Spit. I have bought many books on both, and have been doing
>>> extensive research on and off the net, asking questions, etc. A friend
>>> told me about this list, and suggested that I post my questions here.
>>> So, my question. What do you guys/gals as an unbiased group, think of
>>> these two cars? Parts availibility (specifically panels), ease of
>>> repair (I'm sure that's where the Spit excels!), and overall comparison
>>> of the two (build quality, fit/finish, reliability, fun factor, etc)
>>> Thankyou for your time, Ladies and Geltlemen, and hope to hear from you
>>> soon! Cheers, Brian Furgalus
>>>
>>> (PS- Could you please e-mail your messages to my personal mail address,
>>> lennon80@usa.net? I I'm not a current subscriber to the list!)
>>
>>UNBIASED? ........ Here on the triumphs list??????????? I doubt it.
>>Get the spitfire. Excellent peice of training material. Straight
>>forward engineering, easy to work on, inexpensive parts (relatively) &
>>fun to drive.
>>
>>Just MHO.
>>
>>Tom Strange, Classic Autosports Ltd., Appleton, Wi., 920-733-5013
|