In message <941204013255_5191513@aol.com> writes:
> R.e:TeriAnn Wakeman's comments about TR being faster and cornering better vs
> MG having better ride...and male chauvenist putdown....
???????????????????? Say what? I missed that one
> (WELL! Such hallowed ground to trod on, that age old MG vs TR debate.) I just
> have to challlange your comments, (and I really don't wish to seem impudent)
> but from the generally accepted motor journalism of the eras involved,
> contemporary test results, personal experience with both marques, and
> numerous other sources... I must Protest! The common experience quoted in all
> the above experiences is that the typically TRs were faster, stiffer, less
> comfortable & more sparton than the MGs of the equal era,(agreement so far)
OK
> BUT the great virtue of the MG was Always the Handling!
> Anyone who has ever put a TR3 vs MGA, TR4 (or worse, 4A-IRS) vs MGB, Spit vs
> Spridget, or TR6 or GT6 vs anything (but an MGC), especially in tight stuff,
> especially tight bumpy stuff, will surely agree that the MGs generally corner
> faster,
I love the way the MGB likes to try to tuck its front wheel under on a hard
curve. =8^0 The feeling certinly convinces me to back off on the throttle
before things get dangerous. You get a safer ride by making it feel less safe
> brake better,
I haven't driven an MGA, but I do wonder how well a '57 drum brake MGA stops
compaired to a disk brake equiped TR3?
snip
> As far as your "female chauvenist" comment about "male chauvenist"
> characteristics,,,,
???????????
And I quote from my previous posting:
"if there is no REAL difference, you just get marque chalvinistic
and put the other side down. Its an hounored American tradition :^) "
(complete text appended to bottom of this message)
>well, I think that the real chauvenism we're talking
> about here is Marque specific, notGender specific.
Yes, thats what I said. I'm suspecting that your suffering from one of my most
common mistakes, not reading the original posting closely & going after the
wrong thing.
SNip
> please don't try to sell the idea that a little friendly banter and
> competition is a "typically male" function, cause women do it to...
It never entered my mind that only males could be marque chalvinistic. Thats
someting you read into my posting.
> May your oil leaks be small, and may the parts store owner have the chance to
> forget your name
Everyone in my local auto parts store knows my name...They know who pays their
salery
> John Morgan
>
>
Marshmellows! get your marshmellows for the big MG vs TR net flame!
I agree with Roland in that there's not much difference betwen a MG and a TR.
They were both built to be cheap fun cars and teach people how to be a mechanic.
I just like the looks of the TR2->4A better than the MGA->Cs, don't like the
safety features built into the MGB's supensions, or their SU fuel pumps, and I
always thought there was something just a little unnatural about simese ports.
Besides we haven't had a good ol'fashon marque war since the Brit car vs Miata
wars & I was getting boared. Tho I hadn't realized we were going to get a
battle of the sexes thrown in for free
------------------------------------------------------------
Original posting that John was commenting on:
Subject: Re: NICE MG ! NO OFFENSE
In message <9412022143.AA25054@csx2282.cdc.hp.com> Roland Dudley writes:
> But aren't Triumphs and MGs pretty much the same thing?
close. Both were designed to be inexpensive fun sports cars. Generally the TR
is a bit faster and corners a bit better, and the interior of the MG is a bit
more plusher and the suspension a little kinder on the riders. Its just that
the Triumph & MG owners tend to be a lot like Chevy & Ford owners, if there is
no REAL difference, you just get marque chalvinistic and put the other side
down. Its an hounored American tradition :^)
TeriAnn Wakeman Large format photographers look at the world
twakeman@apple.com upside down and backwards
|