In a message dated 19/01/01 8:57:27 AM Pacific Standard Time,
owner-mgs-digest@autox.team.net writes:
> . I know beauty is
> in the eye of the beholder, but as far as looks are concerned, the TR-4
> does
> not hold a candle to the B. The Triumph that was featured had tired looking
> aftermarket alloys, while the B had perfect wire wheels. Go figure.
>
I have had many different TRs and MGs, but I always figured that if you had
to put up with the indifferent handling of the TR, you might as well have an
interesting looking car, and to me, the rather idiosyncratic styling of the
TR3 does it, while the TR4 is, I agree, a bit uninspiring. OTOH, I very much
prefer the MGA styling to the MGB, which has always struck me as nice, neat,
but nothing very special.
One thing the TR has that the B lacks is grunt. Depends on your priorities,
but from a strictly aesthetic point of view, it seems like a toss-up, with
the decision going by a hair, to the B.
I have owned TR2,TR3A,TR3BTR4,TR4A live axle, TR4A IRS,MGA, MGB and MGC, so
have personal experience with long term assessment of the cars.
BTW, the IRS models have very poorly specified rear springs, which is why
when you boot them, they look like female dogs having a whizz. The TR 250 is
a sad joke - a 6 cylinder smogged engine that gives no better performance
than the TR4. The FI version on the other hand, is bags of fun, in either TR5
or early TR6 form (they dropped the power by 15 bhp after the first run of
TR6s).
> Another thing that got me ticked was that the owner stated that the MGB was
> built between 1962 and 1974. OK, ok, we can all agree the chrome bumpered
> B's
> are the best looking, but honestly, to say the B ended production in '74 is
>
I expect he was talking about REAL MGBs, not single carb Austin Marina
convertibles .........
Bill S.
(ducking and dodging)
|