[TR] MG vs. Triumph

[acekraut11 at aol.com]

 I never lusted after an MG.  My brother and I never looked for them on the
road as kids when my Dad was stationed in Germany.  We used to compete against
each other to see who could spot and name sports cars first.  I did lust after
the TR6.  Easy decision for me.  I have nothing against the MG, in fact, I
rather like the MG T? series and could see myself owning one.  The MGA isnt
bad looking.  But the TR6 was what interested me.  Sometimes I cant believe I
actually own one.






-----Original Message-----
From: P Caffrey <pcaffrey at ymail.com>
To: Joe Curry <spitlist at cox.net>; triumphs at autox.team.net; fot at autox.team.net
Sent: Sat, Jan 23, 2010 9:30 pm
Subject: Re: [TR] MG vs. Triumph


Hi Joe,
I think the excerpt below sums it up.  I prefer the beast over the
dainty lady.  I bought my TR in the late 70s after having test driven TRs and
an MG.  The MG was pretty, but lacked power.  I also preferred the lines of
the TR4.  It did, and still does, look menacing....That's my humble opinion,
and I only drove one MG....The whole issue of MG vs. TR may well just come
down to personalty.
Pat
TR4A '67 IRS (restoration almost complete)
________________________________
From: Joe Curry <spitlist at cox.net>
To:
triumphs at autox.team.net; fot at autox.team.net
Sent: Sat, January 23, 2010
5:54:17 PM
Subject: [TR] MG vs. Triumph

I saw this in Sept 09 Automobiles
Magazine and thought I'd share:

"You can be forgiven if the names don't mean
anything to you.  One is a pair
of initials currently being slapped on
Chinese-built Rover sedans; the other
is a word usually used to reference old,
oil-leaking motorcycles.  Neither
has appeared on a new car in this country in
more than twenty-five years,
but once, both were household names.

In the
decades following WWII, British Marques MG and Triumph essentially
created the
stateside market for the low-cost, high-fun roadster.  By
packaging pedestrian
sedan components into rakish, droptop bodies, they
introduced thousands of
people to the joys of cornering and all but invented
the wind-in-hair grin.
And while the two companies battled each other in
grand style at places like
LeMans and the N|rburgring, the real contest took
place in showrooms.

It came
down to a difference in personality: Triumph were raucous, snarly
little
things, all torque and attitude, while MGs were more refined, often
slower,
but usually better built.  The dichotomy regularly carried over into
ownership: According to lore, MG people wore string-back driving gloves and
saw Triumph jocks as hairy-eared brutes; Triumph people ate raw meat and
thought driving gloves were for dandy fops who drank light beer through a
straw.  Charmingly, each side was to be secretly in love with each other.

MG
and Triumph faded out of the U.S. market in the early 80's, victims of
corporate avarice and terminal mismanagement.  Triumph later went belly-up;
MG, although still technically alive, has spent the past two decades on
badge-engineered life support.  All told, it was an ignominious end to one
of
the automotive industries more likable duels."

Sam Smith

Cheers,
Joe Curry
_______________________________________________

Support Team.Net
http://www.team.net/donate.html

Suggested annual donation  $11.47


You are
subscribed as pcaffrey at ymail.com

Triumphs at autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/triumphs

http://www.team.net/archive
Suggested annual donation  $11.47


You are subscribed as acekraut11 at aol.com

Triumphs at autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/triumphs

http://www.team.net/archive