[TR] MG vs. Triumph
chip19474 at aol.com
chip19474 at aol.com
Sun Jan 24 11:30:24 MST 2010
I can say from personal experience having owned a new TR6 and a new MGB
back in the 1970's that this statement is accurate. My NEW TR6 turned out to
have less than acceptable build quality. I realized how challenging it
was manyl times during my first 12 months of warranty (and also learned a
valuable lesson in breakdown preparedness!). I was warned by three work
colleagues (all Brits) to stay away from British cars but the marketing efforts
by Leyland sucked me in and won me over.
Fast forwarding, I got so tired of greeting the technicians at the Triumph
Dealership on a regular basis that I traded it in on a new flame red MGB.
This car was amazing - I never took it back for any warranty claims; it
actually shifted without requiring both arms to get it into secomd gear; the
paint was flawless; it always always started - it ran faithfully for 10
years before I needed to sell it to make room for the family car; it could
perhaps be running now as a restored car!!!???
But, as the author says, it didn't have the soul that my Triumphs had and
that's what makes my TR6 come alive:)
Chip Krout
Delaware Valley Triumphs, Ltd.
Skippack, PA
1976 TR6 CF57822U
In a message dated 1/23/2010 9:03:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
spitlist at cox.net writes:
Triumph were raucous, snarly
little things, all torque and attitude, while MGs were more refined, often
slower, but usually better built. The
More information about the Triumphs
mailing list