[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