[TR] MG vs. Triumph

[John Macartney]

Sorry, Darrell - I have to disagree. While MG may be known stateside for the T
series, A, B, and Midget - you have to remember that MG also made a wide range
of saloons as well, both pre and post war that were just as important to the
company and its customers as the two seaters. You may not have seen the
non-two seater models in the US as much as we did in Europe, but they're still
MG's in every sense of the word and deserve absolute and equal recognition :)
Jonmac




________________________________
From: "TR250Driver at aol.com"
<TR250Driver at aol.com>
To: spitlist at cox.net; triumphs at autox.team.net;
fot at autox.team.net
Sent: Mon, 25 January, 2010 22:30:07
Subject: Re: [TR] MG
vs. Triumph

In a message dated 1/23/2010 9:03:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
spitlist at cox.net writes:

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


Hey Joe,
I
know as an owner of multiple Triumphs that for much of  the glory days of 
the
competition between the two marques, one had  a lot of choices of 
different
models with Triumphs. Triumphs evolved  over the years that they were
produced.  Three distinct  changes in the legendary Hairy Chested TR series,
several changes in  the Spitfire series and then modern Shape of Things to
Come the last  of the TR series. Not to mention Stags, Heralds, etc. "Variety
is the spice  of life."  With MG it basically came down to two types.  You
had  chrome bumper and rubber bumper in midget or regular size.  Ha! No 
comparison!!!!!
Darrell 
Suggested annual donation 
$11.47


You are subscribed as macartney.john at yahoo.co.uk
Triumphs at autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/triumphs
http://www.team.net/archive