Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Still an amateur-- what is an MG?



  • alltorquealltorque Posts: 535
    Guys, Fascinating forum. If you have a look at UK Google and search under UK CAR CLUBS you'll find a plethora of sites devoted to all sorts of marques, (some of which even this old Btit isn't really familiar with). One site lists them all, A - Z, incl non-UK marques. Hours of fun seeing what the folks of this nostalgic island are still getting up to. It's amazing to realise what is still alive and kicking.......and still being raced. :)

    BMW Spitfire ? No thanks; it would just be a re-hash of the awful Z4. I'd trust Mazda to build one, though. They understand the real "spirit" of small sports cars : MX-5 is the true successor to lots of them; B's, Elan's, Spridgets, (later A H Sprite & MG Midget were just about interchangeable), Healey's etc. You don't need huge power outputs, just power and chassis balance plus a brush to get the flies out of your teeth.

    TVR rather lost the plot, IMO, and just kept on adding power. Wonderful but not to be used if there was rain within about 50 miles. (Now that's going to get me in trouble).

    We still have some small-volume builders; Morgan, Aerial and Noble are three that spring to mind. Caparo is, (probably), the latest but that's a truly mental motor car at an eye-wateringly high price. :D
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 57,587
    Some companies evolve their "vision", others seem to really lose it.

    The idea of the Brits killing off the MG so that they could divert all capital to the TR7 still makes me overheat (appropriately enough).

    How ironic that Mazda has remained so pure to original intent. We do not have the V-10 Mazda with 9-speed paddle shifting and computer suspension costing $65,000, and hopefully I've never have to suffer looking at one.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • colloquorcolloquor Posts: 482
    Kas Kastner, Bob Tullius, and all of the Group 44 drivers from the mid to late '60s would beg to differ on the role of the Spit and TRs success on the SCCA circuit. The Spits "cleaned many MG clocks" in G and F Production. And, the TRs did the same in C, D, and E Production classes.

    I had the "pleasure" - if you can call it that - to own a number of Brit cars during the late '50s into the '60s, and early '70s. No need for any rehashed BMW versions here, as I owned the originals. Been there, and done that for sure . . . I will stick to the modern cars I drive today, albeit they don't mark their parking spots as all of my Brit cars did.

    With all the emphasis on curtain and lumbar side airbags, plus all of the other safety equipment available today, I shudder to think of being T-Boned in my 1960 Triumph TR-3A. Beautiful to look at, but deadly in an accident. Sometimes, I really feel lucky to be alive after having spent so many hours in the cockpit of those cars!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 57,587
    Well gee how's an MG going to race against a TR6? With an MGC?---hahahahaha....

    My point/opinion (once again...ahem...) is that Spitfire has no heritage in the American buyers' memory but MG does. If Americans remember anything about Triumph, it's the TR3 or the TR6 (or the TR250, my favoritest British sports car of the 1960s!!!)

    Ergo, marketing a new Spitfire in America would drop like a ball of lead from a clock tower.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • colloquorcolloquor Posts: 482
    The TR250 was a nice TR4A with the 2.5L Inline 6 from the Vittese and Triumph 2000 sedan, but the TR5 was much nicer, with petrol injection (albeit Lucas) rather than the Stromberg CDSE carbs. Of course, the TR5 wasn't officially imported into the USA.

    The Inline 6 in the TR250 was only marginally more powerful than the Vanguard 4 in the TR4A, due to the Zenith-Stromberg carbs, milder cam, and somewhat retarded ignition advance curve. The TR250 was only produced for 15 months (late '67 and '68), and was an interim model between the TR4A and the TR6. I still have very vivid memories of a BRG TR250 sitting on the dealer's showroom floor when I bought my GT6. A '68 TR250 and a '68 E-Type Coupe both on the showroom floor, and I can still remember the sticker price on the E-Type to this day: $6,800.

    Many econo cars of today would out handle either the TR6 or MGC which really isn't saying much is it? Especially the MGC - it could go fine in a straight line, but when you wanted to turn, ah, it was a different story.

    Hardly anyone today remembers the Spitfire, either the car or the plane that saved Britain's bacon in 1940. Sad really, but true . . .

    P.S. In mentioning the TR4A, I am always amazed at what Triumph engineers did when converting the live rear axle of the TR4 to an IRS configuration used in 75% of the production of the TR4A, and all of the production of the TR5, TR250, and TR6. The axle shafts run above the frame rails - amazing, only in England would they consider this. You can always easily pick out and IRS equipped TR, as it squats significantly under acceleration or load.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 57,587
    Oh yes, the Stromberg "vacuum depression" carburetors. Kind of a nuisance, very tedious to adjust. The SUs were much easier to work on, and more economical by a long shot.

    If you got the Strombergs set up right (bought the jet tools, etc) and rebuilt them, I'd have to admit they ran stronger than SUs through the rev range.

    I think the TR5 with the Lucas injection would not have been a success in America. Maserati used that same system to no good result.

    Alfa's SPICA was better.

    I guess MG did finally bow to Stromberg when the pathetic rubber bumper MGBs came out with a SINGLE Stromberg. I remember how the exhaust manifolds would glow red at night on those cars.

    Top speed was an alleged 73 mph.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • mattandimattandi Posts: 588
    My first car was a '72 MGB. Kept it through my first couple of years in college in the Appalachian mountains of NC. What a blast on those roads. Used to just laugh at Florida expatriates in their RV's.

    Two six volts in the back "seat." Three wipers. Fussy webers that just never got just right (could either idle or run flat out, but not both)

    Most invaluable features were aftermarket ad-ons - a Chilton manual and a basic toolkit. ;)

    I keep threatening my wife that I am going to find another one.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 57,587
    Now's the time while they are still reasonably cheap and while the aftermarket parts are plentiful.

    Yes, avoid Webers on an MGB if you can. Too much carburetion for that engine.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • I am thinking about buying a '54 or '55 MG TF, but I am concerned about value. In the recession, prices went down, but as we recover I am a little doubtful that prices will rebound. Any ideas out there? I can only afford to buy one classic car and do not want to blow it.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 57,587
    MG TFs are charming cars and I think they are the best of the "T" series. The 1955 model with the 1500 engine is the rarest of the TFs, and somewhat more valuable than 53-54s, so the best appreciation will be the 1500. I don't see these cars ever going down in value.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

Sign In or Register to comment.