| cscmc1 |
07-17-2008 12:54 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by dculkin
(Post 1912406)
The TR6 is more powerful, but is not as much fun to drive, IMHO. I think we will need to agree to disagree on this. IMO, the MGB is on the shortlist of all-time great cars. The unibody seemed to have been designed to maximize rust, but otherwise are the best of their type.I'd rather have the 4-cylinder. IIRC, the 4 and the 6 had the same displacement, so the 4 had more punch. I think the TR4 also had SUs, which are superior to the Strombergs that came on the later Triumphs.
|
You can swap the carbs if need-be, and swap in a cam. The smogged TR6's lost quite a bit on the compression ratio side, as I recall. I bought the Moss competition springs, Koni front shocks, and rear shock conversion kit (to get rid of the Armstrong lever-arm shocks) for my current TR6, but even my old one with stock suspension and slightly-lower-profile tires out-handled my MG, but the MG's suspension was probably just worn out. But my "British Car" friends who tried both marques always stuck with Triumphs over MG's. I tried to resist, having owned the MG first and loving it, but that first TR6 spoiled me. It was a rustbucket body-wise, but man was it fun and reliable.
Re: engine displacement, didn't the 6-cylinder win the torque battle? I may be wrong on that. Either way, the TR4/250 styling is tops.
Anyway, don't get me wrong; I love MG's too! I have just gotten a little partial to the Triumph after putting so many miles on my first TR6. It was a daily driver, driven year-round in IL, and never missed a beat! That said, the '67 GT I had was a beautiful car aesthetically.
|