Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration.

[Rick]

Which would you have opted for, if you'd been looking for a small mass-produced coupe in the late 1970s? TR7, with its modern and distinctive styling (hiding a Dolly engine), or a rubber-bumper MGB GT (that surely should have been pensioned off already)?

TR7:


Earlier, chrome-bumper, GT


RJ
_________________
Rick - Admin
Home:https://www.oldclassiccar.co.uk
Videos:https://www.youtube.com/user/oldclassiccarRJ/videos
OCC & classic car merchandise (Austin, Ford ++):
https://www.redbubble.com/people/OldClassicCar/shop

[petermeachem]

I owned a TR7. It was the newest car I have ever owned and the only one that didn't need an MOT when I bought it.
It was horrific. No rear vision, you couldn't see what was coming up the motorway when you went down a slip road, my solution was to go very fast!
It failed it's first MOT, chassis rust, the side windows would regularly drop out of the channel that wound them up and down. This meant taking the door apart and hammering the channel back on. At 30,000 miles the timing chain slipped and destroyed the engine. The gearbox (5 speed) would not go into first on a cold morning until the oil had warmed up.
Quite easily the worse car I have ever owned. It was not even vaguely a sports car, more a wobbly jelly.

[peter scott]

What a difficult choice!

The MGB was quite a handsome car in original form as was the GT but the rubber bumper cars sat far to high and just looked silly and cheap and that applied to the interior too.

The TR7 was a typical product of a real low point in car design and never appealed to me.

I would never have bought either car but I would probably have opted for the TR7 on account of better performance if I had no other choice.

Peter
_________________
https://www.nostalgiatech.co.uk
1939 SS Jaguar 2 1/2 litre saloon

[Ray White]

The last time I said that the TR7 was a bad car, I was castigated for it. I don't care. I will say it again. The TR7 was a truly awful heap of junk and if they all end up on the scrap heap it wouldn't bother me. Just stand one next to a proper TR (even the TR6) and you would despair of the British motor industry. No wonder it went t,,ts up with rubbish like the TR7.

The MGB GT was, again in my forthright opinion, a darn good little car. It was nearly as good as my GT6 Mk3 but the later ones suffered from a ghastly interior, too high a ride height and those nasty bumpers. An object lesson in how to ruin a nice car. Was this the beginning of the end?

[christine lowery]

rather have a TR8
Christine

[emmerson]

[Dipster]

Could I have a Fiat 124Spider instead please?

[Ray White]

I expect the MGB GT V8 would be a better bet. I understand that the V8 engine is lighter even than the 4 cylinder B unit but with a lot more grunt. You might want to lower the suspension and change the bumpers. I can't remember all the details but could be a fun car. A friend has a MGC but I feel the big six is a bit heavy in his car.

I am no expert so leave it to those who are.

[Ray White]

[Ellis]

[Ray White]

[mikeC]

Back in the seventies I actually made this decision!

As a long-time Triumph enthusiast I wanted to like the TR7, but a showroom examination and short test drive soon put me off. I didn't like the styling, but rather hoped it would grow on me, but driving visibility was appalling - reversing was a nightmare, and I couldn't come to terms with the windscreen disappearing into the distance with no view of the front of the car. I was running an 1850 Dolomite at the time,and the performance of the, admittedly brand new, TR7 seemed quite lethargic.

I agree, the deck-chair interior of the MGB was unappealing, but I didn't mind the rubber bumper look, and the raised ride height made it more comfortable to enter and exit.

I placed an order for the MGB GT in black with special-order oxblood leather interior ... and the very next day I was made redundant, so I never did get to own a brand new version of either car!

I have subsequently owned a couple of second-hand MGBs and a TR7 - the MGs were sold with some reluctance, the TR7 was disposed of swiftly and with relief! I'm still a Triumph man at heart, but the TR7 just doesn't do it for me.

[Ashley]

We had Healeys, MGBs and a MGCGT, I liked the Bs best but they were slow and needed lots of maintenance. The MGC was hardly faster and not as fast as the Healey, just a little more civilised. Then I got an E Type, then a DB5 and, because it was too fast for the rapidly slowing traffic I bought a R-R Silver Dawn to try and contain my temper as roads became more and more congested. Then the kids appeared.... And it was a few years before we had another Rolls-Royce and what a load of crap that was. Silver Shadow.

[badhuis]

I had one drive in a TR7 years ago and it fully came up to my expectations of a crappy plastic, overstyled, just wrong seventies car. I am not much in favour of the plastic bumpered MGB as well - ahhh the 70s "improvements"....
_________________
a car stops being fun when it becomes an investment

[Ray White]

The B series engine is an old design - it is as old as me! It was originally introduced in (1954) and although a properly set up engine will repay the time and trouble to get it right, there is rather less development potential than one would like for a sports car. Even with a raft of modifications, the output is unlikely to exceed 105 BHP. More power can be extracted but at greater expense than is sensible when a V8 transplant is available. A much better proposition, in my opinion, than a TR8.

With all the mods that the factory made to the MGC to handle the extra power, I wonder how the C handles with a RV8 3.5 engine? I imagine that would be a fun car.