TR2/3/3A TR3-A or an MGA?

[billspohn]

without exception, everyone I know who owns an mga complains that they are quite underpowered! That's never been the case with any TR model.

True, the TR is a lovely torquey motor. And MGAs, except for the Twin Cam, are smaller engined lower powered cars. But it is easier to give an MG more power than it is to make a TR handle as well as an MG!

And Ken, that wasn't a cheap shot at TR-4s by any means. It was a personal judgement formed from years of personal experience with the cars. I don't happen to like the styling of the TR4 nearly as much as the TR3. I would say exactly the same thing about the MGB vs. the MGA. Which is why I currently own neither TR4 nor MGB.

 

[kodanja]

I helped a buddy restore a 63' MGA,
It came out beautiful!

100% resto including complete over haul of the engine.

When I drove it it felt very underpowered! It had troulbe going up hills...

(at the time I had my 73' GT6!)

I have never drivin a TR3....

 

[Andrew Mace]

I helped a buddy restore a 63' MGA....
When I drove it it felt very underpowered! It had troulbe going up hills...(at the time I had my 73' GT6!)....

And I think this example shows again how subjective and personal these sorts of choices are. It's not just looks; rather, it's the whole package as you perceive it and are willing to live with it! I've driven a number of MGAs and never thought they were particularly underpowered. That includes a very original and well-maintained 1500 and a beater (but sweet-running and thoroughly enjoyable) old 1500 that long ago got an MGB 1800 engine transplant.

And I had to chuckle when you mentioned the '73 GT6. I had a 1970 GT6+ for many years and loved it to [its near-]death. When it got so rusty as to be unsafe, I mothballed it and picked up a cheap '72 GT6 Mk3, the first year of the low-compression engine and a drop in rated hp from 95 to 79. It wasn't difficult to feel the difference between the '70 and the '72, the latter having a perceptibly more difficult time keeping up with my buddy's 240Z! In fairness to the '72, though, it had had some bodywork issues that I never got around to resolving (enough rot in the bonnet around the hinge tubes to make it start to float around at higher speeds, which made me a bit nervous), and the struggles to keep up with that 240Z were mostly at speeds above 75 mph! :eeek:

 

[billspohn]

I helped a buddy restore a 63' MGA....
When I drove it it felt very underpowered! It had troulbe going up hills...(at the time I had my 73' GT6!)....

And I think this example shows again how subjective and personal these sorts of choices are. It's not just looks; rather, it's the whole package as you perceive it and are willing to live with it! I've driven a number of MGAs and never thought they were particularly underpowered. That includes a very original and well-maintained 1500 and a beater (but sweet-running and thoroughly enjoyable) old 1500 that long ago got an MGB 1800 engine transplant.

A 1962 MGA (they didn't make a 1963 model) would have had the 1622 engine and would have been a decent performer, though obviously not as quick as a TR3 with a larger engine. While it wouldn't be as fast up hills as a 4 cylinder TR, it should have been with a smogger GT6 - maybe his engine was down on p[ower?

Even the stock TR2 had decent grunt. I had a dead stock low port 90 BHP car that did an honest 110 MPH (no OD on it) with Brooklands screens. By contrast, an MGA will top out about 5 MPH sooner on top end and won't be as quick through the fgears, but as they are similar weights that is no surprise.

And you can always 'improve' them. I had one TR-3 that was a 2.2 high compression engine with around 135 BHP that would lay rubber in second, with sticky gumballs on it. I also have an MG motor that puts out way more than that.

The build quality was inferior on the Triumphs. If you have ever restored from the frame up, you'll know that the frame is shoddily put together with half the welds cold and they need complete rewelding to race them. The suspension is weak - MGs didn't build cars whose A arm mounts pulled off the frame (I've had more than one TR do that). But the TR2-3 styling was unique and they had a lot of spirit, so I never cared that they handled like the proverbial oxcart in comparison.

If I had more room and more time, I'd certainly think about owning another TR-3.

 

[kodanja]

Dont get me wrong I enjoyed driving the MGA & I loved the body style,
It just wasnt my cup of tea!

 

[billspohn]

Dont get me wrong I enjoyed driving the MGA & I loved the body style,
It just wasnt my cup of tea!

If you drive a TR6 it would be hard to give up that nice torque - I'd definitely miss it!

 

[kodanja]

at the time I was driving my GT6, So maybe thats why I thought the MGA was a bit underpowered..

Their really two different animals....

 

[Mickey Richaud]

Dave -

Bottom line is that none of us can sway you in either direction. The choices are too subjective. Go look at and drive both of them, and whichever one "speaks" to you, jump on it. Do that, and you can't go wrong!

Mickey

 

[198686d]

This photo is quite convincing.

 

[tdskip]

Photo?

 

[NickMorgan]

I heard the snow was bad in the USA!

 

[kodanja]

Ive never heard of GOOD snow!!!!

(((I HATE THE COLD)))

 

[tinman58]

What snow? But I live in California.
I have had both a MGA and two TR3's. In my own opinion the TR is a much more fun car to drive, It is also easier to work on.I belive the TR is a much more Manly car. It depends on your own tastes of what you like a typical MG or a "really cool" TR3
Dan