ROUND 5: MG1300 vs 1300 FWD

Following on from the discussion on the previous spread about which Sprites to include in the Midget figures, you might be forgiven for thinking that we would have the same problem in this bout. If so, that would really rattle the Triumph camp because BMC's ADO16 range of 1100 and 1300 cars (Austin, Morris, Wolseley, Riley and Vanden Plas as well as MG versions) was Britain's best selling car every year from 1963 to 1971, with the sole exception of 1967.

However, this is a very different situation to the Spridgets, because the MG1100 and MG1300 variants were not built at Abingdon, and MG's engineers had no real input to the models. For those reasons, we feel justified in restricting ourselves to just the MG variants, which brings total sales down from a stonking 2.1 million to a slightly more modest 157,409, some way short of the 218,379 sales achieved by Triumph with their own FWD offering. And for the record, despite this being titled up as a battle between the MG1300 and the Triumph 1300 FWD, we have also included the MG1100 and Triumph 1500 FWD variants too – there is a limit to how much you can squeeze into one title!

So, the ADO16 range of 1100/1300 cars will need little introduction to most of us, though the MG variant is slightly more unusual. Designed almost in its entirety by Alec Issigonis as an upscaled version of his Mini, the Morris 1100 hit the market in August 1962. The MG version followed swiftly in September, but Austin and Vanden Plas badges weren't applied until 1963, while Riley and Wolseley aficionados had to wait until 1965. The MG got a distinctive grille and twin carburettors, lifting power from the 1098cc engine to 55bhp and proving good enough for an 80mph top speed and a 0- 60mph time of 22.8 seconds. This had risen as high as 70bhp by the time the Mk2 1300 arrived in October 1968 with a detuned Mini Cooper 1275cc engine. There was even an ingenious four-speed automatic option from 1967- 69, utilising a specially developed AP gearbox in the sump. Two and four- door bodies were available at various times, but the MG version bowed out in 1971 in favour of the new Austin/ Morris 1300GT.

There is no denying that the MG1100 was a shock to the MG faithful. They should by now have become accustomed to the practice of badge engineering, on the saloon cars as well as the sports cars, but this little thing was front-wheel drive and floated on fluid. To be fair there had been experiments with MG versions of the FWD Mini until BMC opted for the Cooper name instead on the sporting variants of that, but the 1100 really was like nothing that had ever come out of Abingdon before. Only, of course, it did not come out of Abingdon, but was assembled at Cowley alongside the

Morris variants. Something else for the MG fans to grumble about, then...

Advertising copywriters are never going to let the odd uncomfortable truth get in the way of a good sale pitch though, and the car was promoted as 'the most advanced MG of all time.' In this case, they had a point. FWD was indeed to prove the way forward for small car design, even if the idea of placing the gearbox below the engine and sharing the same oil never really caught on. And then there was that Hydrolastic suspension, which made use of an antifreeze-based fluid pushing against rubber cone displacer units to provide both springing and damping.

The suspension units were connected on either side of the car from front to rear, so that if the front wheel hit a bump and rose, then the corresponding rear wheel would rise in sympathy. The idea was that this would reduce pitching and produce a more comfortable ride, but in my experience it creates a very weird up-and- down bouncing motion that can induce travel sickness. Still, maybe that's just me, and one such criticism should certainly not be allowed to detract from the car's many virtues. These include a simply cavernous interior given the modest footprint on the road. That space is created partly by having a large glass area and low waist line so that

you

almost feel as though you are sitting on the car rather than in it, but also by placing the wheels as far as they could go from the cabin. This wheel-at- each- corner stance allied to the front-wheel drive endowed the little MG with surprisingly sporty driving dynamics, surprising that is given that its whole raison d'être was to showcase Issigonis' obsession with practicality in motoring. Sometimes, it seems, you really can have your cake and eat it.

Turning now to Triumph's take on the FWD theme, this was always intended as a replacement for the Herald, ditching that car's separate chassis and returning Triumph to monocoque small car manufacturing. Triumph's engineers were well aware of what was going on elsewhere, and the arrival of the Morris 1100 merely cast in stone the decision to opt for FWD.

However, this was to be no mere copy. Instead, Triumph mounted the engine in a conventional north-south configuration rather than transversely, placing the final drive underneath it but the gearbox behind and below the engine. That was all well and good, and it meant that Triumph could use a separate supply of oil for the gearbox instead of relying on the engine oil as per the MG, but it made for a very tall unit. That's why it took Michelotti rather longer than usual to come up with a style that could accommodate this height while also maintaining a family resemblance to the bigger 2000 and not looking daft at the smaller scale. In the meantime, Triumph rather cheekily bought a Morris 1100 and fitted one such engine and transmission to it for testing on the road. Bodywise, the new Triumph was to be a two or four- door saloon. Other variants were considered, but never put into production. The 1300 proved far more expensive to manufacture than the Herald though, so the older model was given a reprieve and continued alongside the new car until 1971.

The Triumph 1300 was announced in October 1965, going on sale in January 1966. It was extremely comfortable

thanks to the high trim specification and the all-round independent suspension, and Triumph had carefully designed in a tight turning circle despite the FWD. As for performance, 61bhp, 86mph and 0- 60 in 19 seconds were decent figures, and they improved still further with the twin- carb 1300TC of 1967 and its 75bhp.

The complicated family tree of Triumph's small saloons has been explained before, but to recap here briefly, in 1970 everything changed. A RWD variant was developed that would become the Toledo, while the FWD car was restyled at each end to create a longer body that would become the Dolomite in 1972. The FWD car also got the long-stroke 1493cc engine at this point, so henceforth it was logically enough called the 1500. Triumph finally ended their FWD adventure in October 1973 when the 1500TC was introduced, featuring the 1500's body and the Toledo's RWD layout.

From reading all of this, you might be forgiven for thinking that the MG1300 and the Triumph 1300 are almost two peas from the same pod, but that is definitely not the case. The MG feels light, spacious and sporting, if a little Spartan. The Triumph 1300 feels a far more solid car with the emphasis on comfort rather than ultimate handling, an impression born out by a kerb weight of 890kg compared to 839kg for a MkII MG1300. I do know of people who have turned the Triumph 1300 into a mean trackday warrior, but that is really not its forté. With its big, squashy seats and luxurious trimmings, it is a car to savour at leisure. Despite having FWD and IRS, it never had the go-kart feel of a Mini or the ADO16. And besides, its driveshaft donuts don't take kindly to traffic light drag racing. The gear change too, while sweet enough when on song, has a predilection for baulking and proving recalcitrant if abused. Get a good car and treat it with respect though, and it could be the car that the Mayflower was always meant to be.