ROUND 7: MGB vs TR4

Rarely do competing cars from different manufacturers fall into closely defined brackets as neatly as we would like. With the possible exception of the Midget and Spitfire, all of the cars we have compared so far have overlapping characteristics, but also their own distinct identities. These two, the MGB and the TR4, are closer than most, especially if we restrict ourselves to the 1960s – both have four- cylinder engines, capacities of 1798cc in the one and either 1991cc or 2138cc in the other, both with overdrive options, both two-seat roadsters... the list goes on.

There is very little to separate them on paper either. Taking 1962 as an example, the MGB is just 6cm longer and 6cm wider than the TR4 (funny, but I would have guessed it was the other way round,) but some 50kg lighter. Perhaps that's why it could reach 105mph despite having just 95bhp, while the TR4 only managed 104mph from 100bhp. Mind you, the TR4 got to 60mph more quickly at 10.9 seconds compared to the MGB's 12.2.

However, to me they have always had very different characters. I think in part that's because the MGB lasted so much longer. With a production run from 1962 all the way through to 1980, it underwent more changes along the way, including those unpopular rubber bumpers, dubious paint options and questionable deck chairinspired seat fabrics of the 1970s. The TR4 in contrast is rooted completely in the 1960s, and never really went through the same 'bargain banger' period as the MGB when those of us from the hoi polloi could afford to partake of the pleasures. The MGB also, of course, had a 2+2 coupé equivalent in the BGT from 1965, more expensive than the Roadster when new but far cheaper on the classic market, while the only similar option from the TR4 camp was the very rare and expensive Dové GT4R, converted by Harrington in period as a commission by

Wimbledon dealer Dove.

All of this means that the TR4 has always seemed to me to be more exotic and unobtainable, somehow more classic, while the MGB is perhaps more timeless and harder to pin down to any one particular era. Unfortunately this has led some people to accuse the MGB of being boring. That is utter nonsense, but I do have to declare an interest here and say that I have owned three MGBs in the past, all of them GTs, and I can assure any doubters out there that a well-sorted MGB is a delight to drive, being powerful enough to have immense fun without being a danger to yourself or others, highly communicative so that you can feel every nuance as you push it harder, and utterly forgiving if you should get carried away and overcook things. I reckon if you don't enjoy driving a B then you probably don't enjoy driving.

We won't give chapter and verse on 18 years of MGB production, partly because there is not room and partly because you have probably heard most of it before. Briefly though, it marked a real departure from the outgoing MGA by being of monocoque construction. A heavily overengineered monocoque, mind you, to ensure it had plenty of torsional stiffness and no scuttle shake, with a deep central tunnel, deep double box-section sills, crossmembers linking them and longitudinal members to carry the engine and gearbox. There was also a substantial transverse box section bolted on for the front suspension.

Mechanically it carried over the same basic running gear as the MGA, albeit with the B-series engine enlarged to 1798cc. This had three main bearings initially, but that was increased to five from October 1964 as Issigonis wanted greater smoothness from the unit when used in the new Austin 1800.

The BGT arrived in 1965, while the

MkII from 1967-1971 brought a series of minor improvements (including synchromesh on first gear), there were a number of minor styling changes for 1970 and a new folding hood for 1971. The MkIII introduced further interior tweaks, while September 1974 saw the arrival of impact-absorbing black bumpers, and a raised ride height which had a negative impact on the handling that was somewhat alleviated by the addition of a new anti-roll bar from the summer of 1976. In this guise the MGB soldiered on until the Abingdon factory was closed in 1980, the last car coming down the line in October.

As for the TR4, although both MG and Triumph had toyed with all manner of revolutionary engineering when planning their new models, both eventually opted for evolution rather than revolution. In the TR4's case, this meant essentially a new body (designed by Michelotti – who else?) on the existing TR3A chassis and running gear. It was far from identical though, and the myriad of detail changes included a wider track, rack and pinion steering and an all-synchro gearbox. The engine was increased in size too, now being 2138cc.

As for the body, this was a modern fullwidth affair with amenities such as wind-up windows that buyers had come to expect. It also featured an innovative wrap-around rear screen option with a removable top which offered sophistication and saloon car levels of comfort in a sports car – the TR series was definitely moving upmarket!

The new car was released in September 1961, and was very well received by press and public alike. Most people liked the new styling and the creature comforts while power was rated as acceptable, but they invariably thought that the ride and handling could have been made softer. The problem was that the chassis frame ran under the rear axle and so Triumph could provide only limited suspension movement. This criticism gained added weight the following year when the smooth-riding MGB was launched, so a new chassis was designed that would offer a semi-trailing independent rear suspension borrowed from the new 2000 saloon. This created the TR4A from early 1965, but it also accommodated a live axle option for the USA. In TR4A guise it lasted until the TR5 arrived in August 1967.

So where does all this leave the prospective buyer today? Although the prices below are fairly close for Condition 2 cars of 1961/62 vintage, there are certainly more options on the MGB. The early pull-handle cars (built until April 1965) will always carry a substantial price premium, but the later the car, the cheaper it becomes on a like-for-like basis. Go for a rubber bumper GT for example and you can pick up a real bargain. Not quite the stupendous bargain it once was, but still under £9000 for a condition 2 car according to Hagerty, and you could definitely be on the road in something safe and presentable for considerably less. In contrast, there is no such thing as a cheap TR these days, the same source quoting £22,900 for any year of TR4 and a whopping £27,800 for any year of TR4A.

MG did offer an automatic option on their B for a few years, something Triumph never added to their TR4, so if that is essential to you then the choice is already made. The Surrey Top option on the TR4 (strictly speaking the Surrey Top refers to the fabric cover that can be fitted as a roof instead of the metal panel, but most people use it to refer to the whole rearscreen-and-removable-top caboodle) makes for an interesting compromise of topless motoring with minimal buffeting, but a BGT with a full length Webasto sunroof arguably offers the same thing, and with the added convenience of a hatchback thrown in! Both cars are extremely well supported by spares suppliers and specialists, and both have enthusiastic and welcoming clubs to enhance the ownership experience still further. If push came to shove I'd say that the MGB is perhaps the easier and – dare I say it – more sensible choice, but there really isn't a whole lot in it. If push came to shove I'd opt for a TR4A because of its improved ride and handling from the IRS and those classic Michelotti lines, but at the end of the day whatever the score card says, both of these beauties are winners.

'The MGC, eh? What a load of rubbish. Handles like a pig and drinks like a fish.' I wonder how many times owners have had to listen to bar-room pundits spouting nonsense like that. Not that the C was perfect, nothing ever is, but some cars seem to get a reputation early on that no amount of improvement and explanation can ever shift. ( Yes, it will be the turn of the Triumph Stag to go under our microscope shortly!)

The MGC's troubles started early on. Since 1957, Abingdon had been building first the Austin- Healey 100- 6, and later the Austin- Healey 3000. By that point though, the big Healey was coming to the end of its life as forthcoming US legislation would render it obsolete. MG had taken good care of the Austin- Healey, but naturally they were keen to develop a successor of their own with potential to wear both AH and MG badges. The big problem was that the tooling costs for monocoque construction were so high that starting from a clean sheet of paper for what was a relatively niche product was out of the question, and instead it would have to be derived from the MGB.

Two six- cylinder engine options were considered, a derivative of the B-series that had been developed by BMC Australia, and the C-series unit as found in the Austin- Healey 3000 and various big Austins. In the end, Austin decided it needed a smoother seven-bearing version of the C-series for its big saloons, and MG had no option but to follow suit, even though the new engine was big, heavy and at 145bhp not earth-shatteringly powerful. It also needed two bonnet bulges to fit in the MGB shell – a transverse one to clear the radiator and a teardrop for the front carburettor – plus a new torsion bar front suspension because otherwise the sump fouled on the crossmember.

As MG historian Wilson McComb said in his seminal book MG by McComb: '...the new engine had poor manifolding and an unsatisfactory design of cylinder head. At the bottom end, no less than seven main bearings had been squeezed into a rather inadequate length of crankshaft. It was not one of Longbridge's cleverer designs, and Michael Scarlett of Autocar later remarked that "it appears to have been drawn up by an ex-marine diesel designer who was transferred against their wishes to the tractor engine department."' It was at this point that the Healey family decided they were out, and instead of having both Austin- Healey and MG variants, the new car would henceforth stand or fall as the MGC alone. Unfortunately, it fell. One problem was that it looked like an MGB – apart from the bonnet bulges and bigger 15in wheels, the MGC owner got little to show for their extra outlay. With 131bhp per ton compared to the MGB's 92.8, the C was fast enough with a top speed of 120mph, but the big and bulky engine was not as flexible as might be expected and it only shaved a couple of seconds off the MGB's 0- 60mph sprint time, bringing it down to 10 seconds. However, it was the MGB's crisp handling which was always going to struggle to cope with all that up-front weight – the six- cylinder engine weighed a hefty 95kg more than the B-series, and although the weight distribution could have been improved if the engine had been sited further back, wanting to offer the bulky Borg Warner automatic option precluded doing that without extensive and expensive redesigning of the shell and reducing the cabin space.

Inevitably, contemporary road testers savaged the new MGC. Phrases such as

' pig like understeer' and ' gutless' were hardly designed to drive prospective buyers to the showrooms, (though we do have to question whether pigs do indeed understeer!). It didn't help that the initial test cars were allegedly supplied with incorrect tyre pressures. Improvements were made, but the damage had been done and after a production life of just two years, in September 1969 it was all over and the plug was pulled. (And in case you were wondering about that C-registration on the MGC pictured, that's because it is the first prototype Roadster built by the factory.)

The MGC's resurrection on the classic scene took a long time to arrive, but it has been as comprehensive as it has extraordinary. Works efforts in period and subsequent development by privateer racers have shown that the MGC's flaws can be engineered out and the car made to handle like a sports car, but it has found its niche as a consummate grand tourer, effortlessly eating up the miles while providing a sound track that is different to the burble of a V8, but having a delightful rasp all its own. The

trick to enjoying an MGC is to revel in what it does best and not to worry that it was not a direct replacement for the AustinHealey 3000. As an owner today, your biggest frustration is likely to be explaining to people for the hundredth time that no, this is not an MGB...

With their TR line, Triumph were also preoccupied during the 1960s with increasing its performance potential. The venerable wet-liner engine had reached the end of its development potential with the TR4A, and the straight-six which powered the 2000 saloon, the GT6 and the Vitesse (and which, incidentally, was descended from the original 803cc Standard SC fourcylinder engine,) was the obvious way forward. The problem was that it was no more powerful than the outgoing wet-liner unit. Fuel injection was one way to release more power, but to retain the flexibility that Triumph demanded from its engines, a capacity hike to 2498cc was also required.

The six- cylinder engine proved to be an easy fit in the TR chassis, which had more than enough room for a longer engine that actually weighed slightly less than the outgoing four-pot. As we saw earlier, in this guise it was tested out first in the low-volume TR5, before being pressed into service in the mass-market 2.5PI saloon.

However, as well as a power hike, Triumph also felt that the TR4/ TR5 styling needed an update. Unfortunately, their go-to stylist Michelotti was too busy to take on the commission, and the company could not afford a costly revamp anyway. In the end, Karmann of Osnabrück came up with the answer, grafting a new nose and tail onto the TR5 centre section to create what looked like an all-new design for minimal outlay. The new TR6 lost the delicacy of Michelotti's 1960s design, but its slightly more brutalist leanings and that Kamm tail meant it was set fair for a lengthy production run despite underneath being essentially an aging design. In fact it sold well from launch at the start of 1969, and by the time the last car was built in July 1976, it had sold more than any previous TR model. Not bad for a separate chassis sports car when the market for such beasts was supposedly dead and buried, or at the very least on life support.

It helped that by keeping development costs low and continuing with running gear whose costs had long-since been amortised, Triumph were able to keep the selling price very low for what was a good looking car with a top speed of 120mph and capable of dispatching the 0- 60mph sprint in just 8.2 seconds. The Mercedes 280SL might not have been a direct competitor, but with a lower top speed of 115mph and a longer 0- 60mph time of 10.9 seconds, it sold for a whopping £4466 when Triumph could knock out their TR6 for just £1367. Heck, that wasn't a whole lot more than an MGB...

The TR6 underwent few major changes, though power on the injected cars was reduced thanks to a softer cam for 1973 (US cars had carburettors and lower power outputs anyway). Much is made of this by proud owners of the 150bhp cars, but the difference on the road is nowhere near as dramatic as they might suggest.

The last UK car was built in February 1975, though the final US car did not roll out of Canley until 15th July 1976. Today, after many years in the shadows of the earlier TRs, TR6 prices have really bloomed as people have rediscovered the joys of driving a traditional British sports car with ample power, good handling and a decent ride. Plus, of course, timeless good looks.