RE: SOTW: Bargain British Cabrios

[tr7v8]

grahamw48 said:

PlayersNo6 said:

Which? initially compared/grouped the TR7 FHC with the following :

Sports cars & coupes :

Fiat X1/9
Ford Capri 2.0S
Ginetta G21
MGB GT
Opel Kadett GT/E
Opel Manta 1.9SR
Vauxhall Cavalier 1.9GLS coupe

'Sporting' saloons :

Alfasud Ti
Ford Escort RS2000
Ford Cortina 2.0S
Lancia Beta 2000
Opel Ascona 1.9SR
Triumph Dolomite 1850HL
Vauxhall Cavalier 1.9GL

Yes, but the SOTW in question is a CABRIOLET.

Aside from which though....some MUCH better cars on that list to choose from.

The big problem is there were few cabs in that price range at the time. So what do you compare it to?
Much better, debatable but I only wanted the 7 from that list hence having one!

[tr7v8]

grahamw48 said:

tr7v8 said:

300bhp/ton said:

dinkel said:

crofty1984 said:

I WILL own a TR7 V8 one day. Or maybe an MGF steptronic if I'm feeling particularly lazy.

Wasn't that called a TR8? Anyways: looks like a summers buy.

All V8's to America were TR8's however a very small (seem to recall 54) UK TR7 V8's where built and sold. The US model used the low CR V8 as found in an MGB V8 or latter Land Rovers with approx 137hp and 189lb ft. UK models had the same 155hp as a Rover SD1 and slightly higher CR. The Works rally cars were all/mostly TR7 V8 in name and registered as. I do believe there are a couple of UK TR8's but not sure as to why they are called it.

The numbers of TR8 autos were miniscule, most were manuals that was one of the reasons why they didn't officially launch it elsewhere as the production of LT77s was limited so they went in SD1s. Only the rally cars & a few pre-production cars were TR7 V8s the rest were all TR8s.
The TR7 at launch was compared with Capri 2l, Porsche 924 & Mazda RX7 & was deemed competitive with them. Only the brakes came in for criticism as being soft. This was from people like Autocar & Motor & Car & Driver.

Looks are subjective but it was launched at a time when the market went for wedges, like RX7 & Fiat X1/9 but most people who don't have the prejudices of some of the people here reckoned it was a nice looking car. I was never convinced on the FHC but it was designed for a whole set of regulations that never became law, so was driven by that. That is why they are incredibly strong & over engineered.

I really enjoyed mine which in the early days was a 7 converted to an 8 on the cheap. An earlier TR had no interest for me & in convoy a 7 will stay with the previous models anyway as it is much easier to drive nearer the limit.
It was a mid-70s design & of the period. If the scousers had managed to screw them together properly in the early days then there would be more of them, as it is 125,000 found owners all over the world which is more than all the other TRs.

I think you need to do more TR8 research young man.

Also, do please tell me of another British 'sports' car of similar shape designed and sold in the 1970s.

As for the pretty, mid-engined Fiat X1/9...described at the time as a 'mini-Ferrari', yes, lovely little car, beautifully proportioned, targa top and great handling. My work colleague bought a new one. We drove up to Aviemore in it one time. Now they REALLY make the TR7 look ugly.

Condescending comments about young man I worked on 7s when they were new!
I've asked someone who should know, the prebuilds were autos, I assume because of a lack of LT77s but cannot find details on the later production cars.
But built for different markets! And as someone who has been involved in a lot of Fiats the X1/9 makes the early 7 looks a paragon of reliability.
As I said you don't like the 7 DHC but it sold very well as it appealed to the market it was built for, a comfy sporty car. And lots like the look of the 7.

[iva cosworth]

Escort Si-130 said:

I know there was 4wd 1.6 and 1.8 versions also the mk5/6 RS 2000. But they were all hard top, not convertable.

varsas said:

To clarify some innacurracies ,the only non cosworth 4WD escort was the RS2000 MK5b and MK6 in 3door

shape only

[iva cosworth]

300bhp/ton said:

Funny though as Saab didn't and used it for quite some time and even turbocharged it! Although I'm not sure upuntil when.

Edited by 300bhp/ton on Friday 24th June 09:42

SAAB stopped using their version of the 1854cc Triumph lump of poo in about 1974 and from then on

used the 1985cc B20 engine which is similar but 10 times better.

Cylinder head design and timing chain far superior in the 2.0 litre

[PlayersNo6]

"Yes, but the SOTW in question is a CABRIOLET."

Which? said as much also. Saying that the only genuine rival was a Fiat X1/9. They basically pointed out different sorts of car for similar money.

[Morningside]

PlayersNo6 said:

"Yes, but the SOTW in question is a CABRIOLET."

Which? said as much also. Saying that the only genuine rival was a Fiat X1/9. They basically pointed out different sorts of car for similar money.

Exactly what I also pointed out further back in the thread. Now go find one. I bet there are about 10 left as the others rusted into the ground.

[VeeFour]

Morningside said:

Exactly what I also pointed out further back in the thread. Now go find one. I bet there are about 10 left as the others rusted into the ground.

Actually, only about 40 fewer than there are TR7 ragtops.

With over 400 of each remaining and taxed, they're relatively common as muck.

[Morningside]

VeeFour said:

Morningside said:

Exactly what I also pointed out further back in the thread. Now go find one. I bet there are about 10 left as the others rusted into the ground.

Actually, only about 40 fewer than there are TR7 ragtops.

With over 400 of each remaining and taxed, they're relatively common as muck.

But how many from the original production figures?

[VeeFour]

Morningside said:

But how many from the original production figures?

No bloody idea - but that wasn't the question.

[Morningside]

VeeFour said:

Morningside said:

But how many from the original production figures?

No bloody idea - but that wasn't the question.

Fair enough
One forum says TR7 = 115,000 (approx).
X19 = 140,500 (approx).

So on a grand scale not that far apart from each other.

[Munich]

Of the three, I think I would buy the TR7. RWD and faintly cool.... possibly

Just out of interest, is it possible to turn the MGF into a good track day car? If you stripped it out and played around with the suspension etc, or is it a case of simply trying to polish a turd?

[dbdb]

PlayersNo6 said:

"Yes, but the SOTW in question is a CABRIOLET."

Which? said as much also. Saying that the only genuine rival was a Fiat X1/9. They basically pointed out different sorts of car for similar money.

My father used to get 'Motoring Which?' back in the 'Seventies and 'Eighties. They regarded cars fundamentally as "white goods", placing little emphasis on style or performance, the only attributes of any importance to them being reliability and running costs.

My late father was a car enthusiast, consequently "Which?" would lambast every car he ever owned. I remember one occasion when they tested the XJ6 4.2 and concluded that any car of its price was a waste of money because it wouldn't do anything a Honda Accord couldn't do. My father thought this rediculous and silly. They were probably right about the bits falling off though.

It is understandable "Which?" would view cars in this way, but ironic that whilst focusing on "quality" to the exclusion of all else, they seemed incapable of getting their own facts right. Even basic specs were frequently garbled. My dad would mutter into his cornflakes things like "leather's standard on the 4.2..."

They're not for everyone, but I like the TR7. People love them or hate them but the TR7 has a unique style and character and that is refreshing in a world dominated by competent, humdrum mediocrity. You could never mistake a TR7 for something else.

[grahamw48]

For another 300 quid and a bit of spannering why not buy a 'proper' Wedge convertible, one with the body proportions that BL SHOULD have designed, and also go up a few divisions ?

http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/sales/2958270.htm

[CDP]

Munich said:

Of the three, I think I would buy the TR7. RWD and faintly cool.... possibly

Just out of interest, is it possible to turn the MGF into a good track day car? If you stripped it out and played around with the suspension etc, or is it a case of simply trying to polish a turd?

The TF handles rather well, better than my MK2 MR2 but certainly no Elise.

I'd be a little wary of that TF as it's suspiciously cheap and neglected MGs can be unreliable. Having said that if it's not been crashed and you're going to tweak the suspension (coil springs on a TF) yourself it might not be a bad buy. Also for track use wouldn't it be worth looking for a 160?

One word of caution is to ensure the coolant pipes running front to rear are replaced as they corrode through and the loss of fluid can cause overheating and HGF. Rather poor for such a new car but it's only £70 for stainless steel pipes which compares well with £400 to do the job on the MR2 when it's rubber hoses fail.

[Uncle Fester]

When the TR7 was introduced there was controversy if it was actually a TR at all.

The TR Register voted to admit them by a narrow margin, but many TR owners (myself included, I had a TR6) voted against.

Each TR up to the TR6 was an evolution of the previous model. This had no connection to the past and none to the future.

We felt that this new visual abortion was a Two-litre, two-seater Dolomite with an 1850 Dolomite head, not a TR.

I also had a Dolomite Sprint and the engine was way better than the 1850. If only BL had made the head of decent metal so it didn’t warp.

It was slower than previous TR’s, uglier than previous TR’s and held its value worse than previous TR’s.

There was no reason to buy one then and none to buy one now. The sooner the last one gets crushed the better.

Edited by Uncle Fester on Sunday 26th June 09:16

[grahamw48]

Spot-on.

That's the point exactly.

It WASN'T acceptable as a TR, more an ugly saloon with 2 seats (FHC).


If they had just extended the bonnet/front, and thereby the wheelbase by 6 inches, got rid of that stupid wavy body line on the side, the ugly bumpers (ok, let the Yanks have them) and put some proper-sized wheels on, it would have improved matters.

[yinujim]

All those cars are awful pieces of crap.

[tr7v8]

Uncle Fester said:

When the TR7 was introduced there was controversy if it was actually a TR at all.

The TR Register voted to admit them by a narrow margin, but many TR owners (myself included, I had a TR6) voted against.

Each TR up to the TR6 was an evolution of the previous model. This had no connection to the past and none to the future.

We felt that this new visual abortion was a Two-litre, two-seater Dolomite with an 1850 Dolomite head, not a TR.

I also had a Dolomite Sprint and the engine was way better than the 1850. If only BL had made the head of decent metal so it didn’t warp.

It was slower than previous TR’s, uglier than previous TR’s and held its value worse than previous TR’s.

There was no reason to buy one then and none to buy one now. The sooner the last one gets crushed the better.

Edited by Uncle Fester on Sunday 26th June 09:16

And that is why the TR Register was a waste of space & still is! This sort of stupid snobbishness permeates the TR Register & I'd point out that the register didn't want non-sidescreen cars at one point & some still don't. So people in glasshouses I left as did lots of others & left the beards muttering in there beer.

Later 7s with revised cooling generally didn't warp heads unless abused. Nowt to do with head material (it was compatable with unleaded) & everything to do with mechanics used to work on the boat anchors in previous TRs.
The 7 was not that slow bearing in mind the different market it was targeted at. Generally 2l 7s were more than capable of leading a run out & the people got out a lot fresher in from a 7 than an earlier car.
And as I keep saying I wouldn't have an earlier TR as a gift, except maybe a 5 to sell on, so ugly is subjective. A lot of people really liked mine. Would I want a stone age earlier TR no. If the 6 is so great why do so many get seriously updated, MX5 seats because the old things are uncomfortable, tuned engines etc. The 7 was designed for the V8 day one.
The 7 is one of the few cars I could drive 800 miles in a day & get out feeling fresh. The 7 seats were amazingly comfortable as was the cockpit.

[300bhp/ton]

Uncle Fester said:

When the TR7 was introduced there was controversy if it was actually a TR at all.

The TR Register voted to admit them by a narrow margin, but many TR owners (myself included, I had a TR6) voted against.

Each TR up to the TR6 was an evolution of the previous model. This had no connection to the past and none to the future.

We felt that this new visual abortion was a Two-litre, two-seater Dolomite with an 1850 Dolomite head, not a TR.

I also had a Dolomite Sprint and the engine was way better than the 1850. If only BL had made the head of decent metal so it didn’t warp.

It was slower than previous TR’s, uglier than previous TR’s and held its value worse than previous TR’s.

There was no reason to buy one then and none to buy one now. The sooner the last one gets crushed the better.

Edited by Uncle Fester on Sunday 26th June 09:16

The thing is, you represent all that is wrong with people and the country. But thanks for highlighting it so vividly.

Q - why get so worked up over others liking a car? Bit childish isn't it?

[300bhp/ton]

From the TR Register....

TR6 PI	TR6 CARB
CP Series 150bhp at 5500rpm	CC Series 104bhp at 4500rpm
CR Series 125bhp at 5000rpm	CF series 106bhp at 4900rpm

PERFORMANCE DATA	TR6 PI (CP) (AUTOCAR)	TR6 PI (CR) (TRIUMPH)	TR6 CARB (CC) (ROAD)	TR6 CARB (CF) (TRIUMPH)
0 - 60 mph	8.2 s	9.5 s	10.7 s	11.5 s

1975 TR7 2.0 FHC

0 - 60 mph

9.2 s

So actually it wasn't slower than the TR6 as the 150hp TR6 had not been available for some time....

Lap times, drag strip, braking & cornering G also all favoured the TR7.