RE: SOTW: Bargain British Cabrios
Discussion
Itsallicanafford said:
All, why you would ever buy any of these over a early 1.6 MX-5 i really have no idea...
Do you know that the MX-5 came 9th out of 100 all time best handling cars in EVO magazine (an F50 was 10th!)
Ummm lots of reasons tbh.Do you know that the MX-5 came 9th out of 100 all time best handling cars in EVO magazine (an F50 was 10th!)
1. The Triumph is a classic and has a huge heritage. The MX-5 might be boardline modern classic, but it's not a classic yet and has no real heritage.
2. If you wanted a British sports car the MX-5 is a massive fail.
3. Charm. The MX-5 feels what it is, a modern mass produced car. Nothing wrong with it, it does it all very well. But nevertheless its still somewhat different.
4. Speed. While it's true you can mod MX-5's too there is no denying they are slow in standard trim. Plenty of Sprint and V8 TR7's about though.
5. Speed again. A 1.8i MGF is a better performer than any £1k MX-5 and better on fuel.
6. MPG, MG easily wins this over the Mazda.
7. Comfort. Again the MGF (not TF) easily wins due to its hydrogas suspension.
8. To be different.
9. Because you want a coupe version.
300bhp/ton said:
redgriff500 said:
300bhp/ton said:
But do you reckon any of the MX-5s when they reach the same age as the TR7 won't have degraded and rusted more than they have now?
Again we are comparing similar PRICED cars not year. £65,000 E-Types rust too you know, just for reference that price doesn't dictate this.
The only time year become relevant is for certain racing / tax / import eligibility and then you see huge distortions in price.
I'd argue that as MX5's are available at £1k then a TR7 is worth about a fiver.
1. Not really. It was nothing like any Triumph before it and could have been given any of the BL portfolio badges.
2. Well, only if you want something built in Britain. Other than that, the MX5 is more 'British Sportscar' than most British Sportscars are.
3. When you say charm, you mean 'infuriatingly s
t', don't you?
4. An MX5 would be quicker than a Sprint engined TR7 and a 1.8 won't be too far away from a standard V8 conversion. But it all goes out the window at the first corner anyway, as the TR driver wouldn't see which way the MX5 went.
5. Only when it's working and fettled properly. An F or TF for a grand will be a ticking timebomb of issues - especially as the only F or TF that has the legs on an MX5 (and I'll discount the detuned 90bhp models here) is the VVC.
6. Depends on the driver.
7. Which is what gives the '5 the handling edge.
8. If I wanted to be that different, I'd buy a 924 and paint it brown with pink polker dots.
9. Stick a hardtop on the '5. Job done.
2. Well, only if you want something built in Britain. Other than that, the MX5 is more 'British Sportscar' than most British Sportscars are.
3. When you say charm, you mean 'infuriatingly s
t', don't you?4. An MX5 would be quicker than a Sprint engined TR7 and a 1.8 won't be too far away from a standard V8 conversion. But it all goes out the window at the first corner anyway, as the TR driver wouldn't see which way the MX5 went.
5. Only when it's working and fettled properly. An F or TF for a grand will be a ticking timebomb of issues - especially as the only F or TF that has the legs on an MX5 (and I'll discount the detuned 90bhp models here) is the VVC.
6. Depends on the driver.
7. Which is what gives the '5 the handling edge.
8. If I wanted to be that different, I'd buy a 924 and paint it brown with pink polker dots.
9. Stick a hardtop on the '5. Job done.
VeeFour said:
20 years old.
I suspect survival rates are significantly higher than they were in 20 year old TR7s.
I'll even stick my neck out and say that the survival rate at 20 years for an MX5 is better than it was for the TR7 at 10 years old.
Not sure how old you are, but I clearly remember just how rubbish every car was back in the late 70s / early 80s - I certainly remember my dad's MkI Honda Accord being fit for scrap only at years old. I don't recall the Hillman Avenger it replaced being much better, either.
In all honesty I'd certainly hope that a 1990's car would rust less and survive better than a mid 1970's car. I'd call it progress I suspect survival rates are significantly higher than they were in 20 year old TR7s.
I'll even stick my neck out and say that the survival rate at 20 years for an MX5 is better than it was for the TR7 at 10 years old.
Not sure how old you are, but I clearly remember just how rubbish every car was back in the late 70s / early 80s - I certainly remember my dad's MkI Honda Accord being fit for scrap only at years old. I don't recall the Hillman Avenger it replaced being much better, either.
But it is slightly unfair to compare a say 1990-1995 MX-5 with a 1975-1978 TR7 and shout "the TR7 has more rust!!!"
BTW - I say this as I do have a TR7, a 1977 example.
redgriff500 said:
300bhp/ton said:
redgriff500 said:
300bhp/ton said:
But do you reckon any of the MX-5s when they reach the same age as the TR7 won't have degraded and rusted more than they have now?
Again we are comparing similar PRICED cars not year. £65,000 E-Types rust too you know, just for reference that price doesn't dictate this.
The only time year become relevant is for certain racing / tax / import eligibility and then you see huge distortions in price.
I'd argue that as MX5's are available at £1k then a TR7 is worth about a fiver.
300bhp/ton said:
In all honesty I'd certainly hope that a 1990's car would rust less and survive better than a mid 1970's car. I'd call it progress
But it is slightly unfair to compare a say 1990-1995 MX-5 with a 1975-1978 TR7 and shout "the TR7 has more rust!!!"
BTW - I say this as I do have a TR7, a 1977 example.
You're missing the point.But it is slightly unfair to compare a say 1990-1995 MX-5 with a 1975-1978 TR7 and shout "the TR7 has more rust!!!"
BTW - I say this as I do have a TR7, a 1977 example.
You have a grand to spend on a sportscar for this summer - as I did.
The choices are:
MX-5, MG-F, TR7, or a hatchback with the top lopped off.
An MG-F will be a timebomb waiting to go bang, especially if it hasn't yet had a head gasket replacement, and if you get suspension issues, you're in trouble as a lot of parts are now unobtainable new.
A TR7 will be rusty. There's no getting away from the fact that, at this end of the market, you're only going to find a complete shed of a TR7 that will struggle to pass next year's MOT. And you'll be scared of using it on anything other than bone dry roads.
Or you could buy an MX5 - at a grand, you'll be getting something that is largely rust free, won't break, doesn't have unobtainable or expensive suspension components, and most of all will allow you to just get on with enjoying the summer, without worry.
300bhp/ton said:
Interesting. Never looked them up or anything tbh. What sort of 4x4 system did they use? Was it a viscous centre diff like the Cosworth or was it more a fwd biased setup like the Cav 4x4?
Well, it was a transverse engine, so I assume it was similar to the Golf Haldex system.300bhp/ton said:
VeeFour said:
It was completely unrelated to the Cosworth.
Interesting. Never looked them up or anything tbh. What sort of 4x4 system did they use? Was it a viscous centre diff like the Cosworth or was it more a fwd biased setup like the Cav 4x4?t, slow and didnt even feel like a 4x4...escort cabrio wise, a clean mk4 will now cost anytything from £1500 to £3000, some even had PAS! getting rare and sought after now, the mk5/6/7 is an unloved dog, not truly awful but nothing of merit to offer...
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.
hmm. Interesting. From the time when everyone felt they had to have a 4WD version of even the most ordinary car. You could get all sorts of odd things; Cavaliers, 405's...all sorts.varsas said:
4WD version? Not heard of that. If you are talking about the Escort Cosworth, that was on the Sierra platform.
VeeFour said:
1. Not really. It was nothing like any Triumph before it and could have been given any of the BL portfolio badges.
It was still a Triumph though.... and it did have some origins with the Dolly.VeeFour said:
2. Well, only if you want something built in Britain. Other than that, the MX5 is more 'British Sportscar' than most British Sportscars are.
eh? Pretty stupid comment really VeeFour said:
3. When you say charm, you mean 'infuriatingly st', don't you?
No.t', don't you?VeeFour said:
4. An MX5 would be quicker than a Sprint engined TR7
Are you deluded?1975 TR7 0-60mph = 9.1 sec
1993 MX-5 0-60mph = 10.10 sec
According to Carfolio, I admit the list a lightweight 1989 MX-5 at 8.5 sec 0-60mph. But that is hardly vastly faster.
VeeFour said:
and a 1.8 won't be too far away from a standard V8 conversion.
UK spec V8 had the 155bhp engine. Carfolio claims:
0-60mph in 7.7 sec (remember this would be on narrow 185 section tyres, no modern grippy ones) and just shy of 140mph top speed.
VeeFour said:
But it all goes out the window at the first corner anyway, as the TR driver wouldn't see which way the MX5 went.
VeeFour said:
5. Only when it's working and fettled properly. An F or TF for a grand will be a ticking timebomb of issues - especially as the only F or TF that has the legs on an MX5 (and I'll discount the detuned 90bhp models here) is the VVC.
No the F was quicker, VVC was originally rated at 7.0 sec 0-60mph and low/mid 8's for the 1.8i. Not saying it's a huge amount, but enough to upset a stock MX-5 in a straight line.300bhp/ton said:
VeeFour said:
1. Not really. It was nothing like any Triumph before it and could have been given any of the BL portfolio badges.
It was still a Triumph though.... and it did have some origins with the Dolly.The late Midget had a Triumph engine, but that doesn't make it a Triumph.
300bhp/ton said:
VeeFour said:
2. Well, only if you want something built in Britain. Other than that, the MX5 is more 'British Sportscar' than most British Sportscars are.
eh? Pretty stupid comment really 300bhp/ton said:
VeeFour said:
3. When you say charm, you mean 'infuriatingly st', don't you?
No.t', don't you?300bhp/ton said:
VeeFour said:
4. An MX5 would be quicker than a Sprint engined TR7
Are you deluded?1975 TR7 0-60mph = 9.1 sec
1993 MX-5 0-60mph = 10.10 sec
According to Carfolio, I admit the list a lightweight 1989 MX-5 at 8.5 sec 0-60mph. But that is hardly vastly faster.
I know my UK model 1.8i is quoted at 8.2 secs.
That's a fair bit quicker.
300bhp/ton said:
VeeFour said:
and a 1.8 won't be too far away from a standard V8 conversion.
UK spec V8 had the 155bhp engine. Carfolio claims:
0-60mph in 7.7 sec (remember this would be on narrow 185 section tyres, no modern grippy ones) and just shy of 140mph top speed.
That's not too shabby, given it has an engine half the size and costs a stack less cash.
300bhp/ton said:
VeeFour said:
But it all goes out the window at the first corner anyway, as the TR driver wouldn't see which way the MX5 went.
300bhp/ton said:
VeeFour said:
5. Only when it's working and fettled properly. An F or TF for a grand will be a ticking timebomb of issues - especially as the only F or TF that has the legs on an MX5 (and I'll discount the detuned 90bhp models here) is the VVC.
No the F was quicker, VVC was originally rated at 7.0 sec 0-60mph and low/mid 8's for the 1.8i. Not saying it's a huge amount, but enough to upset a stock MX-5 in a straight line.1.8i is roughly the same as a standard 1.8i MX5.
I loved my 1980 TR7 Convertible.
I could raise/lower the roof with 1 hand, more convenient than my TVR.
I liked the interior, driving position and view from Drivers seat.
It had plenty of presence on a motorway (pop-up lights I guess).
Mine came with a hideous (but very rare) fibreglass hardtop which I sold.
However, I neglected the servicing and the timing chain broke, so had to get rid.
After I'd sold it, I was showing my wife a picture of one in an I-Spy book and realised it was my actual car!
Anyone know if NLD 52V is still going?
Regards,
Shentodj
I could raise/lower the roof with 1 hand, more convenient than my TVR.
I liked the interior, driving position and view from Drivers seat.
It had plenty of presence on a motorway (pop-up lights I guess).
Mine came with a hideous (but very rare) fibreglass hardtop which I sold.
However, I neglected the servicing and the timing chain broke, so had to get rid.
After I'd sold it, I was showing my wife a picture of one in an I-Spy book and realised it was my actual car!
Anyone know if NLD 52V is still going?
Regards,
Shentodj
300bhp/ton said:
Speed. While it's true you can mod MX-5's too there is no denying they are slow in standard trim. Plenty of Sprint and V8 TR7's about though.
5. Speed again. A 1.8i MGF is a better performer than any £1k MX-5 and better on fuel.
What's with this speed thing, if you're in that much of a hurry fly!5. Speed again. A 1.8i MGF is a better performer than any £1k MX-5 and better on fuel.
MX5 makes me
I'm pretty sure a TR7 would make me
300bhp/ton said:
Ummm lots of reasons tbh.
1. The Triumph is a classic and has a huge heritage. The MX-5 might be boardline modern classic, but it's not a classic yet and has no real heritage.
2. If you wanted a British sports car the MX-5 is a massive fail.
3. Charm. The MX-5 feels what it is, a modern mass produced car. Nothing wrong with it, it does it all very well. But nevertheless its still somewhat different.
4. Speed. While it's true you can mod MX-5's too there is no denying they are slow in standard trim. Plenty of Sprint and V8 TR7's about though.
5. Speed again. A 1.8i MGF is a better performer than any £1k MX-5 and better on fuel.
6. MPG, MG easily wins this over the Mazda.
7. Comfort. Again the MGF (not TF) easily wins due to its hydrogas suspension.
8. To be different.
9. Because you want a coupe version.
1. Agreed1. The Triumph is a classic and has a huge heritage. The MX-5 might be boardline modern classic, but it's not a classic yet and has no real heritage.
2. If you wanted a British sports car the MX-5 is a massive fail.
3. Charm. The MX-5 feels what it is, a modern mass produced car. Nothing wrong with it, it does it all very well. But nevertheless its still somewhat different.
4. Speed. While it's true you can mod MX-5's too there is no denying they are slow in standard trim. Plenty of Sprint and V8 TR7's about though.
5. Speed again. A 1.8i MGF is a better performer than any £1k MX-5 and better on fuel.
6. MPG, MG easily wins this over the Mazda.
7. Comfort. Again the MGF (not TF) easily wins due to its hydrogas suspension.
8. To be different.
9. Because you want a coupe version.
2. Agreed
3. Agreed
4. I have an MX-5 1800 low spec version (no pas, electrics etc), 130 BHP, 975Kg, it revs to 7250, it aint lighting but its far from slow...
5. Cannot comment but if i was up against an MGF on a track i would fancy my chances..
6. 3rd car so not revevant to me
7. A standard MX-5 have very compliant suspension and i find it very comfortable..
8. Mk1 Mx-5's are getting rarer now..but agreed their are alot of them around
9. Agreed.
i think the MGF vs MX-5 arguement could rage on but you must consider that the MX-5 was a clean sheet design and as production has now hit 900,000, you can tell they nailed it. MGF was abit of a parts bin special were Rover used the subframe from a Metro (hence the hydrogas syspension) and effectively turned it around to make a mid engine car...but hey, it horses for courses, i love my 5, people love their MGF's, ideally we all want a 997 GT3RS but cannot afford it...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff