Friday 24th June 2011

SOTW: Bargain British Cabrios

Shed picks out a TR7, an MGTF and, er, a Ford Escort. Hang on, what was that third one...??

---

In many ways, 1983 was a significant year. Neil Kinnock was elected leader of the Labour Party, the first Microsoft Word was launched, the infamous Hitler Diaries were published (and found to be faked), and your humble scribbler here was born (I know, I don't look a day under 45).

Most significantly for today's shed of the week, however, this beige Triumph TR7 Convertible was registered. Even though the last TR7 dribbled out of Rover's Solihull plant in 1981, this car presumably languished on a forecourt or in a storage unit somewhere, before finally getting 'plated up' (so to speak) a couple of years later.

The last-ever Triumph roadster was never a beautiful thing in its day, nor has time been kind to it (nor was the choice of beige paintwork particularly inspired). It's also got an asthmatic 105bhp 2.0-litre engine. But it's a slice of important (in a maudlin sort of way) British motoring history for just £950, has had just one owner, been driven a mere 54,000 miles and it's got a full year's MOT to boot.

If that still doesn't whet your appetite, then may Shed present to you an alternative British SOTW in which to enjoy the glorious British summer? This 2002 MGTF 1.8 is possibly the youngest car ever to feature as an SOTW.

It ticks all the right boxes in terms of paperwork and MOT, has done a moderately reasonable 87k miles, and ought to be a fine alternative to that ubiquitous PH choice the MX-5.

All is not perfect with this TF, however. We're suspicious of any classified advert whose creator can't spell the word 'convertible', and the advert's text is hardly the most detailed you'll have read. It's the sort of car we'd definitely want to have a good poke around (with an experienced mechanic in tow), but if all seemed good, we'd take it in a heartbeat. And spend the next few months fending off jokes about head gaskets and hairdressers.

But if you think our first two offerings are of dubious pedigree, then we present you this third SOTW as an example of exactly how not to do it. The Anti-SOTW. Sure, it's only £849, but this is the sort of car you just know will wobble like a sheet of paper held by Rolf Harris, and it's only British in that curious way that many people seem to regard Fords as a British brand. Can we think of any redeeming feartures for it? Erm...no, not really. Other than the fact that it has four seats. And makes the other two offerings here look good...

Adverts are reproduced below...

TR7 Convertible. One owner+54000mls!! (1983)
£950

Beige with Tan interior.One owner from new and genuine 54000mls.Has recently been put back on the road after 20yrs in storage. 12months MOT and runs well but needs repaint and new hood.Ziebart rustproofed from new but now has some rot in front wings. We are selling on behalf of elderly owner.
Good project for someone!

MGTF 1.8 CONVERTABLE 2002 (2002)
87,000 miles £1,000

METALLIC BLUE, black leather ELEC WINDOWS ETC ALLOY WHEELS, CD PLAYER, 87K, M.O.T, SPARE KEYS GOOD RUNNER, EXHURST BLOWING AND SMALL CRACK IN FRONT BUMPER, HPI CLEAR SPARE KEYS ALL PAPERWORK

Ford Escort Cabriolet Convertible Imperial Blue (1996)
95,700 miles £849

Imperial blue Ford Escort cabriolet 1.8 Ghia.
1996
Showing 95700 Miles
MOT Till Jan 28th 2012
Tax Till 07 11
2 recent tyres
Recent oil + filter service
Electric roof (working !)
4 electric windows
Rear spoiler
Front foglights
Central locking

Genuine Ford GTi side skirts
16 inch Mondeo alloy wheels
Polly bush rear beam
After market exhaust
Mk 5 facelift boot (no badge recess) debadged
Genuine MK6 Ford RS accessory rear bumper (Very Rare - not the mk5 facelift model with the line in it) in Imperial blue available extra.

[300bhp/ton]

yay!

As an ex-MGF owner and a current Tr7 owner I can hardly complain about these. Not so sure about the Ford though.... piratical I guess for a vert, but not sure it's anything else.

[300bhp/ton]

Isn't this maybe a little harsh?

PH said:

It's also got an asthmatic 105bhp 2.0-litre engine.

Partly because the engines where actually quite grunty but mostly because even in 1984 a 2.0 Sierra only also put out 105bhp. So 105hp was pretty spot on for this class/price of car.

Edited by 300bhp/ton on Friday 24th June 09:26

[300bhp/ton]

The Crack Fox said:

Amazed at how cheap TR7s are now, they must be really unloved.

Escort boasts "Genuine Ford GTi side skirts", genuine ay ? Not aftermarket ? I'm sold...

I think there are several aspects this this.

1. It's at that age where its right at the bottom of its depreciation curve, just as most 1975-85 cars are. e.g. a Gen 1 1979/80 RX-7 is worth all of £300-500 despite being a great little sports car.

2. Oddly while the press and non buyers always harp on about the Convertible TR7 being the one to have. It seems most buyers want a coupe. Partly I suspect for the quirky looks but also as it's a far more rigid body shell. Non sun roof FHC's are even rarer and will generally fetch even more money again.

2a. V8's, either factory or converted ones do seem to be more sort after and command stringer money.

3. TVR's. I wanted a TVR, couldn't afford one so bought a TR7 and V8'd it instead. I suspect I'm not alone in this. Sadly Wedge shape TVR's are also worth a pittance at the moment. So I suspect anyone considering a TR7 V8 convertible would also look at a TVR. The TVR usually has more HP and it's a TVR, so more exclusive. When Wedge shape TVR prices rise I suspect TR7 ones will too.

Just look at how TR6 prices have changed in recent years. It really wasn't that long when £4-6k would have got you a good or mint one. Today it's not difficult to spend £12k on one.

[300bhp/ton]

Riggers said:

Disco_Dale said:

300bhp/ton said:

Partly because the engines where actually quite grunty and partly because even in 1984 a 2.0 Sierra only also put out 105bhp.

Quite.
I see this sort of thing quite a lot on PH articles. Clearly written by someone who never drove one and probably wasn't born when they were on sale.

The engine in the TR7 was basically an 8v version of the Dolly Sprint engine iirc. They certainly weren't asthmatic in their day.

Well, I did kind of admit to that in the intro to the article . You can't really help what age you are...

I think the Dolomite engine had also had its day by the mid-80s. Just my opinion, of course

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

[300bhp/ton]

redgriff500 said:

There is a reason the MX5 is so popular....

It is better than everyone of those options by some margin and shockingly prices start at a similar level.

Sometimes the road less travelled, is less travelled for a reason

Because it's st.

Better?

Yes you are correct, a 1990's MX-5 does indeed rust better than a 1970's Triumph.

And a 1.8 MK1 MX-5 is also better at producing a bigger number than an MGF on the 0-60mph sprint. Or the 0-100mph sprint too.

[300bhp/ton]

St John Smythe said:

Oddball RS said:

For the first time in a long time bravo...........

TR7's are the best kept secret, over the next ten years they will go up in value like all earlier TR's maybe not at such a high % but now is the time to buy a tidy one and keep it (Particularly the FHC), MG's are on the same path but just a bit more modern to use, a friend on mine has a very early F and a late TF both unregistered (and two shells). They will definately be worth hanging on to, in the future they will be very highly thought of, the last 'British' MG?

In the mean time - drive and enjoy and tidy up as funds allow.

Sorry but I have to disagree. Am I the only one that thinks TR7s are awful cars? I mean, just look at that interior!

You do seem to have quite a lot of (unfounded?) hatred for them.

As for the interior, I think the plastic on the dash is cheap looking/feeling (but 100% period for the time). But I like the layout a lot.

[300bhp/ton]

St John Smythe said:

I love old cars and have had quite a few. I just don't 'get' the TR7 and never will. It would be boring if we all thought the same don't you think?

Truly

Have to say I'm more of a love, like and like less sort of person though. Very few things I'd claim to actually hate.

[300bhp/ton]

redgriff500 said:

I have several MX5's outside and a TR7 - the TR7 is worse in every way including rust -needless to say I don't own the TR7 and whilst I am insured to drive it, I've managed to resist - just moving it around the drive demonstrates just how hideous it is.

And from the trackdays I've been on the MX5 is the better car there than the MGF too.

Bulletproof reliability too.

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?

[300bhp/ton]

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.

I think when discussing how a car rusts - year is far more important than some arbitrary price comparison tbh.

£65,000 E-Types rust too you know, just for reference that price doesn't dictate this.

[300bhp/ton]

redgriff500 said:

rodgerramjet said:

I'm genuinely amazed at the love for the TR7. Do any of you have even moderately functioning eyes?!!

Each to their own I suppose, but anyone who likes that has no right to slate any other car in the world. Ever.

Even that Escort!

Having driven examples of both I can assure you that the Escort drives better.

Yes I know its more modern but it is available at a similar PRICE.

I'm glad you are no longer a car dealer. Such misleading advise. How many people did you knobble over the years

[300bhp/ton]

VeeFour said:

Oddball RS said:

Look enough of the MX5 vs TR7 crap, someone show me a 1970's MX5 please! plastic, rot, colour, all cars of the era where like this (FACT) apples for apples ok?

Well, for a grand it's possible to get an MX5 that's largely rot free.

And even the inevitable rust is a lot more controllable - generally it's the sills and rear arches that are the MX5 weak points. Rather than the whole car.

I haven't seen an MX5 with rusting doors, or generally any with rusty front wings and floors.

The boot and bonnet won't rust because they're aluminium.

As for some of the other rubbish being quoted on here.... '50 mph in 1st' - what relevance is that? - all it means is that the TR7 has dodgy gearing and a low red line!

Umm as has been said. Exactly how old is the oldest MX-5??? Will they still be rust free in another 15-20 years time?

[300bhp/ton]

varsas said:

r11co said:

PS. The MkV Escort wasn't so bad once they'd beefed up the chassis. Essentially the same layout as the much lauded Fiesta and Ka but scaled up, and there was a 4WD version.....

4WD version? Not heard of that. If you are talking about the Escort Cosworth, that was on the Sierra platform.

MK V RS2000 2.0 n/a AWD. I don't know, but I'd guess it was a Cosworth minus some of the styling and all of the go faster bits.

[300bhp/ton]

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.

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]

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

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.

[300bhp/ton]

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?

[300bhp/ton]

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.

I think when discussing how a car rusts - year is far more important than some arbitrary price comparison tbh.

£65,000 E-Types rust too you know, just for reference that price doesn't dictate this.

Most people have a set BUDGET to buy cars year is irrelevant.

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.

Then lets hope you aren't a betting man.....

[300bhp/ton]

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.

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]

redgriff500 said:

300bhp I have been on an "MG On Track" Trackday in my MX5 (admittedly it had a supercharger and 190bhp)

But I was like Ayton Senna in an F1 car competing against Touring Cars it was fantastic.

A stock V8 V a stock 1.8 MX5 would depend upon the drivers and track.

But where can I get a V8 one for a grand ?

Since when did it become a trackday comparison

[300bhp/ton]

VeeFour said:

It was a Triumph courtesy of the badge they decided to apply.

The late Midget had a Triumph engine, but that doesn't make it a Triumph.

With that logic no new car is from the same maker then... A Focus wasn't really Ford because it shared nothing with the Escort?

Come on, you are scrabbling and splitting hairs on this- and you no it

VeeFour said:

Not really, it's about the ethos and feel as much as anything else.

300bhp/ton said:

VeeFour said:

3. When you say charm, you mean 'infuriatingly st', don't you?

No.

Mostly people will disagree with you.

See your comment above.

Even in stock trim a TR7 has great sense of occasion. A few subtle tweaks and even more so. You sit low, pedals in front not below you. Bulging bonnet in front, high dash.

VeeFour said:

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.

10+ secs. is for the detuned 90bhp cars.

Maybe so, but Carfolio has it listed twice as the 1.8i

VeeFour said:

I know my UK model 1.8i is quoted at 8.2 secs.

That's a fair bit quicker.

Not for nearly 20 years worth of development it isn't.

VeeFour said:

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.

So, the same size tyres as standard MkI MX5s, and only half a second quicker to 60.

Umm ok... because an MX-5 has to be able to deploy 210lb ft too

A UK factory V8 would run I suspect high'ish 15 second 1/4 miles, even with limited off the line traction. Torquestats seems to reckon about 17 sec for the MX-5. I'd say that would be a noticeable difference.

VeeFour said:

I've owned a 1970s 'sportscar' - I can guarantee that the MX5 would romp away with a few bends in the equation.

So you've driven every 1970's sports car ever?

Ok fair point, stock vs stock and including the vert (I was thinking FHC...) then an MX-5 will handle better. Factory TR7's were way too soft but rode well.

A few changes though and I think you'd likely be surprised just how good they can be though.

[300bhp/ton]

Dagnut said:

300bhp/ton said:

stuff

You've all completely missed the point..comparing performance of cars from different decades...nobody buys an old car for its dynamic ability...you managed to suck the juice of of this topic already.

Edited by Dagnut on Friday 24th June 15:05

I would kind of think a lot of people buying classics would largely be for their "dynamic ability", it's what makes them feel they way they do.