MG-Cars.net

Welcome to our resource for MG Car Information.

Recommendations

Parts

MG parts spares and accessories are available for MG T Series (TA, MG TB, MG TC, MG TD, MG TF), Magnette, MGA, Twin cam, MGB, MGBGT, MGC, MGC GT, MG Midget, Sprite and other MG models from British car spares company LBCarCo.

MG MGA - I'm thinking about cheating

Forgive me I can't help myself.

I've always had this thing for TR-3s, its their lines you see, so very curvy through the waist.

Anyway there's one for sale here in Michigan. I had a very interesting (and nice) conversation with the owner. Seems he's had the same dual loves as I do. He has an A and this TR and now he's selling the TR.

I commented on this and what made him choose to sell the TR. For one thing he's more involved in the MG club, but he also aluded to the fact that the TR is more of the "hot rod" of the LBC world and that its steering was "different".

I got the definite impression that he just didn't enjoy the TR as much as the A.

So what's the word out there can anybody give me more insight into what this guy might be hinting about?

Would I be disappointed spending a few years of my life with a TR before going back to an A?

I like the idea of a little more power, but like the handling of the A so much.
Tysen

The problem with the TR is the heavy engine, with the wet cylinder liners and the
thick walled engine block, which is necessary to give rigidity when you have empty space where the MGA has cylinder walls. This is combined with the lack of rack and pinion steering to give a "heavy" feel to the steering and handling.
The TR4 has rack and pinion steering, but still has the heavy wet sleeve engine.
Having had a TR3 and a MGA at the same time, I guess it is the MGA light steering and handling versus the TR3 power and low RPM (with overdrive).
If I have to pick the best car I would take the MGA.

Mick
Mick Anderson

Tysen, it is kind of apples to oranges as the cars are very different as stated by Mick. That being said, both cars will put a big smile on your face when you drive them.
John H

A admit to having a Jones for the TR-3 also. It has always been the car I have wanted. Then I found the MG. And the rest, they say, is history.

I have talked to others who have had both the TR3 and the MGA. Some of them had them at the same time. I have never had anybody tell me that they preferred the TR-3. I guess that convinced me that some desires should stay as desires and not be fulfilled.

On a second note, is anybody here building a Locost? This is my other weakness and is in the very slow process of being satisfied.

Chuck
Chuck Schaefer

Well, I have definate opinions on both also. I have a 60 MGA and a 58 TR3, both a bit ratty, both run great.I love them both for the same but different reasons.The A is much tighter and less rattely,runs strong.The TR3 has cut down doors,is smaller,feels more motorcycle-ish,and will run circles around my A.When it comes to hard fast S-curves,well.. the TR3 will send your stomach straight upwards,with your eyes wide open. Kinda like an old wooden rollercoaster.Let me put it this way,I feel safer in my A on fast curves,I feel safer in my 3 when I want to pass a slower car on a 2 lane Hiway.Which do I like best? My 57 ALFA...hee..hee.
wc wolcott

Tysen

I too have always liked the look of the TR3. Re the steering, I believe it has a 'Bishop Cam' worm and peg steering - as found in MG Square Riggers. Not a system I enjoyed in my MGTC. Wears quite quickly and needs frequent adjustment.

Steve
Steve Gyles

Steven,

The owner mentioned the same thing, apparently there is no castor (?) and as a result the wheels don't have a self centering effect which can be quite disconcerting.

TM
Tysen

Pass on that one Tysen. I do not know the car that well, although I would be most surprised if the TR did not have adequate castor. It does have a good racing and rallying pedigree. I suspect the owner has not set it up correctly.

But don't let that put you off, as my colleague at work is rebuilding a TR3 and is converting it to rack and pinion.

Steve
Steve Gyles

Having put MANY miles on both the MGA and a TR-3A I think the biggest difference in driving is the "all of one piece" feeling of the MGA vs the tied together with gum and rubberbands feel of the TR. The heavy steering of the TR is not as nice as a good r & p of the MG and the narrow rear end makes the TR feel a bit skittish and even unstable on rougher roads. Yes the TR torque is nice as was the flick-a-switch overdrive when cruising, but you couldn't beat the friendly handling of the A. Besides my A was modded a bit with head work and a new cam and a supercharger, and was faster than most TRs I ran upon on the hiways. Both are great fun to drive. You need to watch out for tallis dogs in the TR...they will pee over the door and onto the seats.
Wayne Hardy

Wayne's pretty well got it, but the "gum and rubberbands" feeling has serious consequences over time. Every piece of any TR -TR2 through 6, and Spitfire/GT6 -is going in a slightly different direction at any given time, and eventually things come apart or break, and it does no good to the handling either. My early employment involved stints at two TR dealers, and several independent shops, from 1964 on. I did a lot of clutch & gearbox work (comes out from in the car on all TR), and one of the first tricks learned was to always open the doors before you jacked up the car, because they wouldn't open if the jackstands weren't dead in line with the axle centers, or if the floor wasn't dead level. The whole car would droop or twist. Even a nearly rusted in half MGA, or any other MG, is not that flexible. TRs appeared to be built by sending the big bits to a poorly equipped sheetmetal shop, where the thing was assembled with many small braces of flat steel and a lot of small screws and nuts - later replaced by self-tappers with those flat spring steel "nuts", which fall out faster. Standard procedure on a gearbox removal was to carefully remove the carpets and retrieve the handful of hardware that had fallen out from under the dash. It was routine to have TR3s come in with the doors flapping, to find that the latch plates had fallen off and gotten lost. I used to go all over the cars and tighten everything as routine, the rule was that IF something on an MG was loose, you left it that way; but, Everything on a TR IS loose, and it did it itself.
Most disconcerting was the tendency for suspension/steering mounting points to tear off the frame; the comp prep manuals for TR have instructions for reinforcing some of these - you don't find that in the MG books. It is also common to find stress/fatigue cracks in sheetmetal parts on a TR. For an example from an early TR4, see my website, http://www.usachoice.net/gofanu/britserv
Make no mistake, a good running TR is fun, but I for one wouldn't want to live with it as a day to day thing!
FRM
FR Millmore

I have had both MGAs (2) and a TR-3A. To my experience, the TR had more torque (power at the wheels) but otherwise, was a pretty unsophisticated buckboard and rode and handle too much like one compared to an MGA, even the 56 MGA I had with no sway bar, and pretty rudimentary handling setup. However, I know what it feels like to like something no one else deems worthy. I once had a very nice 1961 Fiat 1200 Coupe (hardtop version of the 1200 roadster) and came to admire its sophistication vs. its obvious lack of power. Most folks would not give it the time of day, but I liked it. Good luck in your choice.
Bob Muenchausen

My friend restored a TR3 into what is, without a doubt, the finest TR3 I've ever seen. Just magnificent. He won the "people's choice" award at Watkin's Glen before the car was fully trimmed out. He won the AACA nationals on his first attempt about 6 months later. Compared to my A coupe, it drove like a truck. But it did have power. As soon as he won the nationals he sold it (almost broke even) and now has a twin cam. But hey, to each his own.
GTF
G T Foster

I've always heard the comparison of refined (MG) vs. snarly (TR). I've even heard the MG described as girly feeling, versus manly for the TR. Not being exactly manly myself, I kind of like refined. I like the styling of the MGA as much as just about any car I've seen.

But I've been a TR3 owner for many years. Never owned an MG, never had a good chance to buy one. I now drive a TR4 all the time, basically a 3 with rollup windows. I like the steering of the 3 a little better than the 4, I like the feel on center better with the box rather than the rack. The ride is not very smooth on the solid axle TR's, it seems like the seats are about all the shock absorbtion you get. They start to feel at home on the road at about 80 MPH, and can go much faster. But as long as you give them a little run occasionally, they're pretty docile around town. They get hot if they're not running down the road, no fun in parades or traffic jams. They have good heaters, but the 3's side curtains are not very much protection from the cold or the rain. The cutdown doors are so great when it's nice out, but probably the car's worst feature in inclement weather.

For handling around fast curves, they are not very refined, the center of gravity is low, but they lean quite a bit and don't really give you a ton of confidence. They will give you a lot of warning before they do funny stuff, but it seems like you have to force them to do what you want. They are really fun to slide around, spin, at low speeds, and have plenty of power to break the rears loose.

I have to agree that a TR3 is not a great car on a day to day basis, the sidescreens and wipers being weak points. Surprisingly torquey, though. Easy to work on, easy to own in general. Probably about the same, maintenance wise, as an MG. Probably a little more like a hot rod. Not as beautiful or slick as an MG. Maybe a little more exciting. Drive one from 0 to 90 to find their thrill.

I must admit that the best balanced handler I owned was a Fiat 124 spider. 1969, I put a fresh 1600 in it, what a rush when it got up to happy revs! And you could put the top down or up in seconds!
Tom

Another way to look at it...

I originally wanted a TR3, but went to look at a few and found that I didn't really fit. The A is much more accomodating for larger framed folks like me. Dunno how big Tysen is, but he might want to try the TR on for size first.
AJ Mail

No doubt about it, this is an MGA forum. Tysen, I live in Mi,you are invited sometime to drive both of my cars to judge for yourself. Bob M,I have a 1966 Fiat 1600 cabriolet,Farina styled,great looking car.Unfortunatly a project that I havent gotten to yet.FRM,may I ask,would you prefer to do a clutch job an an MGA vs TR3? I think you are being a little unfair to TR3's. GTF your friend sold his TR3 for a TC? A great car.But kinda like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. As I stated before,I have both MGA's and TR3's, and I really like them both. I still have my 58 coupe that I bought in 68.It was my 2nd MGA,and I my only car. I drove it thru Canada to the deep south to the west coast. I guess what I am saying is that both cars have thier virtues and thier vices.One is not inherently better than the other. I like steak, I like pizza.
wc wolcott

I've raced them both.

Tr gets you lots of torque and evil handling.

MGA gets you very good handling and indifferent power.

It is easier to give and MG engine more power than it is to make a Triumph chassis do something apparently unnatural for it - handle well.
Bill Spohn

WC thanks for the gracious invite, I may take you up on it sometime when I run up your way.

I'm starting to latch on to Bill Spohn's point of view, its probably easier to juice up the MGA.

as much as I like those low cut doors on the TR I do really like the rear fender on the A....its reminicent of a woman's butt when she's lying on her stomach.

Thanks for helping me stay on the straight and narrow.
Tysen

Tysen,your welcome... B Spohn's comments,as correct as they may be,I would suggest the Moss supercharger for your A should you happen to pull up beside my TR3.
wc wolcott

Yeah, styling wise, I think the TR's are all a bit too square in the behind. I'd love an XK120, but no one's ever offered me one of those either. A Morgan would tempt me as much or more, especially since the +4 has a TR engine, which I know pretty well. On a daily basis, though, I think I'll stick with the TR4. Maybe someone will offer me a Lotus Elise because they're too much trouble to own..yeah right. I'm stuck on tractor engines.
Tom

Speaking of TR-4s, I think a TR-4 recently sold at Barrett-Jackson for some absurdly huge sum. I didn't see this TR-4, so I'm not sure why it did so well. Did anyone Stateside catch it on the Speed channel?

I did see a mid-60's Sprite sell for $15,000.

M.D.
'57 Coupe
M. D.

Re: the TR3 having no caster, I don't have a problem with it. It never bothered me. I made a fiberglass dune buggy once, shortened the wheelbase. This purportedly changes the "Ackerman effect" and really will not center itself. The TR4's made some time after mine went to a built in caster, and I think it's a good idea. Again, I think it's related to the rack and pinion. Maybe the cam gets tighter as you turn, and doesn't affect the on center feel like the squirmy R&P in the TR4. I'll never understand why anyone would convert a TR3 to R&P. They have a good steering feel as originally designed.

They don't handle precisely, but they sure are fun. I think someone ought to make a sports roadster kit car for rusted out mini pickup conversion. My '76 Toyota SR5 PU had a real similar engine, frame, tranny to a TR3. When I first drove it, I thought, "This is almost like driving the TR!" Probably the best vehicle I ever owned, probably out-handled the TR.
Tom

Tom-
re the "squirmy R&P" on TR4, I strongly suggest you look at my website link I posted in my first post of this thread. Which I now realize I didn't post correctly!
http://www.usachoice.net/gofanu/Britserv.htm
Personally I would reinforce things a lot more, but the guy wanted it to pass for original.
FRM
FR Millmore

This thread was discussed between 27/07/2006 and 01/08/2006

MG MGA index

This thread is from the archive. The Live MG MGA BBS is active now.