No Respect

[Dave@Moon]

Why does Triumph, which outperformed and often outsold MG for the same or near-same money, get so little respect?

I recently came across a Forbes.com poll, British Cars We Wish They Still Made , where the marque isn't even mentioned. I know that the TR7 and late '70s English market models sullied the name a bit, but if you had to live with a TR4 or an early MGB everyday:

1. Is the MG so much better that the TR doesn't merit even a mention, and

2. Would you really pick the slower/smaller/slower selling/roadster-topped MG first?

Ditto comparisons of the TR3 vs. the TF/MGA, or the TR2 vs. the TD. Granted most people see the MGs as more attractive (my favorite design of all-time is the MGA), although the TR6 and early Spitfire tend to rain on that parade a bit as well. I just don't understand how these cars are becoming increasingly forgotten.

[alsfarms]

This is a fair and really a typical question asked by many across the collector car hobby. Why doesn't my make have the prestege of another make. I like 1931 Pierce-Arrows, which are actually better cars than the 1931 Cadillacs, but the Cad's out sell them hands down. Same thing between a 1957 Chev. and a 1957 Ford. We all can relate with the Cadillac and 1957 Chev. so that is what we want and BINGO, supply and demand, up goes the price and written hype. I also enjoy a TRUE Classis British make, the Alvis. This one also tends to be really under rated at the glory of more well known types. I guess the bright side is I can afford a Pierc-Arrow and also an Alvis, with just as much fun, and still be very competative on the road. This is just my two cents......horrah Triumph.

Al

[Dave@Moon]

With all due respect Al I think the status of Triumph in the British car hobby is more akin to the plight of Plymouth owners in the American hobby, only worse and without the muscle car complications. Old Mopars are well respected for design and (in most years) build quality, often representing a product of value well beyond period GM and Ford offerings. Frequently they're acknowledged to be better looking as well, especially in periods when design most matters (early '30s, late '50s, late '60s). Yet somehow they rarely have 1/2 of the financial worth and hobby interest of those Ford and GM cars. Triumph can be compared to BMC cars similarly, with the added complication that at the time they were new they were generally more popular with the buying public (unlike Mopars which <span style="font-style: italic">once</span> only briefly held #2 status).

However, like Triumph Mopar products did sell in numbers vastly higher than you'd expect based on their representation in the antique car hobby. Their relative unpopularity strikes me as strange as well.

It's understandable that there'd be many more books published, more parts distributors for, and many more shows dedicated to Caddys over the Pierce marque, or even Aston or Bentley over the Alvis marque. There just simply are <span style="font-style: italic">vastly</span> more cars for fans of those more popular makes to choose from and to display, and there always has been. The only reason there are more MG's than TR's <span style="font-style: italic">now</span> is because of their popularity <span style="font-style: italic">today</span> in preference to the Triumphs.

There must 4 or 5 MG books and 2 Austin-Healey books published for every one that comes out on Triumphs. Modern MG's have been revived and Austin-Healeys are frequently rumored to be next. For more than a generation now Triumph parts have been much harder to find (and much less reproduced) than either of those other marques. And yes--that is because they sell better and/or are more popular. It is not my intention to denigrate them, they are great cars. <span style="font-weight: bold">My question is why this popularity deficit came about?</span>

[boompa]

I had an MGB GT back in college that I rebuilt the engine on and lots of other work. When I got that car for free from my uncle at the time. But I also had my eye on Triumphs. I always felt that the Triumphs were sportier than MGs (my perception) but that there were just less of them on the road so they didnt get as noticed.