TR3 vs MGA

[Kral]

Hello,

 

What are the main differences between a MG A and a TR3 ? Which one is more fun to drive ? Cheaper to maintain ?

 

Cheers,

Karl

[stuart]

Hello,

 

What are the main differences between a MG A and a TR3 ? Which one is more fun to drive ? Cheaper to maintain ?

 

Cheers,

Karl

Karl there is no comparison TR everytime. They are much easier to work on and have the best supply of spares both repro and if you are prepared to spend a bit more original items as well.

Stuart.

[Bill Robinson]

Ahh Karl, How I must disagree!!!!!

As a proud owner of both, I will argue that the MGA is a much easer and a less costly restoration. There were far more MGA's sold to the US market (95,000) than the TR3. This resulted in a lot more available parts. Just getting on e-bay will result in twice as many "parts" pages witch then result in much cheaper cost for the parts (With the exception of the Twin Cam). As far as simplicity, the MGA is much less complex than the TR. I was glad to start with it because it was easier to learn on and has far more resources to research. Just check out " mgaguru.com" which is a library of information on every aspect at your finger tips. I often still refer to this site because of the similarity of many of the parts between the two. I am finding with my TR it requires a lot more of asking question of fellow members and waiting for responses. But in the end I think the TR is a much better performer and head turner. But I luv them both!!!

[vivdownunder]

Hi Karl,

 

I suppose you should also post your query on the MG Forum for a balanced response, as you might find, not unreasonably, that the natural tendency of a TR owner would be to steer you into a TR.

 

Here are some original performance stats which are useful in terms of safe overtaking margins -

 

TR3/4 ...............0-60mph 10.9 sec.

MGA 1600 ........ 0-60mph 15.6 sec.

MGA Mk 11........ 0-60mph 13.7 sec.

 

Maintenance costs will relate to what condition car you buy, in either marque. On MGA/TR cars of equal condition, mechanic's labour charges for upkeep should work out pretty much the same.

 

Whilst I quite like the 1930's Magnette and lovely little supercharged J3 MG's, my view of MGA's including the Twin Cam is that they just don't hold any appeal in terms of style or performance compared to a TR3A/B. For me the TR3 series with the optional toggle activated overdrive on second, third and top gears are a superior cars, both mechanically and visually, after having quite a few TR's over some 44 years. But that's just one person's opinion.

The acid test is to thoroughly try before you buy, spending as much time as you need in each car to see which you like best. Then you can make an informed decision so you won't be left wondering if the other car would have suited you better.

 

Best regards,

 

Viv.

[Andrew Smith]

Hi Karl

 

It appears that you have yet to join the Register, so you’ll probably not have any copies of TRaction?

 

In TRaction No194 (April/May 2004) there is a three page article 'TR3A Vs MGA TC' (p40-42) comparing the TR3A with the MGA TC , where it quotes the 0-60 times as:

 

TR3A 10.6

MGA 9.8

 

With SQs of 18.4 and 18 respectively, it seems they were/are pretty well matched for pace, if not style?

 

The article was reproduced from Australian Sports Car World Magazine (October 1959), so I would assume it would be an accurate contemporary comparison.

 

Might be worth trying to get a back copy from the Office if available - also there is rather a good article on p36 - 37 titled 'TRK - A Triumph Sports Car Story'

 

Better still why not join us?

 

Cheers

Andrew

[ianc]

Although access to the engine of a TR2/3 is not brilliant, it is a good deal better than with an MGA.

The TR boot is not large, but it IS a boot and IS lockable - the MGA's "boot" has to be accessed from the cockpit and is not secure.

The MGA has two 6 volt batteries located behind the seats - although it must improve weight distribution, all owners seem to curse the arrangement as being prone to problems. Likewise, the SU electric petrol pump, but the solid state conversion (replacing the contact) solves the problem.

The Achilles' Heel of the MGA is its front suspension - in common with all BMC cars of that era (from Morris Minor upwards), it can collapse without warning at the borrom pivot. Again, I believe there is a modern solution for that.

Basically, the cars are very similar in concept: take parts from existing models as far as possible, uprate where necessary, create a simple body etc.

Although it is possible to give the MGA the performance of a TR2/3 (usually by boring to 1800 cc), it will never have the the low-down torque nor the long-legged cruising of an overdrive TR.

The MGA's handling was rated as better in the 1950s, but the handling of a TR2/3 can be improved vastly nowadays.

I think the MGA looks quite pretty - a term I would never apply to a TR!

The really good thing is that so many of both marques have survived, have very strong support, and the rivalry is friendly!

Ian Cornish

[Don Elliott]

In 1958, an MGA cost $2200 Cdn and the TR3A which I bought cost me $2600. I bought the TR because of its competition history. because I could get it with overdrive and I preferred the sound of the exhaust. The MGA was already considered underpowered with older styling. I'm glad of my decision. 50 years later, I know I made the right decisions. The decision to buy it and the decision to keep it all this time.

 

A friend has an MG-TC, an MGA, and an MGB. When he bought a sad but running TR3A, he was surprised as to how much torque and spirit it has. He rarely drives his MGs anymore, but raves all the time about his TR3A.

 

Don Elliott, Original Owner

[vivdownunder]

Hi again Karl,

 

Just in regard to Andrew's post referring to the Twin Cam model MGA, the reproduced 1959 article might not explain what a headache these cars turned out to be in MG's attempt to compete with the much faster Healeys and TR's of the day. The engines were of too high compression and burnt pistons at an alarming rate, and they needed their own personal oil well, such was the consumption. Although the compression was lowered, only just over 2000 Twin Cams were made before they were dropped in 1960.

 

Modern engineering has largely cured the original problems, but they are still considered high maintenance according to a friend who has owned both an MGA Twin Cam and a TR3A for many years.

 

A good TR, supported by membership of the TR Register, either in your country or the UK, or both, is definately sound advice if this is your first Classic.

 

Cheers,

 

Viv.

[gwr]

A year or two back, when looking for an 'upgrade' to replace my Triumph Vitesse, an MGA was on my list of possibles. Having driven a few, I was disappointed in the MGA's lack of 'oomph'. I didn't feel that it was as much fun to drive even as the Vitesse. There is no doubt the MGA is a very pretty car, but, for me it was a little too dainty (read 'hairdressers' car') and it was scrubbed from the possibles' list. the list was eventually narrowed down, through all the TRs (and a tight budget) to the TR4, which under the body is very similar to the TR3, and is great fun to drive.

[Bill Robinson]

Karl, I think one more point needs to be pointed out. My fellow members make good valid points, but what it really comes down to is budget and how much experience you have in restoration if that is your goal. If you have minimal experience but a generous budget, you can school yourself or buy the assistance of a pro. But make no mistake it is very costly one way or the other. I still make decisions (Mistakes) that cost me money on my restorations. Style wise I think my comrades can be a little bias. MGA's are just as beautiful and are easy to modify with increased HP. But the truth of the matter is (And I think most drivers agree) I have the most fun in these cars doing 5 MPH down a beautiful country road next to my wonderful wife, enjoying the beautiful countryside. And of coarse stopping for a pint at all the pubs while listing to all the memories and compliments of people whom we encounter along the way. If it is speed you want then look into performance and race cars. The hill climb event is also very exciting, but again, plan on spending even more money to compete. Bottom line is, Do your homework and buy what you can afford. They are both great cars!

[jastr3]

Kral,

I am a bit late weighing in here but as an enthusiast who has owned both cars I think they both have different things to offer. I bought my 57 MGA from it's original owner when she bought a brand new 240Z. I owned it for about 10 years and as it was my only car drove it everywhere, inlcuding across the US. And in all types of weather. It was light and nimble. It was also finnicky. the electric fuel pump was always misbehaving; to the point where I kept a small hammer available to give it a good whack and persuade it to start working again. (At the time $$ to fix was not one of my options.) The twin 6 volt batteries were a bother, but easily remidied by switching to a single 12 volt. This provided a handy extra storage area; always useful. The storage pocket for the side curtains is a nice feature and much better than the none-at-all for the TR3.

But when it comes to power, there is no comparison. The 3 will beat the pants off the A. I believe it has a basically stronger engine that you can drive hard and not worry about. And when you do have to pull the engine for major work, the bonnet opening for the A provides severely limited access.

All in all, if you want a car you can really drive, I'd go the the TR.

Jim

[Guest Wayne S]

As the T-shirts say:

 

"I'd Rather Push a Triumph than Drive an MG"