I agree, the Trophy handles very well and the only reason it's suspension has been dropped is because of production costs. As a driver, I can honestly say the Trophy is a fine handling car and the equal of the TF160.
Trophy verses TF160
G
Why does Steve Childs on the other Forum consistantly say the TF160 is better than the Trophy? What does he drive now a MGF with 120bhp? The Trophy uses a lowered and hardened version of Hydragas which is regarded as very good suspension. Has he driven the two back to back?
MGR have converted the MGF suspension to springs only because of production costs and not ability. The MGF suspension when introduced was renowned for its ability and handling. When a "Sprung" suspended mid-engined car lets go, the thing will spin.
MGR have converted the MGF suspension to springs only because of production costs and not ability. The MGF suspension when introduced was renowned for its ability and handling. When a "Sprung" suspended mid-engined car lets go, the thing will spin.
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
I agree too, the other reason MGR dropped the Hydragas system is the rash of new tyre warrantee claims caused by inept dealerships setting up the Hydragas system incorrectly. By removing the Hydragas, they have effectively designed out this problem.
Having just driven a TF i can say that, although i was very impressed with the ride, it doesn't feel like an F. IE its lost some of the F's character.
Having just driven a TF i can say that, although i was very impressed with the ride, it doesn't feel like an F. IE its lost some of the F's character.
G
Welcome to the Forum SF!Scarlet Fever said:I agree too, the other reason MGR dropped the Hydragas system is the rash of new tyre warrantee claims caused by inept dealerships setting up the Hydragas system incorrectly. By removing the Hydragas, they have effectively designed out this problem.
Yep, my local dealer said exactly that - when Hrydragas is set up correctly it is much better than a coil over system! Didn't know about the tyre claims though. Interesting, when talking to the dealer they said there' hardly any "F"s left - as they have been selling very well! Alistair from the dealership - mentioned that he thought the differance between the 2 cars suspension is neglible and he's a "bit of a wheel man".
If my memory serves me correctly, the europa was easy to spin - mid engined and conventionally sprung.
Why do I keep thinking of the past?
Why do I keep thinking of the past?
Yep, Basically, new Fs are (were) delivered to the dealerships with the Hydragas pumped right up (to enable loading and off loading on the transporter). It is then the dealerships' responsibility, as part of the PDI, to set the ride height and the tracking. A large number of dealerships were doing a shoddy job of this, probably due to time pressures - the F had a 6 month waiting list at one point and was the first production car in history to be officially listed in Glass' guide as worth more second hand, than new! In 1996, the average second hand price was 115% list price. But i digress.
The fact is that a vast number of early Fs left the dealership with either incorrect ride height, tracking settings or both and this led to a lot of warrantee claims for new tyres, the inner rims wearing out in around 11,000 miles.
Rob Bell has a good piece on F suspension geometry on his web site:
>> http://www.mgf.4mg.com/ <<
From memory he has some good animated GIFs showing the different effects of camber, castor and tracking.
The fact is that a vast number of early Fs left the dealership with either incorrect ride height, tracking settings or both and this led to a lot of warrantee claims for new tyres, the inner rims wearing out in around 11,000 miles.
Rob Bell has a good piece on F suspension geometry on his web site:
>> http://www.mgf.4mg.com/ <<
From memory he has some good animated GIFs showing the different effects of camber, castor and tracking.
G
For the first 3k miles I thought the handling of the Trophy a little 'light' on rough roads, but after Viv took the car to North Weald recently and thrashed the newness of the tyres and suspension/body the handling has improved significantly, the car is much more stable on the rough little back roads I have to drive on, as for ride comfort I think it is a good compromise for road use. (The old rubber suspension mini was harder)
Mike
Mike
Being in the fortunate position of having extensively driven several examples of each, and then add the Sport Pack 1 suspension kit which then matches the Trophy 160 in ride height and aerodynamic performance (CD and CDa) I can perhaps add my thoughts.
Overall the Trophy doesn't have the overall balance of attributes that the TF 160 + SP1 has. Handling is simmerly very good on both but the Trophy is almost crude in ride quality standards. Cars I use for the comparison had all covered similar, low, mileages.
There is a wider difference in ride quality between the standard correctly sdet up MGF and the Trophy than there is between the common TF suspension and cars with Sport Pack 1 which can be ordered on all TFs except the 115, for just an additional 150ukp.
Rog
Overall the Trophy doesn't have the overall balance of attributes that the TF 160 + SP1 has. Handling is simmerly very good on both but the Trophy is almost crude in ride quality standards. Cars I use for the comparison had all covered similar, low, mileages.
There is a wider difference in ride quality between the standard correctly sdet up MGF and the Trophy than there is between the common TF suspension and cars with Sport Pack 1 which can be ordered on all TFs except the 115, for just an additional 150ukp.
Rog
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
MG & Rover - XPower Forums
A forum community dedicated to MG owners and motorsport enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
