| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Bob Stringfield
United Kingdom
854 Posts |
 Posted - 16/12/2011 : 16:58:35
|
A new semi-official MG model seems to have emerged, the 'TA/Q Special.
How legitimate is this terminology?
Bob. |
|
|
paul55
Luxembourg
731 Posts |
Posted - 16/12/2011 : 17:10:04
|
There's a good one Bob. Whatever, my son is building one on a 1938 TA chassis and running gear, with the obligatory supercharger! Its acknowledged and logged by the T series register as well as a TA special. Should be on the road next year.
Paul. |
 |
|
|
kimber
United Kingdom
1529 Posts |
Posted - 16/12/2011 : 17:25:38
|
Seem to remember the late Peter Gregory building the first one 20-plus years ago.
I believe the TA chassis is darned close to Q dimensions (track, wheelbase)and also has sliding trunnions as per Triple-M. I think I'm right in saying that particular car had a blown P-type engine. |
|
|
|
Bob Stringfield
United Kingdom
854 Posts |
Posted - 16/12/2011 : 22:16:17
|
That was what I was wondering. The TA is MG's closest relative to our cars, though its engine is no ball of fire in original trim.
Is the 'new' model merely using up beyond-repair TA's, or are what the VSCC calls 'body-snatchers' depleting the stock of average examples of a model worth preserving?
And will a quest for more 'authenticity' lead to the loss of P-type engines or spares?
And has the creation rate of the TA/Q increased since the TA's recent admittance in to the VSCC 'Post-Vintage Thoroughbred' category? |
|
|
|
wiggy963
United Kingdom
69 Posts |
Posted - 16/12/2011 : 22:25:38
|
| I understood, however, that the VSCC acceptance of the TA was under the condition that a standard TA engine is in place. |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
6121 Posts |
Posted - 16/12/2011 : 22:54:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by kimber
I believe the TA chassis is darned close to Q dimensions (track, wheelbase)and also has sliding trunnions as per Triple-M. I think I'm right in saying that particular car had a blown P-type engine.
Yeah, a quick check with that nice Mr. Google (I don't have my copy of Blower with me in Pristina!) suggests that wheelbase (7' 10") and track (3' 9") are identical. So....a blown P-Type engine with one of those twin cam heads that Baynton Jones did for Dean Butler (who as I recall made the design, in either four or six cylinder version, available for anyone who wanted one), an ENV pre-selector box, etc., etc. OK, a guy can dream of the Lottery win, can't he?  Hopelessly unoriginal, but could be fun nonetheless. |
|
|
|
Onno
Netherlands
1044 Posts |
Posted - 17/12/2011 : 07:09:19
|
I can tell you the TA/Q's are not only made from rotten T's.
Some nice examples have been butchered.
There are also a great number of differences with several having a fake blower cowel due to the fitment of a side mounted blower.
Making it look rather silly.
Don't get me started on the little weird things
I have nothing against specials as they are the back bone of racing.
But then just call it a T special!
And try to be original and try to do the mods in period.
Onno "D" Könemann |
|
|
|
kimber
United Kingdom
1529 Posts |
|
|
paul55
Luxembourg
731 Posts |
Posted - 17/12/2011 : 08:34:36
|
I agree with Onno to a point, our T special is being made from bits, we have not stripped a complete car to make it. But another way to look at it is that at least there will be one more pre war MG on the road and that a pile of old bits has another life. Isn't that what its all about really, Keeping the Marque alive? Some purists might not agree, but we can live with that.
Paul. |
|
|
|
Terry Andrews
United Kingdom
546 Posts |
Posted - 17/12/2011 : 12:40:29
|
I have a friend who is now building his 3 rd T /Q style special. The first two were built using TC chassis but were converted to TA trunnions. He started from a basic TC chassis which were “left overs” from other peoples rebuilds. If you are missing full set of wings, need a new body, tank, windscreen, interior, and hood frames etc these parts add up to a great deal of money. Whereas building up a rolling chassis and adding a T/Q body finding a XPAG engine from a Y type etc that is readily available makes economical sense. He made a lovely job of the cars that he was approached and he sold them to help finance other MG projects. He is now building his third and last T/Q on a TA chassis that was recovered from the desert in the USA. This would never have become a TA again in the circumstances it was obtained.
These 3 cars were not built by destroying good T types. However, there were some parts that were not required which helped others get there original parts for a TC rebuilt e.g. a bulkhead, spare wheel carriers and various brackets.
These specials are very popular in Europe and especially in France, so the MG mark is seen all over Europe. As has been said before the T register acknowledge these specials the VSCC is not the only organisation to think about. People have always made specials on MG chassis and pinions will always be divided on this. I agree I would not want to see a perfectly good model destroyed to make a special but to make one out of a collection of parts is a different issue as it gets another car on the road somewhere in the world. I would rather see a T/Q special being actively campaigned and used compared to a rebuild that does not get finished as it is waiting to find some of the difficult parts. One final thought …how many Continental Coupes are running around as L2s? Or F1’s as F2? And so on??? ….. There is room for everybody….. let’s use our cars and let them be seen everywhere. Terry A
|
|
|
|
paul55
Luxembourg
731 Posts |
Posted - 17/12/2011 : 13:49:05
|
| with you all the way Terry, Paul. |
|
|
|
JMH
United Kingdom
911 Posts |
Posted - 17/12/2011 : 15:47:55
|
Whilst there is no doubt that some of these cars look very nice & are very well put together, they can not be considered as T/Q specials! If I put a repro C Type body on a J2 it will only be a special bodied J2. If I go the whole hog with the rest of the running gear & mechanicals, maybe I could call it a C Type rep. However, the car would still be recognised by its chassis number & known as a J2. Do any of these T/Q specials contain any genuine Q bits? Do they contain any repro Q bits? The ones I have seen have had repro Q bodies & T Type running gear, none have had the presumption to call themselves Q Reps (thank goodness). They can only be T Type specials, nothing more & nothing less. I feel that the the description T/Q special is something that "the trade" has concocted up to sex up their descriptions.
To reiterate: I do not decry these cars one bit, some are very nicely done, but there's nothing Q Type about them.
JH |
|
|
|
greg
United Kingdom
833 Posts |
Posted - 17/12/2011 : 16:16:47
|
| I like these cars a lot id like to do one on a p type chassis with a p type engine. Its good how people build them off getting bare chassis by not breaking complete cars. It puts a lot more cars back onto our roads which would of never been put back to original cars. You can make a lot of money from building them especially from t type chassis and running gear. I don't know who pays the money for these cars I think £50,000 is a lot of money for how easy they are put together. You can build a nice car for £20000 and sell it for 50,000. To restore a j2 or a p type it will cost twice as much to restore and a p or j make £15,000 less. I think this shows how cheap j's and p's are for all the work and money what goes into building them. |
|
|
|
Cathelijne
Netherlands
744 Posts |
Posted - 17/12/2011 : 20:20:25
|
Fully agree with Jeremy! Do whatever you like, but if we could just stop calling them what they are not! A T-type is not a Q-type, a K1 is not a K3 nor will it ever be, no matter what it looks like, a D-type made to resemble a C-type is not a C-type and a J2 in J4 disguise is still a J2! To me their names imply they're all fakes, even though the chassis are proper J2s, D-types, K1s and what not. Plenty to have fun with or be proud of without calling it something it is not!
Cat
|
|
|
|
JMH
United Kingdom
911 Posts |
|
|
greg
United Kingdom
833 Posts |
Posted - 17/12/2011 : 21:40:11
|
At least the instruments were built by my dad
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
