Performance with Economy

Sir;

Although an avid reader of MOTOR SPORT for 15 years I have never been moved to write to you. Two items in the November issue however have broken the habit. First I would like to confirm the economy of the MG-A as mentioned in “Letters from Readers”, for in 1966 a friend and I drove to Moscow and back in my 1956 MG-A 1500 Roadster for a holiday. We covered just under 4,000 miles without incident (apart from being “booked” on Moscow’s Karl Marx Prospekt for a traffic offence—much to our surprise!). Nothing fell off or broke and for the most part we ran on fuel marked 88, sometimes 90, octane—don’t laugh we often saw 77 and once even 66 octane! and the overall fuel consumption?-33 m.p.g.

Second, I too am a fan of the Dolomite Sprint which was the subject of an article by you, also in the November issue. I could not help a wry smile however at the performance figures of this excellent car with its advanced multi-valve 2-litre engine. I own a 2-litre car with, however, an engine of rugged, basic simplicity. My car will also reach 112 m.p.h. but at 70 m.p.h. in overdrive top, instead of the Sprint’s 3,500 r.p,m. it runs at an even more “restful and reassuring” 2,750 r.p.m. Unlike the 31.8 m.p.g. of the Sprint my car regularly returns 34 m.p.g. on a long-distance run, 30 m.p.g. in general motoring and 25 m.p.g. in town driving. My engine is also “unusually docile” and doesn’t really need all its seven forward speeds. The car is of course a 4-cylinder TR—a 1965 4A which has now done over 80,000 (at least) miles and is quite standard. Triumph certainly have a performance/economy reputation to maintain and in the Dolomite Sprint they appear to have done quite well!

Christchurch, Dorset. IAN W. EVANS

P.S. My TR is trouble-free too—perhaps your staff TR 6 ought to go. . . .